Prepared is no more - New Multi-Boxing maximum is 24 characters

[Shodokan]

As of today there was a change to the battle.net ToS that only allows a single person to log in from 3 battle.net accounts. This means with the 8 account limit you are no longer able to go above 24 accounts.

For a majority of us that doesn't matter but for him... lmfao.

[zenga]

That blows, now I need to transfer toons around, though I think they might do it for free if you call them. Using 5 different bnets atm, simply because some became fill with raf accounts I used only once.

Edit: the smarter thing would 've been to limit the amount of characters instead of the amount of different bnet accounts.

[Invisahealz]

where did you see this info? when is it taking place? Also if you play from different computers how are they gonna track it? You can have 3 bnets on each computer. I play from 3 computers 10 accounts on each computer.

[Shodokan]

where did you see this info? when is it taking place? Also if you play from different computers how are they gonna track it? You can have 3 bnets on each computer. I play from 3 computers 10 accounts on each computer.

I'm going to bet its going to be IP based, yes there will be workarounds to even that... but we all know how much blizzard accepts workarounds :P

It was in the ToS update for the bnet launcher.

[Noxdiebox]

http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/eula.html
1100

[ebony]

is could done for
A: Less lag to the servers
B: so we can have follow in the world PvP zone.

Hell i take one battle.net for follow in bg's!


Though this is dated next month. this is bettle.net so no more five boxing D3?

[Shodokan]

is could done for
A: Less lag to the servers
B: so we can have follow in the world PvP zone.

Hell i take one battle.net for follow in bg's!


Though this is dated next month. this is bettle.net so no more five boxing D3?

That'd be correct, and would coincide with the release of 5.4.7 and likely the d3 expansion.

[ebony]

I just been told its about the free and the paid level 90 chars.

Its a billing dept thing. To stop change backs.

and will/should only apply to new accounts.

hoping there be a blue post on it later.


Oh and if would have something about log in per ip if it was aimed at boxing.

[Shodokan]

I just been told its about the free and the paid level 90 chars.

Its a billing dept thing. To stop change backs.

and will/should only apply to new accounts.

hoping there be a blue post on it later.


Oh and if would have something about log in per ip if it was aimed at boxing.

It doesn't make sense to have something in the EULA/ToS that is only going forward and doesn't apply to existing accounts. But who knows. To stop chargebacks of paid 90s doesn't make much sense as the accounts get locked if you charge back anything on the blizzard store/services.

[moog]

So how does one request a refund from Blizztard if you've already got 4 x Diablo3?
So fucking glad I don't give them any money these days!

[MiRai]

Do you guys really think that Blizzard is going to track down every single person who has more than three BNet accounts and then personally ask them to choose which ones they want to keep? Or... Do you think that Blizzard is just going to choose for them? How do either of these scenarios make any sense at all?

If anything, Blizzard will sit dormant until an individual is reported and then they'll be looked into. The same goes for account sharing... I'm sure a handful of multiboxers use accounts with names that don't match their main, but Blizzard isn't out actively looking for these people; it's only after you're reported is something like this found out. Blizzard leaves most in-game policing to the people that play their game... Have you ever been to Goldshire on Moon Guard (US)?

And IP bans? Is this the 80s and we're all using dial-up? In this day and age with how limited IPs have become, how could Blizzard possibly know which IP is attached to who? What if there's a single building attached to a single router with one IP? You're telling me that everyone who plays WoW in that building is going to get banned because it looks like more than three BNet accounts are active? You could say, "No, they'll look at the names and see that's not true." I think you guys overestimate how much manpower Blizzard has or is willing to put into searching for people with more than three BNet accounts. Did Blizzard just hire a few thousand people and create a new team to crackdown on people with too many BNet accounts?

What's funny, is that this clause has supposedly been part of the D3 ToS for over three months now since someone brought it up on the ISBoxer forum, but no one knows why it's there. It hasn't been enforced on a single D3 multiboxer who runs more than three accounts, so what would be different in World of Warcraft?

Even if Blizzard took all the available support team manpower they had and began searching their database of millions upon millions of both active and inactive accounts, and could somehow enforce this the day it went active... How many multiboxers would be truly affected? Less than 1%? Even if enforceable, is only being allowed to play 24 accounts that limiting? At what point does one cross the line for "too many accounts"?

