Everquesters Suing Sony Over Virtual Ownership 284
Thomas Charron writes: " A group of Everquest players that have had their accounts yanked, etc., is filing a class action law suit against Sony Interactive. They belive they have the right to sell 'virtual items' in real life, including the buying, selling, and trading of actual online accounts. They have set up a home page at Gravityspot.
Kinda fringe, but as an EverQuest player myself, I humbly submit that they do have the rights they claim. You be the judge.."
Re:I agree (Score:1)
When I say there needs to be a limit, what I mean is, maybe Sony foresaw the situation above. They don't want powerful characters camping and ruining the game for the rest of the people, so they put the clause into the ToS on purpose. How can you claim any rights then over the virtual items? If sony knew they couldn't prevent this from happening then they never would have made everquest in the first place (lets just say). So, I guess the important distinction is whether they prevent the sale as an 'after the fact' squashing technique or if they foresaw this problem and were trying to preemptively handle it. At least to me.
Dumb Players (Score:1)
Re:Virtual items (Score:1)
Well, I have to say, Ebay has ruined alot of games (Score:1)
Re:Open Question (Score:1)
Whatever happened to the good old days? (Score:2)
Afterwards, you'd say "This is cool, sweety [*], but could you take me hunting to get some experience." And, of course, he'd say yes, and to impress you, would try to take on the hardest mobs in the game. Then, when he gets really worn down, and says "Heal me, now!", you beat him to death with the sword he just gave you.
* the hardest part is supressing the gag-reflex at this point; actually, there's a virtual gag-reflex in there that you should simulate (if you have some artistic integrity), but you don't have to behave like a real woman to fool anyone who's got the time to put in to having a level 50 character on a mud.
Hmm, now that I see the direction this took, I think I'll click that post anonymously button.
I agree with Sony's actions in this case... (Score:3)
It's a liability issue. (Score:3)
The problem is more complex than you think (Score:4)
Re:What are they selling? (Score:2)
1) What if someone paid for a +50 sword of carousing on ebay, but when they got the item in the game, it was only a +1 sword of mastubating? They complain to sony, who doesn't want to get involved in that crap.
2) Sony is not getting a % of the sell profit.
Yes! (Score:2)
Thank you for boiling it down to this issue, but I have to disagree with you about EULAs. Many of "us Slashdotters" hate EULAs because of the way Microsoft (and IBM before them) has used them to choke computing freedom. The point that is missed there is that the GPL is a EULA, as is every Open Source license. GPL, APL, LGPL... the "L" is for License, folks.
I think Americans, in particular, have lost sight of the benefits of living in a society that respects its own laws. Over the last decade or so, members of the Reagan administration were found to be subverting their own government, President Clinton was impeached and President Bush was elected in what can most politely described as a "seriously flawed" election. Yet, all we suffered was a lot of 24-hour-news coverage and Jay Leno monologues.
I'm old enough to remember the Watergate scandal. There was a palpable sense of fear that Nixon, having gone as far as he did, would invoke his executive powers and US Army tanks would roll into Washington to enforce his presidental power. It didn't happen, and now people can't even seem to imagine it happening. I'm not complaining; I think it's great! Look at any country where the military is called up to prop up a failing regime and ask yourself if you'd want to live there.
Now find countries where EULAs are not taken seriously. Look at their software industry. What software industry? Exactly. How can you be in business when there is no expectation that you will be paid for you work?
Trust me, if Sony is robbed of its ability to impose a Terms of Service (and it ain't gonna happen anyway), they will cease to provide the service at all.
Re:Yes! (Score:2)
The reality is that all licenses give you more rights than would normally be granted under copyright law. Even the word "license" itself means "a granted privilege to perform actions beyond the default privileges."
The confusion arises because commercial licenses tend to be so restrictive that they don't even look like licenses to people used to GPL. It is desirable to foment change in the industry to open up these licenses, but removing the ability to offer commecial licenses, also screws up the protection of Open Souce Licenses, and then things would get really, really ugy. Truse me.
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
I have friends working for largish ISPs, and they regularly get complaints about that, even threats about lawsuits (but no lawsuits yet, AFAIK).
as an eq player.... (Score:2)
I would love a valid option to sell and feel at least a small part vindicated for my time.
Verant, instead of trying to skirt the issue, which has been causing fraud and scams, which is the reason they dont want them in the first place... should set up a system for character transfer internally. It would lessen customer service problems, and make a lot of people happy. As far as individual items.... some items have a real life day or more behind them... thats why they are worth money.
What is the REAL issue here? (Score:2)
Does a football player own the ball he just received? Whether or not we are paying to play or being payed to play is irrelevant. Do you own the bowling ball that you use to bowl with down at the public lanes, even though you are paying to bowl? The obvious answer is no.
I can see that Verant/Sony have a legitimate beef here. I know that people become very attached to their characters, but does the EULA say anything about who owns those characters (I don't know for sure)? I'd be willing to bet that Sony/Verant have retained ownership of the characters, for the simple reason of liablity (someone posted earlier about how Sony would be responsible fiscally if a character owned by a player were to be wiped out in a server crash).
Skill? Do you play the same version of EQ? (Score:2)
Spare me.
Re:This is an easy one. (Score:4)
Kind of like real life, eh?
--
Good point... some more thoughts. (Score:2)
The real issue, though, is that there are not, and never have been, definitive laws saying what is allowed to have 'value' and what doesn't. Some people pay to get the shit beat out of them because it turns them on... to others, that would be almost criminal.
When you sell something in an online game to someone else, you are not selling 'property' in any strict sense of the word, and we should quit pretending it is. You are simply agereing to transfer control of something, be it an item in a game, or a character, or account, or whatever, to them.
In other words, it's all about selling control of data.
I personally think, with online games ilke, this, (the ones where you have to pay by the month, as well as for the game in the first place), they should *have* to guarantee fairness and consistency in their game, because yuo are PAYING them for it. It would be different if online play was free, like diablo... if diablo loses a character, i'll have trouble suing them over it.
Actually, you are very wrong. (Score:2)
In your case, your heart-beating scenario wuold probably be illegal, as would a clause stating 'you must give us your firstborn child' or 'if you play for more than a year you must give us your house'. Neither is enforceable in any way whatsoever.
Now.. if lawyers, notaries, and witnesses were invovled, and it could be irrefutable that everyone understood all the terms of the contract in great detail before signging, and it wasn't signed under duress... that might be different. But that isn't the case here.
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Contracts like that don't fly in any other industry and they wouldn't fly here. If a business wants to kick out one customer and let another stay they need a fairly good reason or they open themselves up to lawsuit.
