EULA Confusion w/ Used Copies of WoW? 935
They keep telling me they will not transfer an account. I keep telling them I do not want an account transferred, but want to create my own account. What appears to be the final answer is that 'an authentication key can only be used once, regardless of the number of owners.'
This is not stated anywhere in the EULA or Terms of Use. If it is, I have been unable to find it, and *Blizzard has repeatedly ignored my request that they identify where in the EULA or Terms of Use this is stated.*
I have the complete retail package, including the CD case with the Authentication Key. So what if it is has been used in the past? Whatever happened to the first-sale doctrine?
At one point, the Blizzard representative likened my request to buying an empty milk jug and returning to the store to demand more milk for free so I can use the jug. This is an incredibly inept analogy. What Blizzard is doing is allowing only the original purchaser of the jug to buy a refill; anyone else who happens to buy or be given the jug is prohibited from buying more milk to put in it.
Another item of interest is that the representative told me that they can not, for any reason, delete an account, not even at the account owner's request. The most they can do is to suspend the account. Unfortunately, that keeps a record of the Authentication Key in their system, preventing that key from ever being used again.
While the EULA expressly permits permanent transfer of ownership of the game to another person, nowhere does either the EULA or
the Terms of Use mention that such a transfer makes the game completely useless because Blizzard will not allow the new owner to use the game; the game cannot be played without an online account and a subscription to the service, and Blizzard
will not even allow the account to be created.
You might say the "easy" answer is to get the seller to give me the account info for the account he created. However, according to Blizzard's representative, not all of the original
account information can be modified. In fact, enough would be unchangable that the original owner of the account would be able to regain control of the account at any time, should he
desire to do so.
I had no expectation that a used copy of the game would be such a problem. After all, even all of Blizzard's previous games (Warcraft 2, Starcraft, BroodWar) had keys that could be used and passed on while maintaining the reasonable restriction that only one instance of the key could be used
at any one time. (I have never bought or played Warcraft 3, so I do not know about it.) In fact, I bought my copy of Starcraft used and never had any trouble with it.
I am not trying to cheat Blizzard out of anything. I *want* to pay them for a monthly subscription so I can play the game, but they will not allow it solely because at some point in the past someone else has used what is now my copy of the game.
So here's a warning to everyone out there; be very careful if you are thinking about buying a used copy of World of Warcraft. You may have a complete and legitimate set of all the game materials, but you will not be able to play it.
For all the lawyers, and the many IANALs, out there, what do you think of the chances of a lawsuit succeeding to change Blizzard's stance on this? Would anyone else be interested in taking this on with me?"
A question that comes to mind is whether the seller fulfilled all three parts of the Termination clause, section 5 of the EULA. If the seller failed to notify Blizzard of intention to terminate, it could be argued that the seller's licenses remain in effect and thus new license could not be given to the buyer of the used game. But one would hope Blizzard's customer service would at least make this clear to the buyer.
Also considering the availability (Score:5, Informative)
For those not in the know, at least for a time, Blizzard pulled from the shelves new copies of WoW and stopped shipping due to server load issues.
I know of more than one person who was unable to get a copy for several weeks because of this.
Re:Also considering the availability (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Also considering the availability (Score:5, Informative)
summary: rating = F
A rating of F means that we strongly question the company's reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law's licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company's industry is known to us for its fraudulent business practices.
Re:Also considering the availability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Also considering the availability (Score:3, Informative)
Just read forums.worldofwarcraft.com [slashdot.org] and you we see. Check the tech support and realms status forums.
Get your money back. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get your money back. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, what do I know, IANAL.
Re:Get your money back. (Score:4, Insightful)
You were delivered a non-workable product.
You had a reasonable expectation of being able to use the product.
I would file a complaint with eBay, not against the seller, who was acting in good faith, but in order to stop Blizzard titles from being sold on eBay because they, Blizzard, are selling a deliberately broken product.
Uh... Hey, kids. (Score:5, Informative)
TFA doesn't say by what means the used software title was aquired, nor how payment was tendered.
