What are you going to press when the social contract pops up?

[HotSauce]

This is already in the terms of service, which I already signed. Why should I have to sign something because THEY rape THEIR EMPLOYEES? I wasent ever the problem. I wasent WHY blizzard had to sell their entire fucking company. And il be damned if I have to be blamed for it

[loras]

You realize the EULA already says they can ban you for whatever reason, right? Your idea that it has "poor legal strength" is irrelevant, you already accept the EULA when you make an account, this is just an extra warning before you start the game.

I mean, if it helps you sleep at night to think "Man, if Blizzard went to court over this they'd lose!". But...it wouldn't go to court because their EULA covers this.

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal...ense-agreement

Blizzard reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason, or for no reason, with or without notice to you. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most Account suspensions and terminations are the result of violations of this Agreement. In case of minor violations of these rules, Blizzard may provide you with a prior warning and/or suspend your use of the Account due to your non-compliance prior to terminating the Agreement or modifying or deleting an Account.

Emphasis on "any reason, or for no reason"

You do realise that the EULA is exactly what i'm talking about as well?
It's the whole reason i know this stuff is not to be taken too seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

This, except that they DO have the funds, just don’t want to spend them.

For example, my local legislation is very protective in terms of customer rights. The law explicitly states that any obligation or agreement that might have been imposed by a direct or indirect contract is immediately null and void if it diminishes your customer rights guaranteed by the law - without invalidating entire contract, or with invalidating it entirely, at customer’s discretion. It also treats any subscription-type agreement as a single contract, regardless of how many billing periods there are and regardless of there were or there there not breaks in service provision. The customer is also entitled for 100% refund, at customer’s discretion, for any fees paid in case of supplier violating the contract or not fulfilling it entirely. The only limit is 3 years limit for a civil claim. Therefore if blizzard or any other company does something wrong and violates the contract - from the local legislation point of view, not their point of you - you are essentially entitled for a refund over the past 3 years, plus interest.

Blizzard won’t process such refund, but banks that issue cards will, so again, it does not matter what blizzard thinks.

Bottom line? I will press any button to keep the game working because it cannot hinder me in any way.

Pretty much, with the addendum that those three year limits are very flexible and in themselves dependant on local laws.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a contract in a legal sense and Blizzard has full carte blanche to deny service to literally anyone they want. There is no legal aspect to this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



You're right, you can issue a charge back.. which you already could. Want to know how many people with banned accounts have done so? If you think this will stop them from banning you for being a cunt you have a nice surprise on store. People have been being banned for years. If Blizzard had any concerns whatsoever that they would suddenly get a backlash of Europeans performing chargebacks they wouldn't have done this, which means they don't have such concerns, which means that it isn't a problem now.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Or you do, but only in the scope of US laws, and do not realise those are quite irrelevant when doing business abroad.

As to the "moral" aspect of the discussion: It all depends entirely on the stuff left unclarified; what is hate speech, what is discussion, etcetera?
I do not intend on spreading any abuse in WoW, didn't intend to do so before either. But without proper clarification as to what these things entail, what the actual implementation looks like, well it's impossible to say if it's another retarded attempted powergrab or just a harmless bit of "Don't be an asshole." codified.

[Au-burn]

Toxicity is in part what made the game great. Barrens chat used to be cool.

[erifwodahs]

This is already in the terms of service, which I already signed. Why should I have to sign something because THEY rape THEIR EMPLOYEES? I wasent ever the problem. I wasent WHY blizzard had to sell their entire fucking company. And il be damned if I have to be blamed for it

What? It's two different issues... This is to address toxicity in the game, not the company culture. Do you think before you type?

[FelPlague]

This "ToS" wouldn't hold up against EU rules so it doesn't matter anyway.

except it has for 17 years mister armchair lawyer.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to miss the whole point. The TOS might have been made by US lawyers with US customer laws in mind - but that’s it. It won’t stand a chance in most EU legislations, as mentioned above. It will be shredded into dust in Russian legislation with super protective customer laws.

I don’t know a bit about India, China, many other countries, granted. But the very concept that they can claim whatever they want in their makeshift tos and pretend it’s universally valid anywhere is faulty by design.

its worked for 17 years, idk what "lawschool" you went to, but this has been in the TOS for 17 years, this is just a social contract that brings some of that TOS to the front to make it easier to read, instead of having to read through 20 pages to find the "dont be toxic" which is far more common in the game.

you have literally accepted this social contract every time for the past 17 years you have logged in, just now they are making it more transparent.

[Jester Joe]

You do realise that the EULA is exactly what i'm talking about as well?
It's the whole reason i know this stuff is not to be taken too seriously.