For example, I'm a young white male, and I carry a duffel bag with me everywhere. I went into a Wal Mart type store and was told I'd have to leave my bag in their little cubby holes *at my own risk* while I shopped. I said "Hell no" and pointed at a woman in her thirties who had just walked in with a large open purse. I told them that statistically she was more likely to shoplift, and that if they refused to let me in with a bag while letting her in, they'd hear about it. They called a manager and he agreed, he said that technically the greeter should be saying "We *ask*
Further, if Sony didn't discuss this contract *before* people bought the game, then it's not binding. Shrink-wrap licenses aren't binding because you didn't find out about them till after you buy the game. Here, even if this license is 'negotiated' at the time you sign up, it's not binding because it functions to limit your use of an already purchased product. It'd be like Adobe saying "we admit shrink-wrap licenses aren't binding. So, you own a non-functional program. To make it work, come to our website, sign a contract, and download the required file to make it work." Because Everquest is nothing without the online service, limitations on that service are limitation on the product you originally purchased. And they can't do that unless the box says that the are certain rules which govern the use of the service.
On the subject of copyrights... Derivative work only applies if you modify an existing copyrighted work, or use too-large chunks of it. This varies. Using 'Captain Kirk' might be considered too large, in a space story, etc. But if you write something ABOUT Star Trek, you're fine.
Using a copyrighted tool is no different that using a patented tool. The creator of the tool has no power over what you do with the tool once you buy it.
Anyways, on the subject of the save-game. The file is made at your request, and represents your development of the character. Much like a graphic in photoshop; you don't color the pixel on the monitor, you direct the program to do it. The save-game could contain copyrighted data (like in PC games sometimes they save the whole level, with your character in it.) and you wouldn't own that, but by saving a game, they're giving you implicit permission to use any data they put in that file (for the purposes of save-game restoration).
Re:Game Integrity (Score:2)
That'd be breach of contract and would allow him to sue for his enterance fee, damages (lost business), court costs, etc.
Similarly, Sony says (In a "contract" similar to an EULA (ie, not binding)) that they reserve the right to kick anyone out if they refund the enterance fee. But they can't... They can't kick out one person for an offense and let another who did the same thing stay.
Sure, Sony may get complaints from people who don't like the idea of someone buying a powerful character (I'd complain) but they don't have the right to forbid this. (As a similar example, the CueCat company would have liked to forbid a certain use of a product they made but they didn't have the right to because they didn't own them anymore.)
If Sony wants to change this they need to figure out a way where this can't work.
In Quake, it'd be simple, if you did get to buy accounts and come into games fully stocked, the test would be to pit you against a similarly armed bot of a certain skill. If you bought that rank you'd be killed and lose your stuff.
Maybe EQ can do something skill-based, such that a good player will do much better than a new player even with a similar character. And then powerful characters can encounter these challenges. And maybe they could tax players a percentage of their income, so powerful characters would have to work to keep their status, you couldn't just sit around with this god-like character and never risk anything.
That way someone could buy a character, but if they weren't any good, it wouldn't help them.
But, if EQ isn't skill based and it's all about logging into the right account, then people will sell that password, and more power to them.
Re:Ethics vs. Law (Score:2)
They're also an attempt at extortion. You can't use a product you bought unless you "agree" to our illegal contract...
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
It's painfully obvious to anyone with ANY legal experience that EULAs are NOT valid contracts.
And further, a real contract that contained a clause like that wouldn't make it in the courts. Judges have squashed contracts with unconscionable terms for a long time now.
Sony can claim anything they want in the EULA but it's not binding. Meaning that people can click the "Agree" box and not be obligated to do anything.
EULA's are based on post-sale disclosure of terms (which means they sell you something and then tell you what you can do with it) and extortion, where they limit your use of a product until you "agree" to what they want. It's much the same as a protection racket where a thug tells you that you need to pay him a $50 insurance fee, or your car might get badly damaged...
The reason software companies are pushing the UCITA is that EULAs aren't binding and they know it. But if you live somewhere the UCITA isn't in force, the EULA is just a joke.
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
If you buy something from me, I can't tell you (after the sale) that there are restrictions on how you use it. And I can't then withhold the item you bought until you say you agree to my terms.
The first is post-sale disclose which is just invalid. And the second is outright illegal.
This just hasn't been pushed in court by someone with enough cash to hurt Microsoft or any other big company.
If you've been following EULAs, I pity you.
Re:Yes! (Score:2)
If I go to buy something and the clerk tells me that they don't sell, only rent, then I'm fine with that. I might choose to rent the item.
But if I buy something and then when I look in the box is a note saying that I'm only renting, I'll be damned if I'll accept that.
Thanksfully this shit is illegal and I know it. But many people just accept it, thinking that a big company wouldn't print something they knew to be wrong.
So, if I can see the license, I may agree to it, before I purchase the product. Or, if I want to do something later, I may contact the company/writer and ask. Then we can negotiate. That's fine.
The GPL and BSDL, etc, are all licenses that you see before you try to do something, and that grant more rights than you'd get if you ignored the license.
EULAs (as a class) restrict rights, they even try to restrict rights that it's illegal to take away. (No freedom to publish reviews, etc.) It's all about disclosure.
I signed an NDA when I went to work for my current company, that's fine. But if they tried to tell me I'd implicitly signed an NDA just be showing up for an interview, I'd have told them to take a hike.
Re:On Sony's side - read why. (Score:2)
It may be a neat concept, but if they can't come up with some plot device to prevent people from camping weak monsters, they're idiots.
And if they can't come up with the idea of RANDOM spawn locations, they're likewise idiots.
If there was an adequate supply of magical items and monsters, they wouldn't have these problems. People might still sell 50th level characters, but they wouldn't inhibit the ability of other players in doing so.
There are many things they could do... Have monsters spawn in locations where nobody is watching, have more powerful monsters drawn to more powerful characters, and so on. There shouldn't be any one thing you can do to get powerful, or any one place to sit where the good items are spawned.
Sony's just pissed that people are making money off of their game.
I'm sure they let it get to the point of pissing people off (through lack of items, etc) to appear to be the good guys when they got all heavy-handed and shut it down.
Re:As someone said early on... (Score:2)
When I buy a CD in the store, there isn't a license contract. The only thing I'm bound to is federal copyright law.
There's a license in the box, but they didn't show it to me before I bought the game so I'm not bound to follow it.
And when you "agree" to the license to play the game, that's not binding either. You can buy the game which entitles you to use it, and the only way to use it is their server, so they can't place any restrictions on that use without making it clear on the OUTSIDE of the box.
