add ons in gw2

[Elim Garak]

If there is no reward at all for doing things the "hard way", then most people will take the path of least resistance.

These most people clearly do not care about such things, don't you think?
I for one can be content with just me knowing that I did it the hard way. I can brag to friends who wouldn't call me liar without a reason. And that would be enough for me. I don't need no bragging rights.

[zeelic]

@ag666 I am the same way ^^, I like knowing I can do something on the hardest setting and if wanting I can rub it in my good friends faces! MAhaha but I do not need bragging rights to enjoy doing something hard with out a reward. This is also why no matter what the game I play is, be it first time or not I set it on the hardest setting if able to...sadly some games just have one setting =(.

[Malthurius]

Achievements for doing things the "hard way" isn't needed, but it's nice to have. I'd rather get a small achievement than nothing.

I'm not against addons in the game, but I'd prefer if they disallowed mods like DBM, and cast bars; fore those things sort of go against design choices in the game. UI mods and convenience would be fine.

[Deleted]

Oh the irony. Why are you linking the laws in US and Israel? It doesn't prove that only these two states have such or similar limitations to exclusive copyright laws. Hint: they may have different "title" or no title at all. But there are "fair use" laws almost in every modern state.

Oh the irony. Why are you pretending that's the important part of the statement? It doesn't prove that the ability to modify games are covered by "fair use" by law. Hint: the definition was posted earlier in the thread. But mods are not covered by "fair use".

I think I could do this all day, if not for the end of my work shift coming up. Due to this, I'll just cut this short(ish) by once again stating the facts, that Israel and the US are the only nations with laws regarding "fair use", and the ability to modify games are not covered by it in the slightest.

[Lucky_]

I'm sure you have a basic understanding of the concepts you bring up, and therefore not so ignorant as to miss the entire point of "fair use". The point being that it only exists in US and Israeli law.

I know for a fact that its equivalent exists at least in my local law (finnish), napoleonic code (France and most of its former colonies) and across Commonwealth states (UK and former colonies).

I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that it's US and Israel only, unless you're claiming that specific implementation is the only thing you can call "fair use" and everything else is unfair.

[Elim Garak]

Oh the irony.

Don't use my lines.

Why are you pretending that's the important part of the statement? It doesn't prove that the ability to modify games are covered by "fair use" by law. Hint: the definition was posted earlier in the thread. But mods are not covered by "fair use".

So taking a copyrighted work making changes to it and thus creating a new modified version of the copyrighted work is not covered by "fair use"? Really? Do you know what "fair use" is all about? there's also no definition of "fair use" there are four principles.

I think I could do this all day, if not for the end of my work shift coming up. Due to this, I'll just cut this short(ish) by once again stating the facts, that Israel and the US are the only nations with laws regarding "fair use", and the ability to modify games are not covered by it in the slightest.

You of course can do it all day and say that only those two states have fair use legislature. Nevertheless it won't become a fact. As there are other states with such legislature.

[Deleted]

I know for a fact that its equivalent exists at least in my local law (finnish), napoleonic code (France and most of its former colonies) and across Commonwealth states (UK and former colonies).

I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that it's US and Israel only, unless you're claiming that specific implementation is the only thing you can call "fair use" and everything else is unfair.

I'm getting it from a friend with a major in law and history (don't ask me why he picked history, because it makes no sense to his career at all) in the UK.

Mayhaps you could link these implementations of the "fair use" clause, as well as explain why they cover the ability to modify games as part of the "fair use" definition? Don't worry if it's in Finnish, I can have another friend of mine translate it over Mumble.

---------- Post added 2012-08-10 at 04:12 PM ----------

So taking a copyrighted work making changes to it and thus creating a new modified version of the copyrighted work is not covered by "fair use"? Really?

Yes, really. You can't copy the code for GW2, rename all instances of "Dynamic Events" to "Perpetually Changing Happenings", market it and claim it's not copyright infringement. You can't copy the Harry Potter series and replace Harry Potter with Larry Topper and claim it's not copyright infringement. If you think that's how copyright works, what are you even doing in this conversation?

Actually, now that I think about it, aren't you the same person who claimed that addons are made because they are needed? Hi again.

[Wixwix]

This game will walk the same path as SWTOR and D3.

Infracted for Trolling/Flame baiting, just don't. -- Blood

[Elim Garak]

Yes, really. You can't copy the code for GW2, rename all instances of "Dynamic Events" to "Perpetually Changing Happenings", market it and claim it's not copyright infringement. You can't copy the Harry Potter series and replace Harry Potter with Larry Topper and claim it's not copyright infringement. If you think that's how copyright works, what are you even doing in this conversation?

Who said anything about marketing? Do you know what a mod is?
I can take GW2 rename all the races to funny names, distribute my mod for free and claim it as parody. Here we go a fair use.

[Lucky_]

I'm getting it from a friend with a major in law and history (don't ask me why he picked history, because it makes no sense to his career at all) in the UK.

Mayhaps you could link these implementations of the "fair use" clause, as well as explain why they cover the ability to modify games as part of the "fair use" definition? Don't worry if it's in Finnish, I can have another friend of mine translate it over Mumble.

As soon as I get your real life address and get to send you the quotes over my consultation fees and get you to accept them, I will.

Seriously, if you expect someone else to do legal footwork for you for free, you're either very young, or very wealthy. I'll give you a hint though: your "friend" claims that there is no fair use clauses in copyright law outside USA and Israel. Yet it was legal to develop and distribute DVD descrambler here in Europe to the point where folks in US started to want to sue the developer. Ask yourself why.