I actually fear the day that World of Warcraft receives a more convenient F2P option that allows players to not be capped at level 20, because I know there will be so many people that will roll a ton of characters because "fuck Blizzard" or some other ridiculous reason. I fear that because of that, Blizzard may revisit their policy on multiboxing and move to abolish it once and for all. I can only hope that doesn't happen or that they'll at least still allow subscribed accounts to multibox.



So how does one request a refund from Blizztard if you've already got 4 x Diablo3?
You don't. Why would you be entitled to a refund for a game you paid for months and months ago because something is going to change next month? Blizzard has the right to terminate your account for any reason they want, even if no reason is ever given -- This is part of the terms you agree to when playing their game; in fact, I believe this part of every game's EULA/TOS agreement.


7. ACCOUNT SUSPENSION/CANCELLATION.
BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU.Source (http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/termsofuse.html) (Blizzard)


8. ACCOUNT SUSPENSION/DELETION
TRION MAY SUSPEND, MODIFY, TERMINATE OR DELETE ANY ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU.Source (http://www.trionworlds.com/en/legal/terms-of-use/) (Trion Worlds)

I'm not going to go through every EULA/TOS, but it's pretty much worded the same way in each of them, regardless of which game you're playing.

[zenga]

Blizzard has the right to terminate your account for any reason they want, even if no reason is ever given -- This is part of the terms you agree to when playing their game; in fact, I believe this part of every game's EULA/TOS agreement.

It's not because they write that in their ToS and you agree that it will hold in court. If they write in their ToS that from now on I have to smash with a hammer on my nuts or that I have to molest my dog prior to logging in, and I agree with that, ... Don't ask me how I came up with those examples, but you get my point. Every day there are lawsuits going on about the small letters in insurance/rental contracts/etc ... and customers win as much as companies win.

If blizzard was to close down my account for no reason whatsoever (say because an employee finds it fun to do so), and if I was to go through all the trouble, pretty sure they will always lose the lawsuit (based on my domestic laws, laws they have to comply with if they sell their products overhere). I recall a lawsuit in holland years ago. Back then it was legal to download content for personal use (might have changed meanwhile). There was a website (service) that made you agree to not download any of their content (forgot the details), and that company lost all their claims in court, simply because the law overruled their ToS.

You make it sound like Blizzard can sell me a game, and close down my account a minute after my payment just because they can.

[Velassra]

It's not because they write that in their ToS and you agree that it will hold in court. If they write in their ToS that from now on I have to smash with a hammer on my nuts or that I have to molest my dog prior to logging in, and I agree with that, ... Don't ask me how I came up with those examples, but you get my point. Every day there are lawsuits going on about the small letters in insurance/rental contracts/etc ... and customers win as much as companies win.

If blizzard was to close down my account for no reason whatsoever (say because an employee finds it fun to do so), and if I was to go through all the trouble, pretty sure they will always lose the lawsuit (based on my domestic laws, laws they have to comply with if they sell their products overhere). I recall a lawsuit in holland years ago. Back then it was legal to download content for personal use (might have changed meanwhile). There was a website (service) that made you agree to not download any of their content (forgot the details), and that company lost all their claims in court, simply because the law overruled their ToS.

You make it sound like Blizzard can sell me a game, and close down my account a minute after my payment just because they can.

Good luck suing a multi-million dollar company over a $15 game in the U.S.

[Gurblash]

You make it sound like Blizzard can sell me a game, and close down my account a minute after my payment just because they can.

That's exactly what they 'can' do.

[JohnGabriel]

They never sold you a game. They sold you a license to use their game.

[MadMilitia]

I'm not a lawyer but being banned for no reason would be enough grey area for a discrimination lawsuit.

Remember the good lawyers out there do well because of the grey areas in the law.

[Fat Tire]

I'm not a lawyer but being banned for no reason would be enough grey area for a discrimination lawsuit.

Remember the good lawyers out there do well because of the grey areas in the law.

No lawyer would accept a suit like this on a contingency basis and blizzard has fuck tons of money to drag it out until youre broke.

[ebony]

Like i said and MiRai (http://www.dual-boxing.com/members/24666-MiRai) said Do not worry about it. it seems this has been on D3 for a long time and yet nothing is been done about it. Uni's over the world can have 100 off clients of one IP. so i can not see them IP banning anytime soon.


As for them deleting accounts when ever they feel like it for no reason there in the full rights to do this, This is if they was to close down wow next week. They can without saying anything to you or giving you anything back. But we know this is not going to happen.