Nobody can say they didn't see the EULA, but being as how it's not binding, they can say they laughed and clicked through.
(How far would you get in the real world if you changed contract terms and didn't tell the other party?) Jail is my guess.
Re:Yes! (Score:3)
And sure, if you wish to be pedantic, EULAs can't take away RIGHTS, they can only restrict your ability to practice those rights. But that doesn't mean much, if the EULA forbids you to do something, what does it matter the specific method with which it does this? They're still trying to prevent you from things that you want to do.
The first amendment is unlikely to counter a contract to limit speech (an NDA) in any except the most extreme cases (whistle-blowing, etc). If shrink-wrap EULAs are ever found to have any validity, they'll definately hold up in preventing hostile reviews, etc. (The NDAs that review sites sign now to limit pre-release disclosure have held up in many court cases.)
Your reading of the GPL misses the fact that if the source code was published without a license, copyright law would prevent you from using it in any way. (You could critique it, or use samples in a parody, but you couldn't base a program on it...) You certainly wouldn't be able to create derivative works.
But if you agree to the terms in the GPL, you are granted the right to use the source code. Something you wouldn't be able to do at all without the GPL granting that right.
It's not like the GPL code is released in the public domain, then restricted. It's released with full copyright rights reserved and then it explicitly grants an exception in certain conditions.
And you're missing some things in the GPL...
"...requires that the user abide by the license, even if directed to do otherwise by a court of law;"
That means (and it says so in the license) that if you can't comply with the license and the court, then you can't use that as an excuse to not comply with the license, you have refrain from any use/publishing which the GPL would have granted.
This means you can't sign a contract to sell exclusive rights to the code, then use GPLed code, and use the fact that the other party sues you as a reason to close the source. You'd have to comply to the court's order to provide closed-source code by writing your own code in place of the GPLed code you used.
Re:Open Question (Score:3)
Re:On Sony's side - read why. (Score:2)
A better memory serving me correctly, I could cite some names, but the gist is that the money of the individual did not need to play a big part of the Ring Trilogy, whereas the money of the state did. In the case of Everquest, it seems to be a reversed role, where there is no state to speak of!
Ethics vs. Law (Score:4)
I'm not exactly siding with Sony here - although my opinion leans toward them because these people are putting good economic resources into virtual values like games and that strikes me as inefficient and unethical and part of a bubble world - ha! - on the other hand it's just free commerce of something of value.
The point that makes the biggest difference is whether or not these people agree to, by paying for Sony's service, abide by a certain set of rules. I have to abide by an AUP: Acceptable Use Policy, by my ISP - it says I cannot portscan (and they even accused me of committing a crime when I *did* portscan), but my arguments, even with citation of the harmlessness of portscanning made precedent in the Georgia case, the point of interest is not whether it is legal, ethical, or moot to let me portscan - I am violating an implicit agreement between myself and the person I am receiving that service from.
So I think it is within the right of the users of Sony's Everquest service to demand changes in Sony's policy, but I do believe that it is outside their rights to break their implicit agreement with Sony and solicit items from the Everquest games. The ethical consequences of this may be deep and far reaching - but that's beyond this conversation!
One might cry "fundamental rights", or say that it's none of Sony's business. I think there's merit to this, and problems with implicit agreements, but I think Sony's in the right, and the users might have valid arguments in what they want but Sony has not done anything offensive to them (that I know of!) or essentially wrong within the constraints of the situation.
Re:The lawsuit's not about selling ITEMS... (Score:2)
It doesn't work. It isn't even remotely plausible.
That doesn't remove my right to enter into any contract I please. If I enter into a contract and can't provide the consideration I offer (e.g. a character in Everquest or a good position in a game of chess) then I am in default. My problem. No obligation is thus created on the part of the people running Everquest or the chess tournament.
EULA test case (Score:2)
The only thing that is stopping the EQ players from selling 'virtual' goods for real money is the EULA. The EULA state this quite clearly that that is not allowed.
Thus, the first step for the suit has to be for he EULa to be declared invalid. Whilst it may be feaable for only that clause to be struck down, I don't find that clause any more rediculus than most EULA clauses.
If this goes to court, this will be the EULA test case that many have been waiting for. The only way (that I can see) for the gamers to win is to have the EULA declared invalid.
Now, considering the vast number of reasons for getting EULA's struck down, I'm on the side of the gamers.
Not because I think that what they do is right (personally, they're a bunch of whining kids), nor proper (it spoils the game, and removes immersion in the environment), but because this, if it goes to court, could be the downfall of EULAs.
--
Re:On Sony's side - read why. (Score:2)
Here goes my karma, but since you've never played the game, you wouldn't know that everything you suggested here is impossible to do in EverQuest. Can't PK people unless you're on one of the 3 servers that allow it, can't change servers (due to people selling characters on eBay) and you can't set up your own server because the people who write the emulated servers haven't gotten good enough to actually put any NPC's in there. This isn't Neverwinter Nights or Diablo II - Sony runs all 35 servers currently operational.
Sony does refuse to take part of it, but people have put pressure upon Sony to do something about the situation. So now they have.
On Sony's side - read why. (Score:3)
What happens is that people who are level 35-40 in the game are camping areas that are for level 15-20 players in order to get the PH4T L3WT to sell on eBay. So, I can't play the game because someone else has quit his job to sit in an area where I'd like to be and is "stealing my kills" because he can make a buck.
This happened to me once, he got the item, and he said "I'll sell it to ya for $50."
And you can probably say "well why don't you move to another area?" I would, but there's an ebayer at every nice area of the game.
What has happened is that it's not the fact that they're selling it, but the "eBay Farmers" have taken up all of the locations of these items so THE ONLY WAY TO GET THEM IS TO BUY THEM ON EBAY.
You cannot quest for these items, you cannot kill the creature that has the item anymore, you MUST buy it from an eBay person. Is that really fair?
Also what happens, is that people will get scammed. They'll send the money to the person on eBay, and then the person will give them an item that looks the same as the one they bought, but really wasn't. Then, they either petition the in-game customer service Guides or call Sony to say "this person scammed me, get me the item I rightfully paid for on eBay!" There are many times that the in-game CS would be so tied up with people being scammed from eBay that they weren't helping the people that truly needed it.
So, the Slashdot crowd may say "It's their right to sell it! Down with The Man!" but it really makes it impossible to PLAY EverQuest, since you must BUY the items over eBay that you should have gotten playing since the people selling on eBay won't let you play the game it was intended to so they can make a quick buck.
I'm open to critisisms on what I said, so if there's something I'm missing here, please reply. I'm sure the flames will come soon.
