PDA

View Full Version : hex tos



ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 11:17 AM
what are the hex terms of service?
op_kyle mentioned them twice today but i cant find them.

jai151
06-21-2013, 11:18 AM
They haven't been publicized (or, likely, finalized) yet, as no one has had to sign anything yet.

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 11:25 AM
thats what i thought to, but it was posted that something(account selling) violated the TOS, so i figured they must exist now if you can violate them.

to be clear i am not for account selling, i just want to know what the legal do's and do not's are so i don't mess up.(clearly account trading bad.) if there are rules, best to ask what they are before flailing blindly.

jai151
06-21-2013, 11:29 AM
thats what i thought to, but it was posted that something(account selling) violated the TOS, so i figured they must exist now if you can violate them.

to be clear i am not for account selling, i just want to know what the legal do's and do not's are so i don't mess up.(clearly account trading bad.) if there are rules, best to ask what they are before flailing blindly.

You have to agree to them before you can break them, and you'll be able to read them before you agree =)

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 11:37 AM
You have to agree to them before you can break them, and you'll be able to read them before you agree =)
i suppose but i had offer and acceptance on this kick starter site for some cool stuff and that site did npt direct me to another legal contract for additional terms, so... additional hidden terms are of interest to me.

ZeroCool
06-21-2013, 11:41 AM
thats what i thought to, but it was posted that something(account selling) violated the TOS, so i figured they must exist now if you can violate them.

to be clear i am not for account selling, i just want to know what the legal do's and do not's are so i don't mess up.(clearly account trading bad.) if there are rules, best to ask what they are before flailing blindly.

This might be assumed right now, and is likely to be implemented once the game launches or when we're able to create our accounts. I think there is a lot of hearsay right now.

jai151
06-21-2013, 11:44 AM
This might be assumed right now, and is likely to be implemented once the game launches. I think there is a lot of hearsay right now.

Well, it was Kyle, so definitely not "assumed," but likely things they know will be in.

ZeroCool
06-21-2013, 11:46 AM
Well, it was Kyle, so definitely not "assumed," but likely things they know will be in.

Right, but until we actually agree to them they're all assumed.

Shadowelf
06-21-2013, 12:00 PM
So we are concerned about TOS, we argue about TOS, we point ppl to the TOS, but there is no TOS? lol ?

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 12:09 PM
It's an interesting situation that you back w/ KS and thereby enter a contract with CZE to get the rewards promised, but then they put a TOS between you and said rewards. My guess is if you don't agree with the TOS you're at least entitled to a refund of the pledge amount.

I'll also say I'm disappointed that account selling is against the TOS. CZE's position that they didn't want to interfere with the secondary market led me to believe they'd be silent on the subject. I certainly understand their desire to not have it on their official forums of course. Blocking account sales entirely however is cutting off a significant path to cash-out from your investment in the game. Or rather, transferring a significant risk to the future buyer of said investment.

Hatts
06-21-2013, 12:14 PM
The first rule of Hex TOS is that you do not speak about Hex TOS ;)

jai151
06-21-2013, 12:18 PM
It's an interesting situation that you back w/ KS and thereby enter a contract with CZE to get the rewards promised, but then they put a TOS between you and said rewards. My guess is if you don't agree with the TOS you're at least entitled to a refund of the pledge amount.

I'll also say I'm disappointed that account selling is against the TOS. CZE's position that they didn't want to interfere with the secondary market led me to believe they'd be silent on the subject. I certainly understand their desire to not have it on their official forums of course. Blocking account sales entirely however is cutting off a significant path to cash-out from your investment in the game. Or rather, transferring a significant risk to the future buyer of said investment.

How is it putting the risk on the buyer? If anything, it's protecting the buyer, as it's much easier to scam the other party as a seller than a buyer. EG: Sell your account, wait for the check to clear, contact CZE and say you were hacked.

Also, there is nothing stopping you from selling every last card and piece of equipment on your account. All that is prevented is selling off the untradeables, your ranking, mercs, sleeves, and kickstarter rewards.

Kami
06-21-2013, 12:23 PM
The main reason that CZE would ban account trading/selling is not due to the market or scamming, etc.

In order for this game to become a competitive game (i.e. eSports level), there has to be at least some way to keep things equal and fair.

By selling or trading an account, you also sell and trade the account's ranking, points, cards and potentially more. This essentially allows the secondary market to buy their way to the top which is ridiculous. Even if it is easily caught, it introduces doubt into the system. Can I trust that I'm playing a 'fair' game against my opponent anymore?

This would kill competitive play on the eSport-scale.

Shadowelf
06-21-2013, 12:31 PM
How is it putting the risk on the buyer? If anything, it's protecting the buyer, as it's much easier to scam the other party as a seller than a buyer. EG: Sell your account, wait for the check to clear, contact CZE and say you were hacked.


