Authenticators to be required to play WoW?

[Chesspiece_face]

WoW.com

If these are packaged with Cataclysm like people are presupposing I think this will be a wonderful idea. I would even think that packaging them with all blizzard games going forward would cut down on most of the time and money they need to spend recovering players items and characters. If I actually had to order and ship one out to me before I could log into WoW at some future date I don't think I'd be too pleased however.

[Crusader]

It would make Cataclysm mandatory to buy if you want to continue playing WoW or you have to buy the token. Dunnow how good that would be. I think they'll lose players over this.

[Lissa]

It would make Cataclysm mandatory to buy if you want to continue playing WoW or you have to buy the token. Dunnow how good that would be. I think they'll lose players over this.

I highly doubt that. As it stands, atleast 90% of the players have upgraded with each expansion and there are already players that have authenticators. I don't see this as being much of an issue if it is mandatory.

[Crusader]

90% have upgraded eventually. How long after Cataclysm will the tokens become mandatory then? A month? A year? Will blizz want to wait that long? Will there be legal implications in all of different countries if Blizz forces you to pay extra (even once) to be able to play a product you already paid for? (anwser: yes). And losing 10% of your customers doesn't sound appealing either.

what I think is that they will include it with Catclysm and make it mandatory for the users who play cataclysm. Eventually then you'll cover most of the playerbase.

[Sheep]

Will there be legal implications in all of different countries if Blizz forces you to pay extra (even once) to be able to play a product you already paid for? (anwser: yes).

They're covered in the terms of service, item 7:

NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE ACCOUNT, AND YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL RIGHTS IN AND TO THE ACCOUNT ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF BLIZZARD

Furthermore, even if that doesn't quite cover it:

Blizzard reserves the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to change, modify, add to, supplement or delete any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement at any time, including without limitation access policies, the availability of any feature of the Game or the Service, hours of availability, content, data, software or equipment needed to access the Game or the Service, effective with or without prior notice; provided, however, that material changes (as determined in Blizzard’s sole and absolute discretion) will be disclosed as follows: Blizzard will provide you with notification of any such changes through a patch process, or by email, postal mail, website posting, pop-up screen, or in-game notice. If any future changes to this Agreement are unacceptable to you or cause you to no longer be in compliance with this Agreement, you must terminate, and immediately stop using, the Game and the Account. Your continued use of the Game following any revision to this Agreement constitutes your complete and irrevocable acceptance of any and all such changes. Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time. Blizzard may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability.

End result being, there will be no legal ramifications, just disgruntled players.

[Taelas]

If they make them mandatory, they better also make a limited number of them available for free to players, at least to some extent. Including one in the Cataclysm box sounds like a fine idea.

Practically everyone upgrade to the new expansion if they have an active subscription. I'd say it's less than 1% of the active subscriber base that do not, and that's including secondary and tertiary subscriptions that only exist for the RaF service.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If I actually had to order and ship one out to me before I could log into WoW at some future date I don't think I'd be too pleased however.

If it gets gold farmers, etc., off the servers, I'll go with it -- it's not really that much either in cost or in effort.

Has anyone tried the phone app that they're offering? Neither my nor Magi's phone is on their list, so I couldn't try it out, but at $0.99 it could be a fast and economical way to go.

--Pete

[NiteFox]

Has anyone tried the phone app that they're offering? Neither my nor Magi's phone is on their list, so I couldn't try it out, but at $0.99 it could be a fast and economical way to go.

--Pete

Well, my phone and carrier are on the list, but I can't actually get the application to download.

The dealio is that, once you've "bought" it, you send a SMS code to a number, and they push the app onto your phone. But that part just ain't working for me. Oh, hey, you pay in the cost of the SMS message you send, but unless you just happen to have the right phone and carrier in the list of hundreds of combinations they offer, you're basically throwing away money for nothing.