What are they selling? (Score:2)
The closest I can come to figuring out what is actually taking place in a transaction over a virtual item is this: All well and good unless EverQuest doesn't want you to do it. The bits in question do reside on EverQuest's servers, after all.
I have no clue why EverQuest cares if people sell virtual stuff (well, OK, maybe it's because it makes their gamers look pathetic to be spending real money on imaginary things
Why should it be allowed? (Score:2)
Likewise, characters cannot be owned. A character ought to have a personality and stuff, and while it's possible to give away a character to another player, it takes a lot of work to get the player used to how the character thinks and stuff. Now, I know that EQ characters are rarely RPed, but in principle, that's the major issue. Again, if I were a GM making rules for my players, I would require character transfers to maintain character.
So, if you look at it all from that perspective, Sony's position makes sense - you don't own your character's stuff, and your character itself is almost impossible to transfer without lossage.
The lawsuit's not about selling ITEMS... (Score:2)
The lawsuit doesn't concern the sale of items, which is against the EULA and therefore totally within Sony/Verant's right to ristrict. Instead, the lawsuit is about players selling their own time. Many eBay auctions for EverQuest items include a disclaimer like "the items named in this auction are the property of Verant and are not for sale. Rather, you are bidding on the time I spent in acquiring the item.". The Sony/Verant-directed removal of these particualr auctions basically means that Sony/Verant is preventing players from hiring other players to acquire items for them on a contractual basis. Since agreement to the EULA does not entail the agreement that Sony/Verant owns your time (which wouldn't go down too well, methinks), the removal of these time auctions might be illegal. It definitely needs the consideration of our judicial system.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:The lawsuit's not about selling ITEMS... (Score:2)
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:The lawsuit's not about selling ITEMS... (Score:2)
Quite true. But there currently is no such rule. The EULA states:
Thus, EQ users have not agreed to not sell their time, and can expect to win their suit on that argument. Until the EULA is amended to prohibit the selling of time spent playing the game, stopping the auctioning of such time does legally infringe upon the sellers.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:The lawsuit's not about selling ITEMS... (Score:2)
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
I'm Surprised no one has mentioned.... (Score:2)
The biggest reason in my mind not to allow people to sell their items on Ebay is this: It would be fully possible to start a company, employing people to 'camp' at sites where the rare items are.
Real players would be locked out from ever having a chance of getting an item normally. Even if there was no organized Corp, as soon as people started finding out you could make money doing this, the game would be ruined.
You don't own squat about your character. That's why I stopped playing months ago. Too much time invested in a lot of nothing.
Later,
ErikZ
Re:Problem being: (Score:2)
I agree, and I really don't want this to be the EULA test case. With a traditional EULA, you buy a piece of software, install it, and are then told that the software manufacturer, with whom you have never dealt directly, has decided that you don't own anything other than the physical media and you can't use the software in any way that they don't like. Unilaterally imposing additional terms after a sale is completed is such a preposterous concept that I can't believe they haven't been laughed out of court yet.
On the other hand, with EverQuest Sony is providing an ongoing service rather than a one-time sale. Unless there is a contract that says otherwise, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to terminate that service for any reason at all. The closest analogy I can think of is an ISP with a no-commercial-use clause kicking you out if they find you selling stuff off the website you host with them. If this does go to court, Sony would have a good chance of winning and as you said, that would be an unfortunate precedent for EULAs even though this is a special case.
Re:Open Question (Score:3)
No, it isn't. It is about Verant trying to save themselves the frustration of losers who buy EQ items or accounts on eBay and then bitch and moan to Verant when the purchased wasn't as described. Further, it is about Verant's responsibilty to ALL players to maintain balance and fair gameplay, which is much harder to accomplish if they allow the lazy and self-indulgent to buy the power and status for which others have worked very hard.
Is Slashdot more or enjoyable or less because of the juvenile actions of a few who think that trolling is fun? Imagine the how the tone of an RPG would deteriorate if Verant allowed players to have names like Lars WangSniffer and Gonad JizzSpew? I know, people should have the liberty to be cretins, but the non-cretins should equally have the right to pay for havens from them. It is in the Terms Of Service; if people really don't like it, fuck 'em. They can go play games where the TOS doesn't have such restrictions, and the adults (and I am not speaking with a chronological bias here) can enjoy the company of their peers.
And for those who will reply that I am elitist, or have a stick up my ass, fuck YOU.
:-)
Re:This is an easy one. (Score:3)
You say this as a joke, but it seems to me a very clear element of a fantasy game's draw is that it's not directly tied to your real life. But never even mind any discussion of escapism. A common trait of many games is that they test the players' skills in a limited and well-defined context (which may include or exclude strength, motor skills, persuasiveness, tactical thinking, or even luck). A game is "fair" if this context is the only context which is really relevant to game performance. Therefore, it's 'fair' for me to use force in wrestling, but not in chess (as in chess, physical prowess is beyond the scope of the game).
I consider selling and buying characters and game-items "cheating" (in that United States Brand Dollars are unambiguously outside of the scope of an FRPG) and I consider it completely reasonable for Sony to eject players who are cheating.
Balance of Play (Score:2)
I think that the most important issue here is balance of play. I support Sony, Verant, et al in opposing the sale of in-game items and characters for the simple reason that it offers an unfair advantage to specific players that is not an inherent part of the game. I play EQ because I enjoy playing the game (read 'cause I am addicted') NOT because I can make a buck doing so. My character is not that high level so far (10th level shaman), but I have already seen characters appearing in my area that come decked out with equipment that is far beyond my price range - which I have to assume they have either purchased elsewhere or given from one of their players to another of their players as handmedowns - giving them a tremendous advantage over me.
I am distressed to hear from other /.ers that when I reach the 15-25 level range I might find all the good areas camped by higher level characters so they can make a buck on Ebay. I sincerely hope this is NOT the case. I am not a supporter of EULAs generally - I think that placing conditions on software or services AFTER I have purchased them ought to be declared illegal - so I am now in a real conundrum: I hope Sony and Verant win this case because I am opposed to online sale of items and characters that I feel has the potential to ruin a game I really enjoy, but I also dont want to see the concept of the EULA given any legal approval.
In the end I think the quality of the game experience is the most important thing to me - its why I play - if it gets turned into another place for pathetic, useless, and utterly dispicable individuals to try to exploit and make another buck from equally useless wretches who are unable to do something for themselves and instead feel they have to purchase any advantage they can get rather than gaining skills for themselves then I will have to vote with my feet (and great regret) and go find another game that is more reasonably contructed (or give up a hobby because the bastards have won out over the true players).
