Question for those familiar with billing and names and such...

[Vyndree]

Asherons Call (Turbine/Microsoft) allowed the transfer of accounts and sale of items on e-bay for quite some time. I don't know if they ever changed it, but while it was not SUPPORTED, it was certainly allowed.

The problem is exactly that -- the moment a MMO company allows the sale of accounts, then accounts all of a sudden have value.

If accounts and virtual items had monetary value, then they would be taxable. This brings up a slew of new issues.

So, typically, MMOs use the "lease" style strategy where you are leasing the account from them, but they retain ownership. This is why, to my knowledge (which is why I asked), most MMOs do not support account transfer or sale.

The only MMO I know of that had embraced the "virtual goods for real money" was Second Life. And I was under the impression that they were pioneers of that.

[Vyndree]

its his accounts, who says he isnt playing them...

If his brother's name is on the accounts, they are not his accounts.

Sad, but true.

[PyrostasisTDK]

Problem is vyndree, just because the EULA says the accounts dont have value, doesnt make it valid. There have been a number of court cases recently that have counteracted EULA's and ToS's and found them to be flawed.

For instance, just because you sign an agreement that takes away your rights and lets you become my slave, doesnt make it a valid legal document. A lot of language in EULA's and ToS's is such language, granted not as extreme, but same logic.

SoE allows the sale of accounts via the Station Exchange.
Second life and Project Entropia do as well.

UO allows the rampant sale of accounts and gold with no policing, and even sell skilled accounts on their website. Basically, you pay for a headstart.

EvE allows you to buy game time with ISK (in game currency), your also welcome to trade your accounts etc here.

I wasnt trying to be snippy... but as a MMO'er for 10 years, wow is the first company to enforce 1 player per 1 account... its just a drastic change from what Im used to. From a liability stand point it makes sense, its just completely different than the industry standard. Not all companys allow in writing for accounts to change names / hands, but its not stopped.

As for family members... I will say this is the first game that doesnt allow that.

Its their game, and their welcome to do it... just rubs some of us old timers the wrong way.

[PyrostasisTDK]

Sorry... didnt realize we couldnt post opinion here...

No reason to get all pissy.

[Talamarr]

let's stick to facts ok? no presumptions

Fine, but you asked what the likelihood is. How can that be based on fact? If you're looking for actually numbers, I'll bow out.

[PyrostasisTDK]

Did anyone talk about suing blizzard? No...

[Vyndree]

Problem is vyndree, just because the EULA says the accounts dont have value, doesnt make it valid. There have been a number of court cases recently that have counteracted EULA's and ToS's and found them to be flawed.

And I agree, this is definitely a gray area. I wasn't saying it was right, just that the game companies use the strategy to try and prevent themselves from getting sucked into this problem.

That's what I was getting at -- since they don't want to start getting in trouble for not having taxes on their virtual goods, they'll likely put in a clause that prevents selling accounts or in-game items in their terms/eula. Which is why I was under the honest impression that most games did not allow account selling.


Regardless of whether or not the ToU/Eula will hold up in court (and that's a conversation better suited for another forum, or at the very least not this thread), we as a community have our own rule that breaking the ToU/Eula is not to be discussed.

[Xuthus]

let's stick to facts ok? no presumptions

Fine, but you asked what the likelihoodis. How can that be based on fact? If you're looking for actually numbers, I'll bow out.

I was referring to the "I wouldn't be surprised " statement .sorry didn't mean to blaze

[Drizzit]

If you dont' like Blizzard EULA/TOS... GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME.

Yea like Diablo :P

[Sarduci]

For instance, just because you sign an agreement that takes away your rights and lets you become my slave, doesnt make it a valid legal document. A lot of language in EULA's and ToS's is such language, granted not as extreme, but same logic.

Freedom is a basic human right in the USA. You can't sign away your basic human rights in the USA. Therefore, a contract based on that premise is invalid. Playing a video game is not a basic human right, and neither is owning property, real or virtual, a basic human right. Your basic human rights can be suspended or revoked in a Federal court. Rights must be specifically given or specifically taken away from my understanding. Things that are neither of those definitive statuses just have yet to be decided on by a court of law.

The only leg you have to stand on is that they call it a contract, and contracts require a negotiation to happen. Failure to negotiate, ie. demands without a counteroffer, do not meet the legal definition of contract in all states. Feel free to argue that it's all semantics and hairs being split, but that's what the law is, legal interpretations of rules written by someone other than a judge.

Edit:Whoa, hit over three pages while I spent time typing this, sorry if it's been covered.