[TheDragoon]

Annie and I both have a separate authenticator and the phone app for our iPhones. While the authenticator was ok we both prefer the phone app since we always have our phones handy. No complaints about it from us. :)

[Mordekhuul]

Annie and I both have a separate authenticator and the phone app for our iPhones. While the authenticator was ok we both prefer the phone app since we always have our phones handy. No complaints about it from us. :)

Can the phone app and authenticator token both be used interchangeably, or is it one or the other? My wife and I have authenticators, but we also both have iPhones, so it'd be nice to enable it there as well, but not if it means we can't use the tokens when our iPhones aren't handy, etc.

[TheDragoon]

It is either/or. You can only have one authenticator associated with your account at a time so you have to pick and use that one. It would be nice if you could associate both so that I could log in her account when she (or, more specifically, her phone) is not around but it doesn't work that way. :)

[Crusader]

They're covered in the terms of service, item 7:
Furthermore, even if that doesn't quite cover it:
End result being, there will be no legal ramifications, just disgruntled players.

Actually ToS have no legal power in the Netherlands, because a judge already ruled that a normal person can not be expected to read through them. Even if that ruling is destroyed, it doesn't work when the person who 'accepted' it was a minor at the time.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually ToS have no legal power in the Netherlands, because a judge already ruled that a normal person can not be expected to read through them. Even if that ruling is destroyed, it doesn't work when the person who 'accepted' it was a minor at the time.

That's a reasonable attitude, but it probably doesn't matter in this case. If the servers are set up to require authenticators, then authenticators will be required. To change this, the customers will need to sue Blizzard or its parent companies. That suit would have to be brought either in California, France, or where the servers are physically located. If the servers are located in a place that recognizes the ToS, then there's little chance of a suit succeeding.

I'm curious to how a ToS could be made binding in the Netherlands. I suppose that software could include a binding agreement that would have to be signed and notarized and returned to the software company before the product could be activated. That would really kill most software sales, especially of games. The balance between protecting individuals and protecting companies is always precarious, I guess.

--Pete

[Crusader]

Hi,
That's a reasonable attitude, but it probably doesn't matter in this case. If the servers are set up to require authenticators, then authenticators will be required. To change this, the customers will need to sue Blizzard or its parent companies. That suit would have to be brought either in California, France, or where the servers are physically located.

Wrong. The product is sold and offered in the Netherlands. So Dutch law applies.

If the servers are located in a place that recognizes the ToS, then there's little chance of a suit succeeding.

I'm curious to how a ToS could be made binding in the Netherlands. I suppose that software could include a binding agreement that would have to be signed and notarized and returned to the software company before the product could be activated. That would really kill most software sales, especially of games. The balance between protecting individuals and protecting companies is always precarious, I guess.

--Pete

Yup, it put a lot of people in knots. However, the judge will always take in consideration what is 'reasonably expected'. Authenticators are in the grey zone. Copying the game is clearly illegal. etc.

[Mavfin]

Wrong. The product is sold and offered in the Netherlands. So Dutch law applies.
Yup, it put a lot of people in knots. However, the judge will always take in consideration what is 'reasonably expected'. Authenticators are in the grey zone. Copying the game is clearly illegal. etc.

What it really comes down to is this, though:

If Blizzard wants to change the terms to include authentication, they can at any time do so, and say that if you don't want to abide by those terms, you can't play the game, and they won't take any more money from you, or refund game time you've paid for after a certain date, if they wish to.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wrong. The product is sold and offered in the Netherlands. So Dutch law applies.

I didn't say that Dutch law didn't apply. I said that, unless the servers are in the Netherlands, Dutch law is moot. While a citizen of the Netherlands could, conceivably, initiate a suit in the Netherlands against Blizzard for requiring authenticators, unless Blizzard has a presence there, they do not have to respond. I do not think there is anything equivalent to extradition for civil suits. So, for a suit to have any effect, it must be brought where the entity being sued have a presence.