For all we know, he traded a twelve-pack of beer for it with his next-door neighbor.
Get some sunshine. Ebay is not the only venue via which used items change hands.
Re:Get your money back. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get your money back. (Score:5, Interesting)
If they refuse, take them to small claims court. 75% probability that they will fix the problem as soon as they get served. If not, then they won't show up and you will win the retail price by default.
Re:Get your money back. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously this is them just being stupid, however, they don't have to give you an account and take your money. You haven't purchased anything from them yet.
The original owner needs to transfer the account to you, then, once the terms that the actual purchaser of the CD agreed to have been fulfilled, you can call and make as big a stink as you want.
Re:Get your money back. (Score:5, Insightful)
How bizarre (Score:5, Interesting)
3B. You may permanently transfer ownership of the Game and all parts thereof, and all of your rights and obligations under the License Agreement, to another by physically transferring the CD-ROM, all original packaging, and all Manuals or other documentation associated with the Game, and by removing from all of your home or personal computers and destroying any remaining materials concerning the Game in your possession or control, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this License Agreement. The transferor (i.e., you), and not the Licensor, agrees to be solely responsible for any taxes, fees, charges, duties, withholdings, assessments, and the like, together with any interest, penalties, and additions imposed in connection with such transfer.
It appears that you can indeed sell your game, provided you removed anything related to the game, which I think, includes the deactivation of the Authentication Key by the seller, maybe they haven't created the Deactivation Section yet
Re:How bizarre (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds to me a bit like they picked a really bad primary key for a database! I'm also sure they can give this guy a new key. I once deleted the full version of windows at the direction of Microsoft tech support when I only had an upgrade t
Re:How bizarre (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a Lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but it seems fairly clear cut from a legal purspective that the OP got everything Blizzard sells in the store. Just because the Game has lost nearly all value due to the Activation Key being broken doesn't change that fa
Re:How bizarre (Score:5, Insightful)
One Key to Rule Them All (Score:5, Funny)
The key IS the game.
No Surprise Really (Score:3)
How do you expect them to actually release a CD key? The way these games work is you can come back to it later and renew your account if you wish. How can they renew their account if the key has been released for reuse?
The place you bought it from owes you a refund. Most stores I go to now won't buy back any game that has a CD key tied to online play/accounts.
Make a new key, ban the old. (Score:2)
It's not quite the same thing, but there is no reason Blizzard (or EQ) in this situation shouldn't be able to generate a brand new key for him if the original key is truly defunct, which is something they can easily enforce on their end.
Re:No Surprise Really (Score:2)
> to it later and renew your account if you wish. How can they renew their account if the key has been
> released for reuse?
It's not difficult, technically or logically. Non-MMO games have been doing it for years; you need a unique and not-currently used cd key to be able to play online.
All Blizzard has to do is dissassociate this key from the account. If someone wants to sell their WoW cd set, they
Re:No Surprise Really (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not for us to care how they do it, they are the ones responsible for figuring that part out. Beyond just the EULA, copyright law states that users have the right to transfer their license.
The way these games work is you can come back to it later and renew your account if you wish. How can they renew their account if the key has been released for reuse?
They can't renew their account, because they no longer have a legal copy of the game. Perhaps
account Key (Score:2, Insightful)
One key can ever create ONE account. If you get the account name and password to go along with that used CD key, you are in business.
Previous owner's responsibility? (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming this is the case, then if the previous owner didn't delete their account, they have effectively ripped you off.
RE: deleting accounts (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand the reasoning behind it, but it can cause some irritating situations too.