Sony Should Run the Game (Score:2)
Personally, I think that Sony might want to put a server that supports this, and maybe allow people to buy and sell through their auction site, but this isn't about stealing from the people who want to buy and sell. It's about keeping the game fun for those who don't.
I'm not paying $10/month to play a game filled with people trying to gain artifacts to sell to people in the real world, or with people who are willing to sink a fortune into starting off as a level 50 character. I'm paying $10/month to play a game according to the rules that were presented to me when I signed up.
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
If the EQ players win the lawsuit, it means that Sony will have to remove that line from the EULA, because it will be considered illegal to restrict the sale of user accounts.
Frankly, I don't understand why Sony cares. What difference does it make who plays a particular character? The new player will still have to pay the monthly fee and he'll still have to own the game.
--
Re:I dunno... (Score:2)
I've seen auctions where people pay out the nose for works of art I'd never place in my home. Baseball cards, comic books, any kind of collectibles. Junk to one, treasure to another.
Regardless of the outcome of this, I'm fairly certain that the selling of characters, objects, or money cannot be suppressed outside the game anymore than you or I can be thwarted from freely swapping mp3's with each other. Sony may have the influence and bank necessary to convince Ebay and other auction places to remove the listings, but the trading cannot be stopped.
Re:Virtual items (Score:3)
Getting around that annoying problem requires that users be qualified to have the character they buy, like having a drivers license. That would just plain suck and take the fun out of the game.
I don't think you should be able to sell anything you acquire in the game. The user didn't create anything - none of the graphics, none of the sounds, none of the quests, etc. Verant/989 made it all and can do with it as they please.
For those who disagree then it would be proper to say that we own all the content on Slashdot. We are the ones posting the comments and submitting the stories. You should call your lawyer and get a percentage of the advertising revenue from this site.
The Integrity of a Roleplaying Game (Score:3)
If one person builds up a personality, and another just 'takes over', they will very likely be unable to play the character in the same manner. They know nothing of the characters history, their associations. They will compromise the integrity of the character, and therefore contribute to the compromise of the game.
Viewed in perhaps another way, if you played D&D with a group of friends, who accepted your character as 'real' for the purposes of their gameplay, would you expect them to welcome another person playing that same character, who had no real idea about them, because they paid you for the privelege? Undoubtedly not.
Having not played Everquest, I can't say whether this is a valid concern for them in particular, but having recognized the issue, and heard debate in general about whether people have a right to all their virtual property, I have considered the question. I don't believe they necessarily have the right, if it is made clear up front that it is not acceptable.
The scarcity of items/characters in such a game is inevitable given larger demand than supply (almost a given, if people have something to try to do in a game), and a closed system. Diablo II is an excellent example. Too many players, not enough of certain items, closed system. But unlike an RPG, diablo 2 does not suffer a loss from the sale of items.
I wonder how the players and sellers would feel if sony/verant simply said: "ok, they are your property, feel free to sell. And, by the way, we're now offering characters and items, for an additional charge, for you to use in the game." And they could simply sell for less than whatever anyone could fetch on ebay, with a swift descent to a value of 0.
Re:On Sony's side - read why. (Score:2)
At some level, it seems these sword-and-sorcery worlds are naively imagined because they don't adequately include wealth and markets. In fact, looking back at the Ring Trilogy, I can't remember money ever playing a major role. Did anyone in the Ring Trilogy ever not have enough money?
Actually, this is Verant's fault (Score:2)
If the loot was dropped completely randomly ¥meaning that you can get the kickass 100$ sword from any monster with a 0©01% chance, and not just from a hardcoded single one the problem with the campers would completely disappear!
--------------------------------------
the reason behind the EULA (Score:4)
But after that -- I'm going to assume that things you could purchase from other players in the game will give you an advantadge over other players -- Sony needs to prevent players getting unfair advantadges (yes, buying items is an unfair advantadge) because it will harm gameplay if players can advance unfairly -- if something hurts gameplay it hurts their subscription base, and that hurts the bottom line. Its the same deal as blizzard and id's war against cheaters: If the game isn't fun, no one will play it.
On the other hand though -- people are willing to pay 10$ a month to play the game -- thats how Sony makes their $$ ... so its not really absurd to think that people would be willing to pay for items in the game -- I suspect sony is a bit "jealous" in the sense they don't want people profiting off their game.
As someone said early on... (Score:2)
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Why, why, why, why, why are there so many high-rated comments containing this falsity? I think someone's been reading too many EULAs again.
Yes, you DO own a copy of those games. Not just the discs they are written on. No, you cannot copy them. This is because copyright law says you can't, as you do not have the right to make a copy. Not being able to distribute a savegame file is an issue of the file being a derivative work, no that you don't own the file. However, I AM perfectly within my rights to sell a memory card or VMU to someone. After all, the data on the card is useless without the associated game. Otherwise, you start getting into the relm of intended use and the DMCA.
The other question is: are those VMU files REALLY a derivative work? After all, they are arrangements of binary data created using a game, which are meaningless without an interpreter... Is every piece of fiction I create with WordPerfect a derivative work of WordPerfect?
-RickHunter
Re:And what of the GPL? (Score:2)
Think about what I said. The GPL is not an End-User License Agreement. EULAs are outside the scope of what copyright law allows a copyright holder to do - they rely on the fiction that you didn't really purchase a copy of the software. Their nature makes them illegal - not anything contained within them. There have been several court cases that have ruled that EULAs do not apply, so I assume the American legal system agrees with me on this.
The GPL, on the other hand, grants you rights you did not already have. It attatches a couple of limitations on those rights, but still doesn't restrict you more than you were before. You're still free to use a piece of GPLed software you've bought if you don't agree with the GPL, you just don't get any of those extra rights.
-RickHunter
Re:Ethics vs. Law (Score:3)
EULAs are illegal. Period. Its post-sale disclosure of terms. Its a rights-limiting contract that attempts to apply itself without a legal signature.Many of the terms are against various laws. Why do you think the software industry was/is pushing the UCITA so hard? They don't have a legal leg to stand on right now.
-RickHunter
EULA's and more corperate BS (Score:2)
Problem being: (Score:2)
The issue of selling such items on auction sites (or otherwise) is valid, however. What constitutes property?
Beyond that, though, Verant has every right to close accounts for people selling in-game items. It's in the EULA. They said they would do it, players agreed by playing the game that it was an acceptable rule, and thus, these people have no reason to be pissed that their accounts get closed.
Re:This seems like a tough one. (Score:3)
If you compare this with a game like Tribe which the only real skill advancement there is is your ability as a player to better control your character in whatever situations you come across. I for one would be very happy to play a MMORPG that doesn't have ant skill advancement technique.