Then I must have missed all the lawsuits Blizzard faced over the EULA.

Or they didn't happen because you're off the mark.

[Gehco]

Toxicity is in part what made the game great. Barrens chat used to be cool.

Honestly? Barrens was nothing compared to what I've experienced in recent years during multiple MMOs, mainly FF and WoW. The Barrens chat was bliss, it was glory, and it was hardly toxic (At least not what I experienced in Barrens chat), yes, you have roughness and gruff people, but it was not at the levels of what one experiences now. Then again, my experience is from Vanilla on a US server, and then TBC to now, on EU servers.

- - - Updated - - -

Then I must have missed all the lawsuits Blizzard faced over the EULA.

Or they didn't happen because you're off the mark.

I do not recall many court cases over EULA disputes.. I think.. 3 in total? Most court cases over EULA are where Blizzard brings someone to court, not the other way around.

[Shurkien]

except it has for 17 years mister armchair lawyer.

Did someone ever file a lawsuit against the EULA/ToS inside EU?

Most EULA here in germany get shafted as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it.

[Gehco]

Did someone ever file a lawsuit against the EULA/ToS inside EU?

Most EULA here in germany get shafted as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it.

Eh.. Now that you mention Germany, I can share a little something.

https://gameslaw.org/german-courts-b...d-games-again/

This is Blizzard Vs. a bot programming company, ruling on actions of the EULA, for them to cease their operations, and locking the verdict to not be appealed, unless they take their case to a new court to appeal, which they most likely didn't.

[FelPlague]

Did someone ever file a lawsuit against the EULA/ToS inside EU?

Most EULA here in germany get shafted as soon as someone files a lawsuit against it.

and you think suddenly 17 years later someone is just going to out of no where over not being allowed to call people the n word in a video game and win the case?

[Gehco]

and you think suddenly 17 years later someone is just going to out of no where over not being allowed to call people the n word in a video game and win the case?

Ugh.. Nope. Discrimination/hate/profanity cases by the claim of "free speech" seldom go well in court in EU.

[loras]

Then I must have missed all the lawsuits Blizzard faced over the EULA.

Or they didn't happen because you're off the mark.

As i've mentioned: These things exist by the grace of not being tested.
And practicaly why would most people want to? It's not a profitable business here, you don't do that until something seriously goes wrong.
And government here effectively encourages this grey area to keep existing, because they have not yet found a way to properly deal with the issue of online contracts.

So yeah; if no one does anything stupid this fragile construction will just remain as it is, stapling on another addendum to which people will nod a meaningless agreement does not change that.
But if they fuck up and overplay their hand, well, then you may indeed see these suits you are already expecting.

And make no mistake: The bigger, tastier targets for moderation of the tech sector are already being taken on. It would not be wise for Blizzard to steer towards conflict with the member states of the EU at this point, as it would fit right into their attempts at chaining and draining the tech sector.

[Florena]

*Blizzard cures cancer*
"This a is hilariously transparent attempt to divert attention from the bad things they've been doing"

No matter what they do its just an attempt to divert attention, its all it ever is these days.

literally just putting a part of the TOS but better written to try and discourage toxicity...

It's no different than their laughable diversity graph thing. They're in hot water and trying to spin positive press out of cheap gestures, that's all. If this was an isolated event out of nowhere with nothing surrounding it, then sure fine whatever. But when taken with the overall context of where the company is at right now and their other recent actions, the picture becomes more clear. Have to look at the whole situation not this one thing on its own.

[Drudi]

TOS was made by lawyers who know they have customers all around the world, im pretty sure they didnt ignore other laws...



as someone working in business for US company but living in EU and im 100% sure it would hold without any issues for blizz...



well first of all, in every game you are bound by the rules, and if you break them then YOU can go stfu, but that was not my point...
whining about rules based on something that have NOTHING to do with the rules just shows the person is moron...

You’re again missing the point. The fact of my agreement to the implied tos - clicking the accept button - does NOT mean I will follow the rules invented by some nameless nobody that I really don’t care about.

It only means that, in case if I do violate the rules, then I’m kinda agreed with the sanctions - such as possible account ban or w/e - that came coupled with the TOS. It creates a legal basis to apply the sanctions, not a guarantee to obey the rules.

And even for that matter, the basis is not universal and only applicable to the extent permitted by the applicable local law.

Let me give you one example. I’ve purchased a Civ6 DLC on Steam several years ago. The game did not perform to the marketing promises so I contacted steam for a refund. Steak refused, referencing their self-imposed policy about refund being not available above 3 hours of game time or after 48 hours after purchase date.