EG. My ex-wife was a big Shadowbane addict for a few months preceding our divorce. She was using an account I created initially. (I'm the one who bought the game, played it for about 30 minutes, and decided I didn't like it after all. I let her try it, and she got hooked immediately - and begged me to buy her a 3 month subscription after that.) The interesting thing is, though, I couldn't seem to find any way to get Ubisoft to permanently erase her account after she moved out. I was able to sign on to the web site and deactivate the account, so she couldn't keep billing renewals to my credit card
Somehow, it doesn't seem right I wasn't even able to have her characters deleted on an account she effectively hijaacked from me - and now I still keep getting email notifications about her activities in the game (purchases of expansion sets, tech. support help, etc. etc.).
the answer is obvious (Score:2, Informative)
It's there ... (Score:3)
It is, Usually, in the part that says that any situation not specified in the EULA, will be decided in an unilateral fashion by the Company in question. Usually, when you agree with this kind of "contracts", you are actually agreeing to pay an ammount, in orther to be able to do what the company eventually decides that you can do.
My recomendation?, learn to be happy with tuxrace.
out of luck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:out of luck (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument is one way. The author of the EULA can hardly argue that the contract was non-negotiable on their part -- they freaking wrote the thing. Nor can they argue that they never agreed to the contract, because they sell the product with the understanding that the EU
Suggestion... (Score:5, Funny)
Get a cow. It won't mind if you take an empty milk jug to it and demand more milk from it every day.
Your cow won't judge you.
Re:Suggestion... (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know about that. The last cow I milked kept looking at me funny like I was doing something wrong.
I was like "Yes, I'm touching your teats. You wanna explode or what?"
And she was like "Oh no, you didn't!"
She swats at me with her tail. I slap her side. Long story short, that's I ended up in jail. That's my story. I'm sticking to it.
Semantics dude (Score:2, Interesting)
A stupid analogy would be buying used milk. If you bought the milk used from someone other than grocery store and it expired prior to the "best before" date, it is not the groceries store or the milk producers responsibility for the bad milk.
The only thing I see here is that you are using
Why don't they just make a new authentication key? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you assume that this guy just pirated a copy of WOW that's pure revenue to them for each new user.
What's to gain by binding one key to one CD? You want to bind it to one PAYING USER.
Somebody hasn't thought this through and just threw the usual boiler plate out into the EULA and said "ship it!"
Re:Why don't they just make a new authentication k (Score:5, Informative)
The distributor gets the cash out of the box sales.
If accounts were free, or available from online, there would be no distribution of the box version. No distributor wants to touch a game that is available online cheaper (or even at same price, but 'easier').
And stupid people won't consider games they can't buy as a box from a store. No store visibility = way less subscribers.
Only when the game is dead as a doorknob as 'store boxed version', the sale / giveaway of accounts beings.
Basically they are feeding Vivendi Universal or whoever handles the distribution. VU has to get mucho money, so VU can be bothered to put the game on shelves, on magazine pages etc.
Yes, the whole store/boxes/crap model is outdated. I'd happily pay real money for games if I could actually download them at launch day, instead of waiting for ages for the stupid boxes to ship and arrive to stores. I paid for HL2, mostly because they allowed this. Yeah, steam is 'bad' or 'crappy' or whatever, but at least it works. I got the game on launch day, not a week late (hint: I don't live in the US), and I got it at a same price as the US customers got (no extra taxes, duties, shipping costs and other crap).
Small claims court (Score:4, Insightful)
ARG!! Learn the damn law! (Score:3, Informative)
Sec. 13 - "This License Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of California without regard to conflicts of law provisions, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in accordance with the law of California. You agree that an
Re:ARG!! Learn the damn law! (Score:5, Interesting)
same reason why an EULA can't force you into indentured servitude to blizzard/vivendi.
Re:ARG!! Learn the damn law! (Score:3, Informative)
Which is now a cool $250 filing fee.
Besides, even if he won in small claims court, there isn't any teeth since the company itself may not be within that county. So you've won a piece of paper, but enforcing it STILL requires it being brough up to Federal Court. Thus you pay the Small claims court fee plus the above federal court fees.
Geesh.
Re:ARG!! Learn the damn law! (Score:3, Insightful)
be sure to forward the judgement to various credit tracking companies too.
such things are sufficiently embarassing that they would probably be forced to act. the cost of bad PR would be worse than just paying what they owe under the judgement.