I think there would be a lot more roleplaying going on if every "naked" character would be technically equal because there would be much more incentive to cooperate with others to gain an advantage.
Thoughts For And Against (Score:2)
For
The first and best arguement for selling items is an analogy. Take people selling magic cards, for example. These are people spending money, time and energy hunting for valuable game components and selling just those parts to other players.
WOTC goes along with/encourages this because it encourages people to buy more cards. Cards get priced by how easily you can come by them.
How does this compare? Well, these are people selling virtual game components to each other. Sony charges all players equally regardless of whether they get access to particular components.
Against It's a question of fairness. EQ is intended to be a game, but by its nature it's also a community. Sony is being beaten on by players who don't feel that it's fair for mercenaries to build and sell characters because the new players of those characters haven't earned their place in the community and most people don't feel you should be able to buy your way into it.
I think a fair compromise would be to allow the sale of anything but the characters. Kind of like reality. You can sell anything, except your kids or yourself (or even parts of yourself).
I agree with one of the other posters that Sony should set themselves up as an impartial broker of these sales, taking a small cut, rather than trying to ban them. Maybe they can make the game cheaper by facilitating these transactions.
--
Lawsuits this... Lawsuits that... (Score:2)
Re:EULA test case (Score:2)
The enforceability of EULAs has been in question for years. The courts have decided both ways. The main case supporting the enforceability of EULAs is , which is a wierd case. [cll.com]
Verant/Sony no imagination (Score:2)
Burris
Re:This is an easy one. (Score:2)
It's a playability issue (Score:2)
The problem that I see is with Verant's game model (or most online persistant gaming system's for that matter). They give out a fixed item for every "X" monster spawns (X = a preset random time frame). So monster "BigGuy" always gives item "NeatWeapon" every 4-8 times it re-spawns. So players who want this "NeatWeapon" will sit in front of the spawn area and kill "BigGuy" until they get the item. Get a group of players playing the same high level character 24x7, and they have a virtual business.
The problem is that average players like me can't get the good spawns, because those organized groups are camping the best spots 24x7 (for profit). *THAT* is what Sony is trying to avoid; it's a playability issue, not the fact that these players are making a few (or a lot of) bucks on the side.
The best solution, in my eyes, is to change the gaming model, not going to court. Change the rules (and yes, this affects the gaming model and the story line) so that unique "cool stuff" is spawned randomly according to the difficulty of a particular monster. This would make camping one spot less fruitful, and would require more playing to get the good stuff, and less fixed-spot camping. In the current model, fixed-spot camping is FAR too profitable.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3)
You are buying the most valuable thing you can "buy" in life.
Time..
And hey it may not be worth it to you but something has value as long as someone else is willing to pay for it.. the fact that people buy these accounts says they have value.
THis is all a bit much saying people are blowing money... *shrugs*
It may be worth it to someone to not play for 800000 hours to make a character (time is not an actual time it would take I have no idea, just that it is a lot of they are worth this much money)
Jeremy
Re:I dunno... (Score:3)
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Re:What about karma? (Score:3)
I remember an interview with Hemos and CmdrTaco where they admitted to messing with someone's karma who was trying to sell their Slashdot account on eBay. Cmdr's opinion was (at the time of the interview that is) that karma doesn't matter, that it's not THAT important.
I remember reading that... I believe it was a log of an IRC chat. Can you post a link to it? I don't remember where it was. I don't think it was an article on Slashdot.
If I remember correctly, the owner of the account "FascDot Killed My Pr" was selling his account on eBay because he didn't want to post on Slashdot anymore, and given the account's high karma (above the karma cap) and low user number, he considered it marketable. He advertised it by continuing to post regularly, but with "Bid on me! (Serious offers only)" as his signature with a link to the auction page on eBay.
Well, CmdrTaco found out, and, right at the exact minute the auction ended (and the winning bidder was chosen), he reset the account's karma to zero. When questioned about it in the IRC chat you mentioned, his justification for his action was, "Virtual property is stupid."
I do remember Taco and co. talking about people trying to sell their EverQuest accounts on eBay last spring on Geeks In Space. I don't remember exactly what they were saying, but I think basically they were making fun of the idea.
Anyway, it's quite clear that for better or for worse, karma has become a sort of pissing game that has affected a lot of people. Heck, I'm kind of annoyed that I only had about +35 karma when the karma cap was put in place. I think it would have been cool to have "excessive karma", even if only for a short time.
I've been a Slashdot reader since early 1999, and I got my account in January 2000. I don't remember too well, but checking the archives suggests that CmdrTaco and co. used to regularly participate in the discussions and post news stories about various changes and amendments to the Slashdot rules. These days, of course, they don't. Today, Taco seems more like an enigmatic figure behind the curtain, secretly manipulating Slashdot (bitchslapping people, instituting karma caps, adding lameness filters, etc.) from behind the scenes. I think if he came out into the open again and had a regular dialogue with the readers, people would understand his actions and be a lot less critical of him. He could do all the things he's doing now, and people would understand. Perhaps Slashdot's huge userbase or Andover.Net's control prevents him from doing so.
That said (just had to get it off my chest), some earlier posts in the discussion pointed out that Sony has a clause in the EverQuest enduser licence that forbids selling characters.
As for more Slashdot accounts going on sale, I believe at least one other account was sold on eBay, but secretly. I'm not too sure about that. I also know Signal11's account was given to a troll to "burn off the karma". Basically, someone was using Signal11's high karma to flame and insult people with the score +1 bonus. It was great fun to read, just because of the extreme rudeness "Signal11" exhibited. Eventually, he trolled one of Michael's (jellicle's) stories and Michael changed the password, effectively banning "Signal11".
Anyway, if Slashdot doesn't explicitly forbid the trade of user accounts, karma and all, they shouldn't object to it when people do it. But, to be safe, if you're going to auction or sell your Slashdot account, don't let Taco and co. know. Advertise it on Kuro5hin, or better yet, WonkoSlice [wonko.com] or Plastic [plastic.com].
Thanks for mentioning this. I was hoping someone would.
Free market for who? (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. Suppose I rent you a house. You now "own" an intangible asset: the right to live in my house. But, assuming we used a standard rental aggreement, that asset isn't something you can sell.
Your rights are important. But if you insist that your rights are absolute, than nobody except you has any rights, except where they don't conflict with yours. This is not a problem in an elitist society, where few have rights. But in a non-elitist society, people's rights are always conflicting with each other. You may think Sony (or your landlord) is interpreting their rights more strongly than they should, and not paying enough attention to yours. But once you have explictly promised to honor that interpretation, you have no say in the matter.