In your reality, the case is closed because I’ve clicked accept somewhere and thus agreed to obey this idiocy. In my reality I filed a fraudulent transaction claim with my bank, provided short comment and attached screenshot of steams refusal - and got my $50 back because bank operates under local legislation and it’s a clear fraud case for them - charging money and not providing quality service. The only effort needed was to wait a day or so to get steams refusal on file.

[Delekii]

You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Or you do, but only in the scope of US laws, and do not realise those are quite irrelevant when doing business abroad.

As to the "moral" aspect of the discussion: It all depends entirely on the stuff left unclarified; what is hate speech, what is discussion, etcetera?
I do not intend on spreading any abuse in WoW, didn't intend to do so before either. But without proper clarification as to what these things entail, what the actual implementation looks like, well it's impossible to say if it's another retarded attempted powergrab or just a harmless bit of "Don't be an asshole." codified.

As I said; the proof is in the pudding. If Blizzard were worried about people charging back 3 years of subscriptions on their credit cards as you say, there is zero chance they would implement something like this. They aren't. Ergo: You think you know more than the people in charge of a multi-billion dollar company and their desire to keep their money.

What you say is utterly irrelevant if it is not born out in reality; the current reality simply does not reflect what you say in any location. If it did, everyone who quits WoW would just charge back the 3 years for free money. I live in Australia, whose consumer protection laws are as strong or stronger than Europe. It still doesn't and won't stop Blizzard banning people if they think it will benefit their bottom line to do so.

You claim this is all the case because nobody has challenged it, but that is utterly your own opinion; as you say, it has never been tested. As a result, the entirety of your opinion is based on your rationalizations of the law and not the applied reality of the law.

- - - Updated - - -

You’re again missing the point. The fact of my agreement to the implied tos - clicking the accept button - does NOT mean I will follow the rules invented by some nameless nobody that I really don’t care about.

It only means that, in case if I do violate the rules, then I’m kinda agreed with the sanctions - such as possible account ban or w/e - that came coupled with the TOS. It creates a legal basis to apply the sanctions, not a guarantee to obey the rules.

And even for that matter, the basis is not universal and only applicable to the extent permitted by the applicable local law.

Let me give you one example. I’ve purchased a Civ6 DLC on Steam several years ago. The game did not perform to the marketing promises so I contacted steam for a refund. Steak refused, referencing their self-imposed policy about refund being not available above 3 hours of game time or after 48 hours after purchase date.

In your reality, the case is closed because I’ve clicked accept somewhere and thus agreed to obey this idiocy. In my reality I filed a fraudulent transaction claim with my bank, provided short comment and attached screenshot of steams refusal - and got my $50 back because bank operates under local legislation and it’s a clear fraud case for them - charging money and not providing quality service. The only effort needed was to wait a day or so to get steams refusal on file.

And as a result your steam account was banned in the process, along with any other products associated with it. If it wasn't, you are lying. Charging back to steam, or to Blizzard, results in an immediate and irreversible ban on the account until "the dispute has been settled", which means you ain't getting your account back unless you pay back the chargeback. This is true of almost any large company, since it is the only protection they have against fraudulent chargebacks. You are within your rights to request a charge back, but that doesn't mean the company are just going to say "oh well, sucks for us". Hope you didn't link any other games to steam or play any other Blizzard games you wanted to keep playing.

The TLR; is that you can absolutely get your money back by issuing a charge back, but it will absolutely mean that you lose your account in its entirety, permanently.

[Drudi]

except it has for 17 years mister armchair lawyer.

- - - Updated - - -


its worked for 17 years, idk what "lawschool" you went to, but this has been in the TOS for 17 years, this is just a social contract that brings some of that TOS to the front to make it easier to read, instead of having to read through 20 pages to find the "dont be toxic" which is far more common in the game.

you have literally accepted this social contract every time for the past 17 years you have logged in, just now they are making it more transparent.

I can only really pity yourself living in a country where you have to be a lawyer to protect your rights guaranteed by the law. This is not the case for me. I can file a civil case without being a lawyer and without paying a lawyer. Simple reference to an article that defines my right instantly wins the case here. And service providers know that.

Again accept my condolences

- - - Updated - - -

As I said; the proof is in the pudding. If Blizzard were worried about people charging back 3 years of subscriptions on their credit cards as you say, there is zero chance they would implement something like this. They aren't. Ergo: You think you know more than the people in charge of a multi-billion dollar company and their desire to keep their money.

What you say is utterly irrelevant if it is not born out in reality; the current reality simply does not reflect what you say in any location. If it did, everyone who quits WoW would just charge back the 3 years for free money. I live in Australia, whose consumer protection laws are as strong or stronger than Europe. It still doesn't and won't stop Blizzard banning people if they think it will benefit their bottom line to do so.