And i know they do close down accounts all the time with no reason. (mostly gold seller stores)

[MadMilitia]

No lawyer would accept a suit like this on a contingency basis and blizzard has fuck tons of money to drag it out until youre broke.

Lawyers accept cases on contingencies all the time. Reasonable doubt ring a bell?

If money is to be made and there is plenty of grey area to exploit the good lawyers wouldn't pass it up.

[MadMilitia]

And i know they do close down accounts all the time with no reason. (mostly gold seller stores)


You contradicted yourself there. They DO close those sites down for a perfectly legal reason. Every ban I've seen was with reason. I've never, ever seen anyone banned for no reason at all. They always give one.

[EaTCarbS]

I'm just here to remind everyone here that the sky is falling (and MiRai is spot on).

[Fat Tire]

Lawyers accept cases on contingencies all the time. Reasonable doubt ring a bell?

If money is to be made and there is plenty of grey area to exploit the good lawyers wouldn't pass it up.

If you think a lawyer would take the case you describe and spend their man power against blizzard, because that is what it will take lots of lawyers and then base their pay on contingencies with the out come that could take years and is not certain. ya, I would pay 500 bucks to look at that brief.

You watch too many law and order episodes, either that or youre an idiot. Reasonable doubt lol.

[zenga]

I don't think it is very relevant if a lawyer would or would not be interested in this discussion, nor if you go up against a multi billion dollar for $15. Besides when fighting multi-billion dollar companies in court, individuals tend to unite quite often (at least in the EU) with people in a similar situation and/or with customer/consumer organisations. There are quite a good amount of examples where someome with enough time/money/balls goes after a big guy just for the sake of the principle.

Discussing if something is legal/illegal can't be based on whether a lawyer would accept the case or not, nor on the size of the deal cq the size/worth of the parties involved.


They never sold you a game. They sold you a license to use their game.
Overhere (EU) there was a court ruling last year that gives you the right to resell downloaded games (i.e. games you have bought a license for but that you not physically own). Either way, if they sell you a license as you say 'to use their game', and would e.g. terminate your account 1 second after it became active (which according to earlier comments they can do based on the ToS) there is simply no possibility that they will get away with that in any court. It conflicts with any basic principle of what a commercial transaction is. Regardless if they actually do it and/or whatever they write in their ToS.

[MadMilitia]

If you think a lawyer would take the case you describe and spend their man power against blizzard, because that is what it will take lots of lawyers and then base their pay on contingencies with the out come that could take years and is not certain. ya, I would pay 500 bucks to look at that brief.

You watch too many law and order episodes, either that or youre an idiot. Reasonable doubt lol.

As I said I've never seen Blizzard ban someone for no reason. If they did (which is a big if) they would leave grey area to consider discrimination. Huge companies lose discrimination suits all the time. They don't as it isn't something they position themselves to be sued for. So arguing one way or another is like arguing over the existence of the spaghetti monster. When they actually ban someone for no reason at all we'll talk.

PS: I don't watch TV and you can stick your insult up your haughty ass.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

http://i.imgur.com/qqEIgVB.jpg

[ebony]

Am not worried about it.

[Fat Tire]

Love all the backstreet lawyers that have no idea what they are talking about. Next they will be citing legal precedent like bosses.

[MiRai]

Look, Blizzard can and will cancel your account for no reason if they so choose because they put it in their agreement. Whether or not it's going to hold up in court (if anyone's even willing to take it that far lol?) is another story; but it'd be almost impossible to cancel an account for no reason at all because a human being would have to make the decision, and inherently, would have a reason even if it's "because I wanted to." So, really, everyone's arguing about nothing because...

1) Blizzard doesn't have a special team combing through millions of accounts trying to connect the dots between who's allowed to have more than 3 BNet accounts and who isn't.

2) Even if this fairly recent addition to the EULA/TOS is meant to be interpreted the way that it's currently being read, it only affects < 1% of all multiboxers in the history of multiboxing video games (can't prove me wrong on that - SDWLogic) -- Most of whom we all know. If you want to cause someone problems after March 18th, 2014, then report them and see if Blizzard will uphold and interpret the agreement in the same manner that's being discussed here.

I can't even fathom how they'd decide which accounts you're allowed to use and which you aren't, but the only things to do would be to either wait it out and see what happens or try to get a blue response through their customer support forum.

[Khatovar]

1) Blizzard doesn't have a special team combing through millions of accounts trying to connect the dots between who's allowed to have more than 3 BNet accounts and who isn't.

