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

[Krewshi]

people who click exit game are idiots, cause why would you pay for something you arnt even going to use?

But you don't have to pay for it, do you?
Lets say your sub ran out and you wanna log in on your bank alt to buy a wow token and are greeted with the contract.
You could just hit exit game and that's that, no charge.

[Aeula]

Accept without reading same as every other terms and conditions notification I get.

[Krewshi]

Accept without reading same as every other terms and conditions notification I get.

[Zenfoldor]

I guess most people will go with not reading anything and just clicking accept/go when prompted, then doing what they want anyway?

Isn't this just a way to virtue signal, maybe justify a few additional bans, and NOT really a way to actually change people? Like do you think people are going to read the "social contract" and change their ways, lol? People who are toxic, are usually doing it on purpose to get attention. I hate to break it to you. It will probably not be a revelation to them. The only thing that has changed is that someone cares now, certainly not me, but someone. Who? We may never know. Don't tell me Blizzard, lol.

[WowIsDead64]

This is fast approaching Godwin's Law kinda territory over the idea that someone clicked a bird for their world quest before you could click it.

It's just example. Yeah, it starts from small things, but then they grow like a snowball and at the end it's unregulated competition, that is seed for toxicity in games. Any sport and competition imply some psychological confrontation. You know, even forum trolling is kind of forum PVP.

Some people would say, that MMO is social game, so community should be self-regulated there. I.e. any toxicity should be punished via social tools, as it happens in real life. It's not God, who stops people from shooting each other. It's isolation from society, that is performed by society itself. Problem is - we don't have quest police in MMO games yet. And many of us don't want to sacrifice QOL to make game more socially regulated. Yeah, we have Classic for this purpose. But retail is for players, who prefer QOL. What devs still don't understand - is that if they remove social pressure to improve QOL, they should also implement toxicity-punishment game mechanics to compensate lack of social regulation. Example? Personal loot. It had taken whole Cata for them to realize, that there should have been "hard" solution of ninja-looting problem.

[Zenfoldor]

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

The poster does have a point that actually, I would assume, anything that is bannable in the "social contract" would have already been bannable under the original tos. Is this "social contract" just to educate gamers, or virtue signaling to consumers the dark days are behind Blizzard? I'm going with maybe a little of A and probably a lot of B.

[Lolites]

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

if you feel like this is blaming you for anything you probably are part of the problem, bcs this is basicaly "dont be a dick to people" just in different words...

- - - Updated - - -

People who click "Exit Game" are certified gigachads

no, they are fools to who insulting people is more important than having fun...
honestly, if anyone leaves wow over this, it makes the game a bit less toxic for the rest of players, soo good riddance

[Trumpcat]

We go with "No politics or Religion, and Don't Be A Dick." It's worked pretty well over the years - we've had to talk to a few people, throw out one or two, and had some people split to form their own guild, and most of the drama was people that couldn't help but rub each other the wrong way, rather than someone actually being terrible. Not too bad for a guild that's been active since vanilla and once upon a time over a hundred active members (Cata saw the end of that).

Indeed, similar for us. We are 11 years old guild, although core folks date since vanilla and besides some individual case popping up here and there no major issues. This social contract thing can just be summed as common sense, I don't see what's so triggering about it.

[Drudi]

“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”

It works exactly the way around: the fact that you accept the EULA is irrelevant because that fact implies you forfeiting certain rights guaranteed by the law, and law explicitly states that any such terms are null and void. The law is primary here, not the contract.

Again sorry if it works different in your country (and again accept my condolences if this is the case).

[FelPlague]

“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”

It works exactly the way around: the fact that you accept the EULA is irrelevant because that fact implies you forfeiting certain rights guaranteed by the law, and law explicitly states that any such terms are null and void. The law is primary here, not the contract.

Again sorry if it works different in your country (and again accept my condolences if this is the case).

so do it coward, do it and prove us all wrong. enforce a chargeback and then try to sue blizzard when they ban you for charging back.