The Netherlands can ban or limit the importation of Blizzard, or even Vivendi, products. It can put requirements on those products it allows. But that is about the limit of what it can do. And, in turn, Blizzard could simply stop selling and supporting its products there.

So, I'm not denigrating Dutch law. I'm simply pointing out the limitations (which apply to all countries) of civil remedies across national borders.

--Pete

[Crusader]

Ahh, typical response there Pete.

Firstly, Blizz has a presence in the Netherlands. So we can get them here.

Secondly, even if they don't show, they can be fined and their assets can be confiscated in the country and at the border.

Thirdly, even if they hadn't got a presence here, there's a wee little problem that the Netherlands is a trading hub to and from Europe. Not only would Activision be blocked to the Dutch Market, it also can't ship through the Netherlands, creating a logistical nightmare. Not that a judge would likely go so far over an authenticator, but in other cases it's possible.

Fourthly, but I'm not sure about that, The Netherlands can, in extreme cases, go to the EU. Ask Microsoft about their experience with Neelie Kroes and you know how much that can bite.:)

Fifthly, all the above is moot, because our judges are pansies. If this goes to court and they get convicted of an economical crime, Blizz will at the worst be fined for a few pennies (relatively speaking) once. They'll gladly pay up to keep access to the (rich) Dutch consumers who buy their products. I don't think a judge can forbid the use of authenticators, but a judge can forbid that consumers have to pay for it since it unlocks a product they already paid for. So Blizz would have to give out the authenticators for free (which I expect they will do anyhow), pay a fine, and the story would end.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ahh, typical response there Pete.

Whatever that means.

Firstly, Blizz has a presence in the Netherlands. So we can get them here.

Interesting. I didn't know that, it didn't show up in their corporate structure or that of Vivendi. Just for my curiosity, just what presence do they have there other than sales?

Secondly, even if they don't show, they can be fined and their assets can be confiscated in the country and at the border.

Yes. "The Netherlands can ban or limit the importation of Blizzard, or even Vivendi, products."

Thirdly, even if they hadn't got a presence here, there's a wee little problem that the Netherlands is a trading hub to and from Europe. Not only would Activision be blocked to the Dutch Market, it also can't ship through the Netherlands, creating a logistical nightmare. Not that a judge would likely go so far over an authenticator, but in other cases it's possible.

I'm relatively sure that a French company (Vivendi) can find French ports to bring in their products. After all, we're not talking about a bulk product, we're talking about game boxes. A million of them is about 1000 cubic meters, about 2% of the capacity of a modern cargo ship.

Fourthly, but I'm not sure about that, The Netherlands can, in extreme cases, go to the EU. Ask Microsoft about their experience with Neelie Kroes and you know how much that can bite.:)

Yep. But Micro$quish was guilty of unfair trading practices. This would be one EU member challenging the validity of the ToS of another European member.

Fifthly, all the above is moot, because our judges are pansies. If this goes to court and they get convicted of an economical crime, Blizz will at the worst be fined for a few pennies (relatively speaking) once. They'll gladly pay up to keep access to the (rich) Dutch consumers who buy their products. I don't think a judge can forbid the use of authenticators, but a judge can forbid that consumers have to pay for it since it unlocks a product they already paid for. So Blizz would have to give out the authenticators for free (which I expect they will do anyhow), pay a fine, and the story would end.

Possibly.

--Pete

[Crusader]

Hi,
Whatever that means.

Many think what you said, that nobody can touch you if you're in another country.

Interesting. I didn't know that, it didn't show up in their corporate structure or that of Vivendi. Just for my curiosity, just what presence do they have there other than sales?

They have a sales department here, but that's enough.

Yep. But Micro$quish was guilty of unfair trading practices. This would be one EU member challenging the validity of the ToS of another European member.

Yes, which is a matter an European court can rule on.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Many think what you said, that nobody can touch you if you're in another country.
They have a sales department here, but that's enough.
Yes, which is a matter an European court can rule on.

Fair enough.

--Pete