No? I was getting the feeling that the entirety of Blizzard was just one sadistic, anti-social Scrooge McDuck dude sitting in a tiny room pouring over account information trying to see how many people he can piss off {and how much money he could throw away} by randomly issuing bans and closing accounts.

[Shodokan]

Well that escalated quickly.

We'll see what happens, not much else to do but wait and see if anything DOES happen.

The change just amused me... and the only person I know who does more than 3 bnets was prepared. Mirai is right, it effects <1% of everyone... but part of that 1% is hated by a lot of people here lol.

[JohnGabriel]

So they can do it, but probably wont do it retroactively unless its causing a problem and somebody complains? Someone has probably complained about lag from prepared by now.

[ebony]

Talked to support today.




Blizzard Support - Chat Transcript


Info: Welcome to live chat with Blizzard Support! A representative will be with you shortly.
Current average wait time is approximately 0 minutes and 17 seconds.Please wait for a site operator to respond.
Info: You have been connected with Davixach.
XX: Hey there! How may I assist you today?
you: hey
you: about the new TOS thats poped up on the battle.net (http://battle.net/) serive
you: That only allows a single person to log in from three (3) battle.net (http://battle.net/) accounts
you: or own 3 battle.net (http://battle.net/) accounts i have about 6 or 7 in my name
you: just asking whats going to happen to them
XX: In all reality, I doubt anything will happen. That said, the End User License Agreement update doesn't actually take effect for just over another month, and I'm sure there will be some clarification from the Developers or Community Team before then.
you: ok, am a mutiboxer and as we been hit by follow in bg;s was thinking maybe your after us again?
XX: I very much doubt it, but I am sadly no Developer. :)
you: ya just asking don't want to be made what acconts i have to keep and if you know whats going to happen to them as i nerver seen a accont be deleted a lot off mine as old dead acconts but i have more then three thats all
you: well i can hope they give us some more info soon.
XX: Indeed. As I said, I can't personally see this as being something that would actively be enforced, but that's my own opinion - we've not heard anything internally about it. :)
you: ok that was mine and other Point off views on it as well, I think it might be something do with players buying up the new free 90's from WOD and moving the chars making big clean up after you guys.
you: for*
XX: I'm sure there's a train of reasoning behind it, far above my paygrade likely though. >_>
you: true many thanks for you help today :0
XX: *bows* I will thank you for taking the time to chat with me. Have a pleasant afternoon, and safe travels.
Info: Your chat transcript will be sent to XXXXXXXX at the end of your chat.
you: you as well good bye






This is the latest response from Customer Support:
Greetings,

I hope that I was able to offer a little comfort during our chat, despite not having a definitive response to your query.

I'd recommend keeping an eye on the forums for any announcements regarding the EULA update.

[Sam DeathWalker]

I think I would be the only other person it effects I have 28 accounts on 6 bnets but of course I could go down to 24 on 3 without any really big loss; actually would gain some mounts and titles lol.

If they enforce it then its way in my advantage cause my guys have better gear then prepared and Ill be NUMBER ONE!

Not really holding my breath though as I think those who argue that it won't be enforced have the better of the argument.

[Ualaa]

The sky is falling... Blizzard is out to get us...
Kind of a funny thread.

[EaTCarbS]

The sky is falling... Blizzard is out to get us...
Kind of a funny thread.

lol, it sure is funny to watch the failboat teeter-totter now that we're not on it.

[daanji]

it's only after you're reported is something like this found out.

I think there are enough Prepared haters that once this goes live the first thing they'll do is report is 1000x to be in Violation of the ToS. Doubt they will do anything though.

[ebony]

your forgetting one thing perpard buys his chars so I bet there not all in his name away

[Baltyre]

I'm not playing it anymore but i have 4 bnet accounts with a diablo 3 account on each.
I think this is a big problem for all diablo boxers.

[heyaz]

Lot of speculation in here but. Well, nevermind I guess I'll speculate. I'm not sure how it could be done retroactively anyway - what would they do with extra battle.net accounts exceeding the limit? And if they just said these are your three, the rest are no good - then what about the attached licenses? Where would they go.... to your approved three? Then changing the policy on eight licenses maximum.

I'm not going to think too hard about it, but I admit I am biased as I only need two so researching and putting in tickets isn't something I'm bother with. I do have a few other bnets but their use is very limited and one I only have open because I've been too lazy to pick an account to which to transfer the one toon that's worth something to me.