- - - Updated - - -



And as a result your steam account was banned in the process, along with any other products associated with it. If it wasn't, you are lying. Charging back to steam, or to Blizzard, results in an immediate and irreversible ban on the account.

Of course it wasn’t. They are no idiots to do that and receive a swift retaliation from local government authorities, essentially cancelling their multimillion business in the country.

They know that. It’s much easier to put public threats and silently swallow such cases. Sorry if disappointed you on this subject, but really this should not be revelation to anyone.

Edit: cancelling account- thus blocking access to the service that you paid for - immediately changes the case from civil (not fullfilling a contract) to criminal (intended fraud). Just to clarify why they would never do that.

[Hamburger]

Accept. It's just a MORE VISIBLE part of the EULA.

[Gehco]

Edit: cancelling account- thus blocking access to the service that you paid for - immediately changes the case from civil (not fullfilling a contract) to criminal (intended fraud). Just to clarify why they would never do that.

Gotta chime in here on the last bit. They can lock down your account if you file a fraud complaint at your local bank, as they have to process this issue with themselves as well. it won't be permanent, but you triggering a fraud complaint triggers their fraud warnings as well, and even local governments have given companies permission to investigate before offering your account back unless it goes further to court if they believe the reason for fraud.

[FelPlague]

I can only really pity yourself living in a country where you have to be a lawyer to protect your rights guaranteed by the law. This is not the case for me. I can file a civil case without being a lawyer and without paying a lawyer. Simple reference to an article that defines my right instantly wins the case here. And service providers know that.

Again accept my condolences

- - - Updated - - -



Of course it wasn’t. They are no idiots to do that and receive a swift retaliation from local government authorities, essentially cancelling their multimillion business in the country.

They know that. It’s much easier to put public threats and silently swallow such cases. Sorry if disappointed you on this subject, but really this should not be revelation to anyone.

Edit: cancelling account- thus blocking access to the service that you paid for - immediately changes the case from civil (not fullfilling a contract) to criminal (intended fraud). Just to clarify why they would never do that.

lol so you alone of hundreds of millions of people who have played wow over the last 17 years are the first person ever to think about this.
alright you think you got a case, do it coward.

because they have literally been doing this for 17 fucking years, with ZERO problems, and if you think you have a legal case, go the fuck at it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's no different than their laughable diversity graph thing. They're in hot water and trying to spin positive press out of cheap gestures, that's all. If this was an isolated event out of nowhere with nothing surrounding it, then sure fine whatever. But when taken with the overall context of where the company is at right now and their other recent actions, the picture becomes more clear. Have to look at the whole situation not this one thing on its own.

lol so the diversity chart thing has been under development for 6 years, just so that it could be released as a hilariously shitty blog to "distract from a lawsuit" that would not happen for another... 5 years...
drink more water.

[Delekii]

Of course it wasn’t. They are no idiots to do that and receive a swift retaliation from local government authorities, essentially cancelling their multimillion business in the country.

They know that. It’s much easier to put public threats and silently swallow such cases. Sorry if disappointed you on this subject, but really this should not be revelation to anyone.

Edit: cancelling account- thus blocking access to the service that you paid for - immediately changes the case from civil (not fullfilling a contract) to criminal (intended fraud). Just to clarify why they would never do that.

They literally do it now. It is standard practice. Any time anyone issues a charge back to either Blizzard or Steam, their account is immediately banned. Steam gives a period of 2 or 3 weeks for the issue to be resolved (ie: for you to reverse the charge back), and if it isn't, the ban becomes permanent and irreversible - after this point they will never restore that account. Blizzard's ban is immediately permanent but I believe you can reverse it any time by paying back the money you claimed a charge back for and contacting support.

Blizzard, Steam, or any company are under no obligation to provide you a service. It isn't fraudulent to remove your access to a service. No country, not even Australia or the EU is going to force a company to provide a service for anyone, especially if you have the means that you have (ie: you have already claimed a chargeback) to resolve the matter yourself.

Again I repeat; what you are saying vs. what is reality is not in alignment. You can crow till the cows come home that EU law states this or that, but it isn't what happens in reality. It is currently standard practice by every large company that I know of that issueing a chargeback will result in a partial or total removal of your access to their services. This is absolutely true of Blizzard and Steam, but is also true of many other companies. Riot is another that I know of. None of these companies, nor their armies of lawyers, is worried about what you discuss here. Until such a time that someone actually challenges them in court, and wins, your opinion on the laws in EU is irrelevant.