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

[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]

[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.