[Starbuck_Jones]

First off, it's a video game and you will be hard pressed to find any legal process that would take you serious enough to even look at your one off case. An EULA, TOS, Release form, waiver etc will not protect anyone from criminal negligence. These are not binding contracts in any form. In a civil case technically it still won't protect them from anything but civil court plays by it's own rules and a judge could tell you to go F-off for wasting his time and make you pay Blizzard for wasting theirs too. This is where the jury shrugs their shoulders and says you agreed to it.

Your only argument is that you have played WoW this way for years and now they change their TOS, ban you, and kept your unused/prepaid subscription money (you paid based upon an older agreement). And you should win your argument.

There would have to be some sort of mass class action level lawsuit for fraud or something to land this into a criminal court and that's not going to happen either. If you felt wronged, you could file your complaint with the court and that would run you about $90-$120 or so; wait for the lawyers at Blizzard to respond while hoping they don't and you win your argument because they are a no show. Then I guess you could laugh across the internet when the judge awards you less than $15 for the banned time on your subscription. But Blizzard will never pay you the damages.

[harvan]

i dont think it will happen even if it does were planning on going to wildstar.

[ebony]

i dont think it will happen even if it does were planning on going to wildstar.

far as i understand it will not be boxable at all.

[MiRai]

far as i understand it will not be boxable at all.
There is word that it will be:

http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24709#p24709

It's anyone's guess as to how difficult it will be or if it will be frowned upon.

[Lyonheart]

Since it looks like follow and assist are in.. im sure it will be boxable..also.. the healers heals are large circles or cones in front of them.. but I think it should be easy enough to make sure the healer is facing the tank/group for those types of heals. I was going to try this game anyway.. but if its boxable ( and permitted ) that will be that much better.

[ebony]

There is word that it will be:

http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24709#p24709

It's anyone's guess as to how difficult it will be or if it will be frowned upon.

oh i don't go is boxer forums much. and IS2 is soon™ so i did not think it support 64bit annytime.

2nd i got told follow is not in game but that is kinda funny how u can follow npc/pets etc thats asking for s**t in my eyes and i can see it getting removed fast. The other thing would be ITW/CTM i like in wow if there is anything like that could make thing a little harder but it might work.


Maybe its just me but i have no Faith in any new mmo's i given up looking at them getting my hopes it be somthing epic for it to turn into what the others have,

[Multibocks]

I don't see how well you could play a game that requires aiming to hit with your attacks?

[Lyonheart]

I don't see how well you could play a game that requires aiming to hit with your attacks?

Its not precision aiming like a true action game.. its more directional/area of effect type.. and you can lock on to targets ( you can /follow players or mobs ) SO im guessing if your aiming ( as you put it ) at a target with your lead toon.. your other toons will be aiming at the same target.. or close to it. ( just guessing based on available info..might not work at all..we wont know until someone multiboxes it I guess )

[Starbuck_Jones]

I don't see how well you could play a game that requires aiming to hit with your attacks?

Asheron's Call you had to aim any ranged attacks. It kind of tried to auto lead a target but arrows and spells missed all the time. It also allowed for the ability to manually dodge incoming attacks.

[ebony]

this me or did this go off topic so fast...

this was a wow TOS fight to a wildstar can be boxed game?


CONFUSED!

[sethlan]

I knew something is coming- My accounts are inactive for about 20 days+ only 1 account is active, I just sit and wait and see what's gonna happen. I think that one day, follow will be removed. I have no problem to stop multiboxing and leaving WoW for good if something will change and involve to dump more money- by switching battle net accounts and moving chars around.

[Tonuss]

Lawyers accept cases on contingencies all the time. Reasonable doubt ring a bell?
I don't think a lawyer would accept a case like that on a contingency basis. If you sue Blizzard because they closed your bnet account the best you could hope for is to get the account reinstated. To get anything else you would need to prove damages. Either is unlikely because a judge would probably dismiss the case before you finished explaining what you were suing for. And then your lawyer walks away with a percentage of the zero dollars you "won." I can't imagine that there's a lawyer out there who would go through the trouble of starting a class action to get a bunch of gamers their WOW back, for the same reason.

On the other hand, I am sure that there are plenty of lawyers willing to charge a person $400 to write an angry letter to Blizzard on their behalf and another $400 to write a letter back telling them that Blizzard refused to restore the account.