[Malcho]

Because being a normal, polite human being is so hard right? Says a lot about you lol.

Free and abundant affirmation makes people weak, like you, my Northern cousin.

[Archmage Alodi]

I've already agreed to it multiple times at every x.0 patches. This is just giving more visibility to something that's always been there, hopefully they'll start enforcing it now.

[HotSauce]

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

i already said, this is already in terms of service that i already signed. did you even read what i typed first before making yourself seem like a dumbass

- - - Updated - - -

if you feel like this is blaming you for anything you probably are part of the problem, bcs this is basicaly "dont be a dick to people" just in different words...

- - - Updated - - -



no, they are fools to who insulting people is more important than having fun...
honestly, if anyone leaves wow over this, it makes the game a bit less toxic for the rest of players, soo good riddance

thats already in the terms of service that i already signed. this is virtue signaling and if you cant see it your the problem with society

[Jester Joe]

“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”

It works exactly the way around: the fact that you accept the EULA is irrelevant because that fact implies you forfeiting certain rights guaranteed by the law, and law explicitly states that any such terms are null and void. The law is primary here, not the contract.

Again sorry if it works different in your country (and again accept my condolences if this is the case).

Yeah good luck with that then. You have a right to play a video game by law after you break their EULA?

[Delekii]

Idk about how blizzard handles it, so won’t argue here. Steam, I had to chargeback 2 or 3 times. It’s my own experience and a fact. Any attempt to make me believe that something that I see with my own eyes does not exist - is pointless.

I’ve provided one reason for why they won’t do it: charging back $10-50, a typical title price, is a lot easier compared to risking a multimillion business. Here’s another reason: let’s imagine they block entire account as a result of a successfull chargeback; obviously, that account owner would immediately chargeback ALL transactions, not just one - getting back their investments. It’s a zero sum game where service provider gains nothing while losing reputation (not even counting in possible penalties from the authorities) while service consumer loses nothing.

And let me stress it again, I do realize that consumer right protection laws are very different in different countries, so said steams behavior could be incoherent worldwide. Your mileage may vary

- - - Updated - - -

“Until such a time that someone actually challenges them in court, and wins, your opinion on the laws in EU is irrelevant.”

Where did I ever said I’m talking about EU laws explicitly? EU laws are generally shit from consumer side, we’ll except for GDPR

Like I said; if you're claiming that a charge back to steam over a product bought on steam does not result in an immediate ban on the account you are lying. I am not stating this for your benefit; I don't actually care about your opinion. This is so that other people don't make the mistake of believing what you say, issuing a chargeback, and being surprised when they get banned.

There is no reputational lose to be accrued from a platform banning someone for breaking their EULA. Neither have there ever been reported penalties to any company that I have _ever_ heard of for companies banning accounts for online video games. This is whether or not for chargebacks or for any other reason.

[erifwodahs]

i already said, this is already in terms of service that i already signed. did you even read what i typed first before making yourself seem like a dumbass

This is still a separate thing from the company culture. The only "dumbass" here is you mate, can't differentiate between two separate things, which the new social contract is just reinforcement

[notsouki]

[QUOTE=Diaphin;53769860]I meant anti-social in the sense of acting like the kind of sociopath who will make one day headlines due to a combination of how easily accessible guns are in the US and stuff they read in the facebook/4chan, you know the guys who feel entitled to using their gamer words, not people who just stick to themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

What's wrong with guns? Guns save lives.

[LedZeppelin]

Am I really breaking the social contract if I tell the guy who stood in the fire 30 times in a row that they are bad?

[Diaphin]

What's wrong with guns? Guns save lives.

The answer is simple and clean: Guys who use gamer words with guns.

[Powerogue]

I just read it and it amounts to "hey, don't be an asshole."

If this is a difficult choice, thank you for leaving.