__________________
The Pose Comitatus School of Law? (Score:2)
Good lord, what have you been reading? That's about 180 degrees away from my experience as a tenant. Most landlords won't even let you have a cat. You're saying that all those "no pets" clauses are illegal? Or that I can sell off my landlord's appliances? Come to think of it, the frige he supplies is a real power waster....
I'd be very interested to see you argue that in a municipal court. Or does that institution not figure in your legal theories either?
__________________
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Re:On Sony's side - read why. (Score:2)
Actually, I rather agree with you. Just wanted to point out a few exceptions.While we're on the topic, though, another big thing in LOTR was that for the most part middle earth had no cities or even towns. They go from Bree and its surrounding towns of Chetwood and Archet (I think those were the names) all the way over to Minas Tirith without stopping at a single human town or city. So, yeah, everyday social and economic realities were left out of LOTR. On the other hand, I think it's perfect the way it is.
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
Re:The problem is more complex than you think (Score:2)
It's simple: time == money. Let's say your character is almost ready to venture out into the land of nasty monsters that're challenging but fun. Now let's also say that, in order to do so and not wind up with your head on a pike, you need a sword of minor ass-kicking. Let's also say it'd take you a good 15-20 hours of game play in order to be able to afford it.
Now let's also say that there's a high level player who could get the item in just an hour of play. However, this person could care less about you and really doesn't wanna take time away from their busy schedule in order to get you this sword. On the other hand, let's assume that this person'd be more than happy to spend this hour if the reward was $50 in cash.
Now let's also say that our first person has a job in the Tech industry and makes $30/hour. So the first person can spend the time working (assuming, of course, that there's extra work to be done and also assuming that work isn't significantly less fun than the tedious 15-20 hours of gameplay -- I will admit that it's quite possible that neither of these assumptions is true in many cases), buy the sword for $50, and still come out ahead by at least $400. The second person winds up making $50/hour for a single hour of work. Everyone's happy.
As for the alternative of donating money to charity, maybe the first person spends some of that $400 on charity. Maybe the first person only worked for 5 of those 15 hours and spent those other 10 hours at a soup kitchen. The whole "that's time/money better spent on charity" argument seems to be applied indiscriminately to any recreational expenditure. Given that you admitted to playing Subspace in your post, I'll have to call foul, unless you promise that you were only doing it as part of an effort to introduce inner-city youths to computers.
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
However, it's work pointing out that the General GPL (as listed by doing 'info gcc' and selecting the 'Copying' link) specifically excludes the program output:
That being said, it's worth pointing out that this whole line of reasoning is made somewhat moot by the issue that characters are stored exclusively on the EverQuest server and how they can be modified is governed by the EverQuest server code. If I suddenly have exclusive rights to my character, does that mean I can:
Of course what'd be really funny would be if EverQuest agreed that users do have the rights to their character data file: Anyone wishing to exercise this right will receive a copy of the character via email and infringing data will be removed from the servers.
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
As an example: I sell a you a computer, for $X dollars, with an EULA that states "You may not use this computer to kill people. Terms subject to change." You consider this reasonable. You and 123,123,123 other people find this a reasonable restriction and lay down your $X. NOW I decide to change the EULA to state: " yOu may not use this to play games, connect to a network, run Linux, calculate Pi or watch simpsons AVIs. Terms subject to change".
Not very reasonable - can I get my money back now that I find the EULA to restrictive? Will Sony rebate my $60 for the EQ box???? Would those 123,123,123 people be allowed to return their computers?
Re:the reason behind the EULA (Score:2)
now, you may of course end up paying the same amount to someone for the char/stuff outside of the game, but the important thing from the game maker's perspective is not the overall amount of money that you're spending, but rather the fact that if you buy things outside of the game like a char over ebay, none of that $ is going to THEM.
eudas
Call it evolution. (Score:2)
My other argument is that if someone's stupid enough to pay real money for an unreal item, well I'm not one to stop them. It's surely not as vile as Amway.
Open Question (Score:5)
The question that you have to ask is: Legally speaking, what are these players selling? Their experiences in the game may have made for unique characters, but you have to decide whether those experiences can be separated from the intellectual property that *is* the game -- in other words, the programming that directed those experiences.
It's one thing to sell your "experiences" -- in the sense of selling the rights to the story of your life, for instance. Here, though, it seems to me that the players are selling data; and I would guess that, legally, the company retains ownership of the data.
Consider it another way: Could you, as a Dreamcast owner, legally sell a Visual Memory Unit containing game files to another Dreamcast user? You purchased the VMU, after all, and you played the games to generate those files. Yet you don't own the games; you simply own the discs on which those games are stored, and the right to use those discs. You don't have the right to use those discs to produce copies of the discs, so it's conceivable that neither do you have the right to use those discs to create VMU files to sell to other people.
This sounds like a very interesting case. If it proceeds, I hope that Slashdot will follow it.
crib
Re:Virtual items (Score:5)
From the everquest EULA:
"You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material."
HappyPuppy [happypuppy.com] has a good article [happypuppy.com] on this. You play the game you agree to abide by the rules, fail to do so and sony can yank your account. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
This seems like a tough one. (Score:5)
In this one, I sort of think there should be a place for things to be *just a game*. Yes, you can still play with your limited resources just paying for the subscription, but my past experience is that this sort of thing causes problems for those who either can't or don't wish to spend so much money. (Disclaimer: I have not played EQ. Perhaps someone who has could share their views? Thanks). I really think there should be a place for online games that require a simple fee to play and where there isn't a way to spend more money on it -- I think it adds a lot to the feel of the game to know that people really worked on their own to get where they are in game status (or at least that most of them did). So, I think the decision is up to Sony, and my understanding of the EULA is that these people "agreed" not to sell items. I have all sorts of problems with EULAs, including this one, and I believe that these people basically are morally in the right. But isn't there some way that a game can be just a game, and not about spending money to get ahead? I used to play MMORPGS, but got out not long after this sort of thing became common.
So, one question: is there a way for the proverbial "nice company" (as opposed to big bad profit-seeking corp) to build something that is "just a game" without this happening to it, and can people not attack them when it happens?
Also, does Sony fit the bill in this case? They certainly have profit motives, but I think they're trying to keep the gamers that share my view in doing this. So i guess I really don't know where I stand on the lawsuit. I do know that I wish people wouldn't make the suit necessary in their minds and just play the game for once. I know, I'm being idealistic. I'll stop whining now.
This is cool (Score:2)
I hope they win the fight, because if they do, it will be a huge PR success for all online games.
It might even make Doom look like Pong.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
software doesn't exist period.