That said, the CYA language in those TOS agreements really shouldn't be allowed, even if it is just an access agreement for a video game. "You agree that we can do whatever we want, for whatever reason we want"? Who do they think they are, the NFL?

[Bradster]

In before Virtual switching and sub-netting to get around this issue guide.

[Khatovar]

In before Virtual switching and sub-netting to get around this issue guide.

This is a TOS-Compliant community and there is a no tolerance policy (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/49138-Dual-Boxing-com-Community-Rules-Read-Before-Posting) here when it comes to discussing ways to circumvent a game's rules.

[Bradster]

This is a TOS-Compliant community and there is a no tolerance policy (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/49138-Dual-Boxing-com-Community-Rules-Read-Before-Posting) here when it comes to discussing ways to circumvent a game's rules.

Subnetting and Virtualization is a common industry standard configuration.
What I took from this change was to provide a better load/performance. This would be the best bet to ensure a smooth transition over paying for two Internet Service Providers.

Unless I skimmed over any official post, identifying the change outside of that reason there would be no conflict of interest and a happy medium for all parties.

[MiRai]

Subnetting and Virtualization is a common industry standard configuration.
What I took from this change was to provide a better load/performance. This would be the best bet to ensure a smooth transition over paying for two Internet Service Providers.

Unless I skimmed over any official post, identifying the change outside of that reason there would be no conflict of interest and a happy medium for all parties.
I'll be honest, I don't know exactly where you're going with this, but...

Blizzard knows how many World of Warcraft and Diablo III licenses can be attached to a single BNet account, so if Blizzard was to enforce the "3 BNet account rule," then they'd immediately know that anyone multiboxing more 24 characters in World of Warcraft or more than 3 characters in Diablo III, would automatically need to be looked into.

No amount of virtual switching or sub-netting is going to get around that.

[Bradster]

I think the issue isn't targeted towards boxers. Perhaps an issue with Bnet account management. Appears its ok to have Multiple Bnet accounts.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7101650625?page=1

You have to forgive me on "BattleNet" That came after my time, its been six years since I've played the game. You had to have a separate account for each back then. Not how that all works now now that Battle-net is part of it. But looks like that is still ok for those worried. Could end up having to pay for transfers to other accounts, perhaps they will provide that free with the change. Least be the right thing to do.

[MiRai]

I think the issue isn't targeted towards boxers. Perhaps an issue with Bnet account management.
I doubt it's targeted at multiboxers as well, but no one knows why it's there except for Blizzard and they've yet to say why.


Appears its ok to have Multiple Bnet accounts.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7101650625?page=1
That thread is from early 2013. The recent change that is being discussed in this thread doesn't take effect until next month.


You have to forgive me on "BattleNet" That came after my time, its been six years since I've played the game. You had to have a separate account for each back then.
You're allowed to play the "old guy" card once. :)

[Bradster]

You're allowed to play the "old guy" card once. :)

What if your old enough that you forgot you used it? :D

[Tonuss]

What if your old enough that you forgot you used it? :D
Well, memory is the second thing to go... :)

[MiRai]

What if your old enough that you forgot you used it? :D
A doctor's note will need to be provided.

[sethlan]

Update: replay from legal at blizzard.com (legal@blizzard.com)

The restriction is related to Battle.net ((Balance)), and that the text in the EULA will be revised in the future such that players may only have Battle.net Balance on no more than three accounts, but there will not be a restriction in the EULA on how many accounts a player can have.

[ebony]

Update: replay from legal at blizzard.com (legal@blizzard.com)

The restriction is related to Battle.net ((Balance)), and that the text in the EULA will be revised in the future such that players may only have Battle.net Balance on no more than three accounts, but there will not be a restriction in the EULA on how many accounts a player can have.

So nothing to worry about. move along.

[zenga]

Well, memory is the second thing to go... :)

First to go is your wife, 2nd is what you had on 1, and 3rd is your memory.

[sethlan]

So nothing to worry about. move along. lol

[HPAVC]

Well that escalated quickly.

We'll see what happens, not much else to do but wait and see if anything DOES happen.

The change just amused me... and the only person I know who does more than 3 bnets was prepared. Mirai is right, it effects <1% of everyone... but part of that 1% is hated by a lot of people here lol.

Tons of people still use separate bnets, if youre not interested in mounts or pets or heirlooms it arguably ideal. Especially if you do PTR (since its one PTR account per BNET) and the get Diablo for free per battlenet was nice if you are into that game.

I don't think people hate prepared, he is a troll, but he is harmless and fun.