Re:ARG!! Learn the damn law! (Score:3, Interesting)
Amusingly enough, this argument frequently holds up, but only in California.
And of course, this kind of small-value transaction is exactly why they have small claims courts in the first place, which frequently is ruled on soft logic and what is right over exact wording of contracts. Vivendi may very well argue that the EULA should stand and that this should
IAAL (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been cases which indicate that software licenses in general are just fine, even if they limit rights granted under ordinary copyright law. What does not appear to have been examined is whether these license agreements fall into the realm of state contract law. If such were the case, then different states might have different consumer protection rules.
But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation, not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out how in my profile.
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Interesting)
The court in that case, rightly, did not examine it in terms of a consumer purchase, but rather a purchase for resale. A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
I'm afraid yo
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Judge Easterbrook, who wrote the ProCD opinion, disagrees with you.
"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product." - Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147, another of Easterbrook's opinions for the 7th Circuit.
Hard to get any clearer than that.
A quick visit to Shepards will provide a litany of cases which have elaborated on distinctions such as these.
Shepardizing ProCD reveals rather a litany of cases following Easterbrook's analysis of UCC 2-204, along with a couple of opinions disagreeing on, as far as I was willing to read, other grounds, principally pre-emption, which has zero to do with your argument.
I didn't bother to read all 30 or so supporting opinions because a) they're mostly district courts; b) UCC Article 2 isn't even law in my state, so I have little interest in it; and c) I don't feel like wasting my time.
By referring to the distinction between "sophisticated parties" I presume you mean, e.g., the distinction between consumers and "merchants" as in UCC 2-207. As far as I am aware, the consumer/merchant distinction troubled the Restatement and UCC redactors only as regards the "battle of forms," not the availability of the contract terms.
A consumer is as well able to read a EULA as a merchant, and just as able to return the product if he disagrees with the terms therein. ProCD and its progeny do apply to this situation.
Whether the submitter has a cause of action against Blizzard on the terms of the EULA is, of course, a different story. But this is about nine years too late to be a "test case" in these circumstances.
Re:WTF?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Come on... even assuming a purchaser of software does not know there is going to be a license at all (which is silly to begin with), he sure does once it tumbles out of the box. At that point, continuing to use the software signifies his acceptance of its terms. That may not be fair, it may not be nice; but it's the law. See, once again, UCC 2-204 and ProCD.
If you know some special way to get stores to take returns on software, I'd love to hear it.
The mechanics of the purchaser's recourse (perhaps against Blizzard, not the reseller) aren't the point here. A different remedy may even by appropriate, but again that's not the point.
Isn't that the state law point from the start of this thread?
Nope. The point of this subthread, if you will, is that challenging the validity of shrinkwrap EULAs is a done deal. Done.
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Interesting)
(IAALS, and ProCD is just about Day 1 of intellectual property law. Rather irresponsible post, especially as IP is not among your areas of practice, according to your firm's site.)
Whatever the situation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogy 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you don't want free milk in the jug your friend gave you, you want to *pay* for the milk, you just don't want to pay for the jug.
I think the solution to all of this stupidity is for the bozon game companies to stop charging an up-front purchase price for games that require a subscription.
Why don't they also charge a "disposal fee" when you cancel for crying out loud.
Re:Analogy 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not that he doesn't want to pay for the jug.
He did pay for a jug - he purchased a used jug. His friend was specifically authorized to transfer ownership of the jug in section 3B of the eula: "You may permanently transfer ownership of the Game and all parts thereof..."
Now blizzard is refusing to let him purchase refills for his jug, because the jug does not have a virgin (unused) CD key.
Currently it seems like it's impossible to transfer "all parts thereof", since in order to use the game you need to establish an account, and a CD-key can only be used to establish a single account. Therefor the "all parts thereof" changes when the game is first registered, and you are left with "all parts thereof except a virgin CD key".
It seems Blizzard needs to clarify the process for exercising your EULA right to "transfer ownership" to another person.
Blue?