But that doesn't mean you can't sell it. Ask Bill Gates about this! He will tell you that people really are stupid enough to actually pay for bits and bytes!
Recurring theme, with a solution... (Score:2)
-={(Astynax)}=-
This is how addictive EverQuest is: (Score:3)
"Some of us have considered replacing EverQuest in our lives with a debilitating heroin habit; not because we advocate illegal drug use, but we think heroin is less addictive and we don't have to see our habit reflected on every month's credit card statement."
Sony is doing this for a reason... (Score:2)
sony maybe afraid that they might lose the support of many hardcore gamers.
as far as sony is concerned, they aren't gaining anything if account ownership tranfers from one individual to another...and if this happens at the cost of other players' accounts going belly up, you can bet sony is against it.
- golgotha
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Open Question (Score:2)
Suppose your friend wants to pay you for going to that trouble? Is that something they should legally be allowed to prevent? Again, I very strongly feel that they should not -- someone is paying for the time in the game, and they have no legal grounds (or rather, imo they _should_ have no legal grounds) to even know who is pushing the buttons for that person.
So can someone explain how selling a character you have powered up or items you have collected is materially different from game-playing for hire?
Now, some of you seem to be arguing that the game balance is upset by these sales. While I can see how that could be the case (I don't know because I have never played, I have played MUDs quite a bit so I can imagine the impact, though), I think you need a stronger argument than that for allowing a corporation the legal power to step in and prevent a private business agreement between two individuals that happens to involve a service provided by that corporation. It doesn't seem clear to me that the law needs to provide remedy for someone's game being played in ways they don't like.
However, I guess no one has the right to be allowed to play. If Sony wants to kill your character and stop letting you pay them to play, that is their prerogative and you should have no recourse. But I don't believe they should really have any power beyond revoking the accounts of violators.
It is a more complicated issue than I first thought, however. I'd particularly be interested in comments re: my 4th paragraph -- I guess I am not quite sure where the law belongs in terms of protecting games that a company is making money from. There may be some arguments that they deserve damages from someone who acts to make the game less enjoyable and therefore profitable, but that's a really murky area in my mind.
Oh, and I don't think your VMU analogy is a strong one. Sega has no rights whatsoever to the works that you create by using their hardware and software. The save-game files are *your* bits and you have not signed any contracts agreeing "Any bits generated through the use of this console and software are the sole property of Sega." Just like Adobe doesn't own the rights to that artwork you just put together in Photoshop, Sega has no rights to anything you create by using their hardware or software. So you are free to sell your VMU, copy the data onto blank VMUs and sell those, etc. (Actually, if you're not, let me know and I'm moving to a small desert island and starting my own civilization.) This situation is different from the VMU case in that your gameplay behavior substantially impacts the experience of their other customers since it is a shared universe. If you are violating their rules in such a way as to cause them financial damages, they *may* have the right to sue you for that.
Virtual items (Score:2)
You free marketers, come to these peoples' aid. Anything that is deemed as having value and does not damage an individual or the corporation should be salable.
Furthermore, these sales should increase the value of Everquest, because more people will play and play more often if it seems lucrative. They should contract out to brokers of these goods!
well, their EULA sucks! (Score:2)
When something in the black market becomes widespread, it goes into the grey market. When something in the grey market becoms widepread, a smart corporation will license and control this something in order to regulate and reap profit from a previously revenue-draining service.
Sony should verify character sales and have its own market for them, instead of putting it on E-Bay and letting E-Bay get all the profit that could come from such sales.
By the way does anyone have an approx. aggregate cash value of sales of Everquest characters on E-Bay?
Loophole-Time is Money (Score:2)
What if someone paid not just to have the item, but instead to have someone show them where they could find it in the game? Of course it's a sorry person who needs cash motivation for the fun of helping others in a game, but would the EULA prohibit that as sale of an Everquest-related service? Would it be illegal to teach a class on Everquest for money? I know the demand is high for Everquest Seminars and Motivational Speakers! ; -) Maybe Verant would change their tune if they were bribed- by receiving a certain cut of all sales of Everquest items.
I personally avoid such corporate-control dilemmas by not playing EverCrack ; -) Ahhhh.
missing the point (Score:2)
Sony loses the suit. It is now perfectly OK to camp and sell items/characters/etc on eBay or wherever.
I camp and get a level 3000 player (never played the game), with an eBay market value of say $2000.
Sony has a server crash and my character somehow gets lost. Since this character now had a value on the open market, my most logical recourse would be to sue Sony (here in America anyway, land of litigation).
I think that we can all extrapolate where this goes. If Sony (or any of these game makers) has to be put under the additional burden of protecting a bunch damn video game character files b/c of possible lawsuits, Sony might be a little less interested in continuing Everquest, or making sequels, etc. At what point does the potential financial burden caused by additonal legal burdens convince Sony to shut EverQuest down?
It is at that point that the insistence on defending the "players rights" of a group of greedy individuals (those selling items/characters/etc) will remove all "rights" from all other players.
Anyway, its only a game, how can anyone take it this seriously...[mumbling "must play more Quake"]
Re:Open Question (Score:4)
This is simply Verant and/or Sony feeling that they should be the ever powerful Gods ruling over an idealistic fantasy world, right down to the name you may give your character [sony.com]. 13 rules for a game in general would be off putting enough for me, much less just for what you can call yourself.
RTFM (Score:2)
--------------------------------------
I'm a karma whore, mod me up damn you!
Re:Virtual items (Score:2)
There are many rights you cannot sign away. You cannot sign to become a slave for life. You cannot sign away sex with underage people. Similarly, companies are not protected through whatever rules they have printed - they are not above the law, for example: valid ID in many banks is said to be certain forms of ID when the national/state law is almost always many more forms; the government/state law overrides it and the bank cannot legally refuse certain ID.
Now, this isn't even a contract, it's a fucking EULA - known for it's 'one size fits all' 'give the consumers no rights' mentality. Courts take this into account and these type of one-sided "contracts" rarely stand up. That's why people can sue power-companies for blackouts too - even when they've signed away the right.
Terminating someone's game account because a EULA or Terms of Use hasn't gone to court in most counties - certainly not in the US - and IMO these people stand a good chance of winning.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
This goes on in Ultima Online Everyday. (Score:2)
Ask a GM in game if it's alright to use something not available in the game/to other players to gain an advantage in the game, and they'll say no.
Substitute the word 'money' for 'something' and you have ebay.
The real life money situation in UO caused many many many MANY problems for players (and many left) when housing was opened up in Trammel, as many players were beat to housing spots by people who's sole goal was to place a house to sell on ebay.