That should provide you a good enough starting point for your search. Or you could get a local lawyer as I did when doing the legal footwork for work myself. But expect a four digit bill (probably five digit in SEK if your billing conventions are similar and as far as I had experience they are). I know I got one but I also got what I paid for back then.

[vicious796]

Who said anything about marketing? Do you know what a mod is?
I can take GW2 rename all the races to funny names, distribute my mod for free and claim it as parody. Here we go a fair use.

This is true - so long as you keep the "free" in there. You can modify client-side things that do not go through a server check without breaking the EULA or any copyright laws. These are within your rights.

However, most things in modern games do go through a server-side check and the simple modifications you can make are almost meaningless. Down to the position of frames in the UI, you're likely to find a server-side check in GW2.

I'm getting it from a friend with a major in law and history (don't ask me why he picked history, because it makes no sense to his career at all) in the UK.

Mayhaps you could link these implementations of the "fair use" clause, as well as explain why they cover the ability to modify games as part of the "fair use" definition? Don't worry if it's in Finnish, I can have another friend of mine translate it over Mumble.

Your friend chose history because, at least in America, it's very, very beneficial to understanding why laws came into place and helps a ton on the BAR exams. However, the only reason the "fair use" laws work in America and Israel is because they are accepted by almost every other nation in the EU. Of course, there are exceptions. Still, the point remains that these laws are accepted by those nations - it doesn't matter whose politicians wrote them word for word.


Now, onto the main conversation, I don't really see how client-side addons really make a game unbalanced for anyone. 99% of them are giving you the same information the game is giving you, just in a different fashion.

[Kelesti]

What about "don't need don't use" principle?
Let's for the sake of argument accept the notion that add-ons allow more people to see content. (i.e. make the raiding easier) - is it necessarily a bad thing? Climb down from your high-skilled horse and be honest.

Because it's one of their inherent design goals. If it's intended to be challenging, but something third party makes it easier, then you either a) artificially increase the difficulty (screwing over people who aren't running it, basically make it mandatory), or b) you remove the point of a challenge except for "elitists". Being able to push yourself harder for enjoyment rather than "who cares" bragging rights.

How about you get off your horse of entitlement, because this decision is theirs from the beginning and they aren't going to change it any faster than they put dedicated tanks and flying mounts in.

[Elim Garak]

Because it's one of their inherent design goals. If it's intended to be challenging, but something third party makes it easier, then you either a) artificially increase the difficulty (screwing over people who aren't running it, basically make it mandatory), or b) you remove the point of a challenge except for "elitists". Being able to push yourself harder for enjoyment rather than "who cares" bragging rights.

1. But they don't have to increase the difficulty for those who don't want it already. Right? It's not wow, they have no subscription. They don't need to do anything here. People who loves things hard - will do them hard, others may use add-ons. In fact that could increase their sales. Because sale is the only thing they get money from - it's therefore important to increase them.
2. Add-ons remove nothing - they add. As in add-on. Also elitists are less numerous than non-elitists. And since this game has no raids... Also I do not see any issues for elitists in add-on ridden WoW. Stop inventing them.

How about you get off your horse of entitlement, because this decision is theirs from the beginning and they aren't going to change it any faster than they put dedicated tanks and flying mounts in.

Since I'm a customer I have a right to ask them add something or criticize their decisions. Their respone may (and will) be a deciding factor for me when the xpac hits the shelves. I'll stay on my horse, thank you very much.

[rhinomatic]

Since I'm a customer I have a right to ask them add something or criticize their decisions. Their respone may (and will) be a deciding factor for me when the xpac hits the shelves. I'll stay on my horse, thank you very much.

This right here is the first thing you've said that really makes sense. You ARE the customer, you have the ultimate decision whether or not they get your money. It's THEIR product, though, and they have the ultimate decision whether to include features or not.

They aren't being vague about anything. They say "There will be no addons." You say "I want addons."

Sounds to me like you want something that this game isn't. And there's nothing wrong with that - games aren't for everybody. I think instead of trying to convince them (or us) to change their mind on this, you need to decide how big of a deal this is to you.

There will be no addons. They've said it, they continue to say it, and it's very unlikely they change their mind on it. Can you live with that?

[Bacardi]

Hope it has some kind of auto run to waypoint for the wife....lol

[Lucky_]

Hope it has some kind of auto run to waypoint for the wife....lol

"Click this waypoint to disconnect your husband until he has done the dishes. Needs an account with WIFE privileges to use".

[mmokid527]

I hope at the very least they add a tool to measure dps to test effective gear/builds.I understand alot of people are against it but also know alot of gamers these days fit the casual profile and only want things like meters absent because they don't want others to pass judgment on them when they are performing poorly. I for one wouldn't mind a tool that measures dps output,damage taken and the like just so I can have something to gage my performance to get better.

[iCandy]

I hope at the very least they add a tool to measure dps to test effective gear/builds.I understand alot of people are against it but also know alot of gamers these days fit the casual profile and only want things like meters absent because they don't want others to pass judgment on them when they are performing poorly. I for one wouldn't mind a tool that measures dps output,damage taken and the like just so I can have something to gage my performance to get better.

The amount of weapon swapping, dodging, rezzing, supporting your team and watching your surroundings. Knowing your DPS is the last thing on your mind.

Did you not get a chance to do any dungeons or fight and big bosses? As an ex-"hardcore" raider(fury warrior) I never once thought in GW2, "man, I wish I knew my DPS".

[DanBowie]

I hope not dont realy like using curse

[DrakeWurrum]

As an ex-"hardcore" raider(fury warrior) I never once thought in GW2, "man, I wish I knew my DPS".

I thought this more than once when fighting the Champion Giant or the Champion Marauder. Staying alive was never that involved that I couldn't multi-task.