You paid for used MMO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every MMO launched to date has a single-shot CD-key used to create an account. That means that the used game is worthless. The CD is unprotected and the contents are fairly easily obtainable. Only thing worth anything is the CD-Key, and that's good for only one use.
Yes, you could sell the game AND the account, but in WoW's case this is forbidden by EULA. You can whine all you want, but if they somehow allowed the re-use of the CD-Key, that would allow basically unlimited accounts out of one box. And whoever controls the account can play the game - box not required.
Don't buy used MMOs (returned/repackaged/'slightly used'). Any store with half a brain don't take returns of MMOs as once the key has been digged out of the box and copied down, the rest of the box/CD/Etc is quite worthless. CD-Key theft out of boxes in store shelves is a growing problem - many clueless salesdroids dont understand how the bunch of numbers on the paper is the only valuable bit of the game box, so if you buy an opened box, you risk getting a dud that may be painful to return. How do you prove you didn't use the key yourself?
Now is selling of such 'one-shot' products fine, trampling on the 'first sale' principle? That's whole another discussion. WoW is doing it just like every other game in the genre. And just about every single other game forbids sale of accounts. Others allow the sale of account + box together (only), but such trades are high-risk.
For example, in Dark Age of Camelot, whoever knows the 'secret word' inputted at character creation can at any time take ownership of the account (change PW, change any other details) by calling game billing support hotline. So even if you get the CDs, the box, the (worthless) CD-key, the user account and the password, if you don't know that you ALSO need a secret word (and you need to change it promptly by calling the company), your account can be taken back by the original owner, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Blizzard is just taking the easiest route - if you your account/password ends up in wrong hands, they wash their hands. Sale of accounts is not allowed, and basically whoever controls the username/PW 'owns' the account, and if you complain about account sale/trade issues, they just ban the account as account sales are not allowed. And yes, the box, the CD-Key and the media is totally useless and worthless once the account has been created.
Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
However, you now have a perfectly legal copy of the game (even according to their EULA, which must be a first for a MMO game), without a functioning key. The solution is obvious: Have them send you a replacement key.
They lose nothing, you don't have someone else's baggage, and it should be standard procedure for when a retail key is compromised by store clerks or a 'friend'.
A couple days ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, it wasn't YOU that didn't read it, it was the Blizzard guys. EULAs have gotten out of hand. Many of them have language in there that doesn't pertain to anything related with the product at all. It is in there because no one wants to pay the lawyer another couple hours of billing time to review any modifications.
You are SOL and your only real option is to get your money back from where you bought the game. If you do decide to hire a lawyer and go after Blizzard, expect to pay the lawyer 1000x the difference in the used/new prices of the box -- and probably not get anywhere.
It would be fun, though, if I won the lotto. Blizzard has proven themselves nothing but a bunch of dicks over their treatment of FreeCraft/Ale and the alternative server networks. I'd love to have the money to fuck them over with their own legalese.
Hate to be devil's advocate, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Imagine this from Blizzard's point of view. Someone calls up with your story. What do you think their position will be? Software companies must defend their best interests, and willfully going along with any request and any likely story could open them up to all kinds of abuses.
2. I may be wrong, but I don't think the lack of mention of something in a EULA implies that the buyer has such a usage right.
3. A lawsuit for such a small amount seems a little bit of an overreation. I would discuss it with the seller and see if he/she is willing to refund your money, and if not (and I would hardly expect it), just chalk it up as a lesson learned. I'm not sure how old you are, but I've lived long enough to know friends who have learned far more expensive lessons than this. I agree that it sucks, but consider yourself lucky to some extent.
Re:Hate to be devil's advocate, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
how is this defending blizzard's best interests? this guy is offering to pay them a monthly subscription fee. sure if they ignore him, and don't piss him off to much in the process, he might buy a new version in the store. (once it's available in stores again- who knows when that will be...) what's blizzard's cut on a retial box sale after the store and the distributor take their cut? a month's subscription? two? sounds to me like blizzard's 'best interest' here is to get this guy paying a monthly subscription fee as soon as possible, since the person who bought the box is no longer doing so...
2. I may be wrong, but I don't think the lack of mention of something in a EULA implies that the buyer has such a usage right.
if i understand the right in question correctly, the doctrine of first sale legally establishes such a right. if it's not mentioned in the eula, he has that right by default. (whether that right can be restricted in a eula is still hotly debated by both sides, but that is not the issue here.)
Re:Hate to be devil's advocate, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's BS. Blizzard PROMISED in EULA 3B that you can transfer the game and all parts thereof to another. A reasonable person would interpret that as meaning you can sell your copy of the game, and the new owner can then pay for a subscription and play the game. Yet according to Blizzard's support replies, there is no way for the new owner to establish an account to pay the subscription to play the game.
The lawsuit wouldn't be against the friend, btw
Easy Answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Use their own system against them (Score:5, Interesting)
#1) I recently purchased a copy of World of Warcraft
#2) When I try to sign up for an account the CD-key says it is already used
#3) I have the original CD-case with the CD-key sticker on it and read on your site I can mail them in to get a new CD-key
Remember the Diablo II players are famous for their acts of stupidity. They regularly get their CD-keys and accounts stolen. So if you just play the dumb "It says someone else has my CD-key and I don't know why" and then cite their CD-key replacement policy they should do it for you. If they tell you to return it to the store just tell them "the store doesn't take returns" and "it was the only copy I could find."
You may not be too keen on deceit, but honestly this is the only way blizzard will do anything. While they are fine about jerking around people who buy used copies of the game they will be much less eager to screw over someone who they think bought a new copy of the game that doesn't work.
More information about the process:
http://www.blizzard.com/support/?id=aal
Re:Use their own system against them (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the issue with D2 and several other games is that people would buy one copy of the game, open it, write down the CD Key, return it to some place like Wal-mart or Best Buy where they only do even exchanges for opened materials and repeat ad infinitum.
The retailers are supposed to report these returned CD Keys, but it never happens.
No (Score:3, Informative)
this is pure FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
If you check the terms of use page linked in the OP, you can plainly see near the top:
1. Establishment of Your World of Warcraft Account.
A. You may establish one (1) user account ("Account") with which to play World of Warcraft by accessing Blizzard Entertainment's proprietary on-line service ("Service"), pursuant to the terms, conditions and restrictions contained in this Agreement.
as well as section 1-E:
E. Blizzard Entertainment does not recognize the transfer of Accounts between individuals.
I don't see how this person has any right whatsoever to have a new account registered for a CD key that already has an account registered with it.... it just doesn't make ANY sense. By that train of thought, one person could buy the game then hand it along to every person he knows, letting each new person register a new account and bypassing the purchase price of the game itself.... no sense whatsoever.
I do think relating it to buying a milk jug and expecting free refills on an empty jug is pretty funny though.
Re:this is pure FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Great Case, Implications to Everything.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The right to transfer ownership of the tangible expression of a copyrighted work is fundamental to our system of intellectual property ownership: 17 U.S.C. sec. 109 (2000). [cornell.edu] I don't quote this provision to suggest that Blizzard is breaking the law, simply that the right to alienate (essentially a fancy legal term for "sell") your copy of a copyrighted work is enshrined in United States law (and in fact, is generally recognized throughout the world).
So what is Blizzard doing here? It is denying the initial purchaser of the game the right to sell his or her copy (who am I kidding? His) copy of the game in the open marketplace. The initial purchaser of the game agreed to Blizzard's End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) when he first started playing. (Of course, the legal enforceability of these EULAs is somewhat murky -- different states have different laws, although UCITA is the most common attempt to make EULAs enforceable.) Blizzard's argument is that it and its customer entered into an enforceable contract. Both sides gave consideration and both sides agreed to perform certain actions and to give the other side certain rights in exchange for either money or a service provided.
Now Blizzard (at least according to the poster) is attempting to renege on its side of the bargain, while still (presumably) insisting that the purchaser abide by all terms and conditions.
A couple of additional thoughts:
First, don't argue with front-line customer service. Get in touch with Blizzard corporate headquarters or other supervisory personnel. Recognize that, while you are probably correct, it's likely an issue of first impression under the new WoW system and as a pioneer, you're likely to get a slow response.
Second, make sure that the initial owner of the game took the proper steps to terminate his account before he sold it to you.
Third, recognize that Blizzard is perfectly correct to be suspicious of someone claiming that, simply because you have the key, it should terminate an existing account. Respect their view on this because it's a world of hurt for them if they wrongly start terminating accounts. I can easily foresee them asking someone five times "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS ACCOUNT? ARE YOUR SURE YOU'RE SURE?" and then getting a complaint the next day that their account isn't working. They really are in a no-win situation.
Fourth, while yes, I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. Nothing in this post should be construed as providing legal advice.
Finally, Blizzard needs to get on the ball and recognize when they are wrong. This sounds like a cluck-up. (But then again, first line support people aren't supposed to be interpreting legal documents.) I'm guessing this is more a matter of getting this issue in front of someone with the authority to make it right.
you should have lied... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't say you can't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't say you can't (Score:3, Informative)
Neither the EULA nor the ToU make any mention of the authentication key except that it is required to register an account. There is no mention of the first use of it invalidating it for future use, rendering the retail package useless after that first use.
a more useful headline would be . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing or non-functional key.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowbilling/?id=
I'm not sure if it's useful, but hopefully it might spark some ideas.
Are EULAs copyrighted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty steep for a game you have to pay monthly to play too.
My wife and I would be playing it if it weren't for the $100 initial cost.
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:2)
Pretty much the retail price is a deposit on your first month, plus the cost of CD manufacture, manual printing, and retail box manufacture.
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3)
That's total bull, since if that were the case there would be no reason for them to charge me for a second one when both my wife and myself wanted to play... I could just pay them a second monthly fee and install from the CDs I already had.
Not only that, but The manufacturing costs are signifigantly lower than $35 ($50 minus the first month).
'm pretty sure thats th
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Informative)
You do realize that the profits from box sales don't all go to Blizzard, right? A large chunk of that income goes to the publisher.
There is no such thing as too expensive. The consumer has the power, exercising their right not to purchase the product. (as you have) If enough people feel the same way, then the price will come
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you are planning to pay the monthly subscription can you not just download the game installer for free?
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine because a.) Demand is too high for their ability to supply. (i.e. They can only support so many users. b.) People are actually paying for it. In that case, it'd be stupid not to ask for it. c.) Maybe that's how they justify their current price of subscription. Sorta like how cell phones require a contract.
This is all academic, though. I don't know much about WoW.
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Insightful)
The second issue is one of investment. Let's say someone buys a $50 box and take it home. If that person finds the game to be confusing at first, they are generally going to stick with it. They don't want to believe t
This is an age old argument for MMORPG.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying you should get a co-located computer for free because you're paying $49.95 a month for bandwidth. There is still an initial investment cost.
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if the poster was unable to find a new copy, or simply wanted to save a couple of bucks. Regardless, it seems like this kind of thing should be legal according to Blizzard's own EULA.
I guess I'm not surprised he's getting the run around from Customer Support, though. IMHO Blizzard has fallen a long way from it's lofty perch before the original owners were bought out..
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it's a $49.99 game. Secondly, the game is not available in stores due to Blizzard's cutting back on new users due to server issues. Considering the lack of availability of the game in stores, a used copy that someone doesn't want after having tried it should still have value.
I for one and sick and tired of software companies bullying their consumers around. I should be able to return software. I should be able to sell software I purchased to other people. I should be able to run games that already have cd-keys for online-only play without requiring that I keep the CD in the drive while playing!
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot is certainly a place to be heard - but sometimes you have to make a statement with your wallet.
I would FU*(#@$_ING love to see a boycott of Blizzard -
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Interesting)
All I had to do was allow the beta to automatically patch itself and I'm still running it fine.
A little bit more on topic: why on earth are people still paying for used boxes of this? I was reading reports about this exact complaint in early december when guys had
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in the city in which I live, retailers are required to accept a return, provided that:
1. The item is defective for reasons not caused by the customer, or the item is in new condition, or the item did not perform as expected. This is so vague that really, in any case short of the customer buying something and taking a sledgehammer to it, they have to take it back.
2. The retailer may set a "reasonable time frame" after which returns will not be accepted. Such time period must be communicated cle
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:2)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:5, Funny)
=)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a much bigger question than just "buy a new copy"
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, of course not - because it's been proven that there are plenty of idiots that will pay it. And they'll even pay it to a bunch of litigious, greedy bastards like the ones at Blizzard.
I wish people would pay attention and stop supporting companies when they turn into fucktards like Blizzard seems to have done. It seems there is a pattern that a many software companies tend to follow, wherein they build up a certain number of loyal customers or market share, and then they start doing everything they can to gouge their customers and treat them like dogshit. Lawsuits against fans, bloggers, and others are common. And they tend to get away with it more often than not, when they should be bleeding customers left and right. I think Microsoft pretty much led this trend.
I'll give you a few examples. Companies that created excellent product, took good care of their customers, then turned evil when they got to the top of the heap:
Symantec (Norton)
Valve (steam???)
Intuit (check out Ed Foster's Blog [gripe2ed.com])
Blizzard (case in point)
Macromedia (They're working on it)
Re:Why not just buy a new copy instead of old? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about theft, but about the legal transfer of ownership expressly following the terms of the EULA.
Re:EULAs are out of hand (Score:2)
and, what pray tell, will be legislated? the issue here is an end user license agreement. and blizzard ain't no "end user."
the bottom line is this: a eula is designed to tell you, the end user, what you may do with the software. it is not a promise of performance or an obligation of service binding on the distributor. period.
Re:EULAs are out of hand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, they aren't violating the EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Multiple accounts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you have no leg to stand on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you have no leg to stand on... (Score:3, Informative)
Totally, completely, utterly wrong.
From the XP Pro EULA: [microsoft.com]
Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be
Re:One CD code to rule them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you bought WoW and decided you really didn't like it, so you sold it to your friend. Assume no copies made and everything is done according to the EULA. You have no intention of playing again, and your friend wants to use your old copy to play himself. When he activates his, your account should be disabled. Problem solved.
What is happening here is like the RIAA saying you can buy the CD from the store, when you are done with it you can sell it to a friend or a used CD store, but they still won't be able to listen to it.
Blizard is in the wrong here. If they did not want people selling/giving their old copies to others, they should not have allowed it according to the EULA. The OP is not asking to have a second account active on the same CD key, he is asking to have a single account active on the CD key, with the old one being disabled.
Jeremy
Re:Max Payne EULA forbids actually playing the gam (Score:3, Informative)
"SOFTWARE Backup or Archiving. After You install the SOFTWARE into the permanent memory of a computer, You may keep and use the original disk(s) and/or CD-ROM (the "Storage Media") only for backup or archival purposes."
Re:Please don't whine (Score:3, Interesting)
He's "SOL" according to Blizzard, who have an obvious interest in convincing people that the rights granted to them by the EULA are not actually granted to them when they become inconvenient to Blizzard.
An impartial third party familiar with contract law may well have a different interpretation than Blizzard does.
Re:I don't read legalese (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Request/Purchase a new key (Score:3, Informative)
The creator/publisher/manufacturer got their cut for this instance of the product. When the original owner no longer wishes to use it, why shouldn't someone else be able to?
Re:Simple Answer... (Score:3, Informative)
Until I bought the game, I did not have access to read the EULA. Until I bought the game, I did not know the ToU existed or where to find it. Furthermore, there is nothing in either the EULA or the ToU that imposes the restriction that Blizzard is enforcing.
Re:Uh... Same thing different company? (Score:3, Informative)