TOS indirectly protects the buyers/sellers by not allowing account trades/sales. Buyers can easily however scam sellers too if they wanted to. You pay, get the codes then retract the payment.

Kathy
06-21-2013, 12:32 PM
It's an interesting situation that you back w/ KS and thereby enter a contract with CZE to get the rewards promised, but then they put a TOS between you and said rewards. My guess is if you don't agree with the TOS you're at least entitled to a refund of the pledge amount.

The dirty secret of all Kickstarters is that it's a donation, and you really aren't entitled to anything. There's been a lot of speculation in the press about when the outright million dollar scam is going to get pulled off.

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 12:48 PM
The dirty secret of all Kickstarters is that it's a donation, and you really aren't entitled to anything. There's been a lot of speculation in the press about when the outright million dollar scam is going to get pulled off.

This is a misunderstanding. Kickstarter kind of wants you to think that, and kinda doesn't, and says just about both. But US common law is exceptionally clear on the matter. When someone offers you something, and you accept it and give "consideration" (anything of value, even your time), a contract is formed for them to deliver what was offered. A formal written piece of paper with signatures is just a memorandum of the actual contract, and is not required in most cases, and can even be altered by the courts when it doesn't reflect what was actually agreed to. You'd have a slam dunk in a court case, regardless of Kickstarter's feelings on the matter, if a pledge rewards says "for $X you will get Y" and you paid the $X and didn't get the Y. Now, whether the legal system is accessible enough to actually make it worth your while is another matter. But CZE formed 17,765 contracts when the campaign closed, no doubt about it.

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 12:50 PM
The main reason that CZE would ban account trading/selling is not due to the market or scamming, etc.

In order for this game to become a competitive game (i.e. eSports level), there has to be at least some way to keep things equal and fair.

By selling or trading an account, you also sell and trade the account's ranking, points, cards and potentially more. This essentially allows the secondary market to buy their way to the top which is ridiculous. Even if it is easily caught, it introduces doubt into the system. Can I trust that I'm playing a 'fair' game against my opponent anymore?

This would kill competitive play on the eSport-scale.

As jai151 said, you can already sell all your cards. Selling the account would be to transfer PvE mercenaries, card sleeves, and the various Kickstarter benefits that were offered "for the life of the game" (as opposed to the life of the backer, sort of implying that they could be passed to other people).

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 12:55 PM
How is it putting the risk on the buyer? If anything, it's protecting the buyer, as it's much easier to scam the other party as a seller than a buyer. EG: Sell your account, wait for the check to clear, contact CZE and say you were hacked.

Also, there is nothing stopping you from selling every last card and piece of equipment on your account. All that is prevented is selling off the untradeables, your ranking, mercs, sleeves, and kickstarter rewards.

I was generally thinking that allowing account selling, or even being silent on the matter, would let the buyer contest the seller's attempt to pull the account back by demonstrating to CZE they bought the account. If its against the ToS, the seller can pull it back and the buyer has no one to complain to essentially.

Kami
06-21-2013, 12:56 PM
As jai151 said, you can already sell all your cards. Selling the account would be to transfer PvE mercenaries, card sleeves, and the various Kickstarter benefits that were offered "for the life of the game" (as opposed to the life of the backer, sort of implying that they could be passed to other people).

And as I said, you transfer way more than that. Rankings, ratings will also be sold.

The other things are mostly negligible. If the game takes off, only a very few amount of people will have those life-perks or exclusives. The bigger picture is still competitive fairness in both PvE and especially PvP.

If I'm able to buy someone's high-ranking/rated account, you should be concerned.

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 01:04 PM
And as I said, you transfer way more than that. Rankings, ratings will also be sold.

The other things are mostly negligible. If the game takes off, only a very few amount of people will have those life-perks or exclusives. The bigger picture is still competitive fairness in both PvE and especially PvP.

Sorry, didn't mean to discount your comment. I guess I'm not seeing the issue. If a lousy player buys a Pro-PvPer's account he gets a high ranking which he'll lose rapidly right? What benefit does appearing to be the #1 PvPer do for them? Is the theory it might happen in the middle of a ladder and effectively let the person get a buy into later parts of the tournament by paying a pro player? I may just not be enough of a PvPer to see how it gives an unfair advantage, so by all means educate me.

In PvE, the MMO side, where account selling happens often as a means to cash out on the thousands of hours played, I am more familiar. The fact that very few people will have for-life perks is precisely what makes them highly valuable.

maniza
06-21-2013, 01:06 PM
The main reason that CZE would ban account trading/selling is not due to the market or scamming, etc.

In order for this game to become a competitive game (i.e. eSports level), there has to be at least some way to keep things equal and fair.

By selling or trading an account, you also sell and trade the account's ranking, points, cards and potentially more. This essentially allows the secondary market to buy their way to the top which is ridiculous. Even if it is easily caught, it introduces doubt into the system. Can I trust that I'm playing a 'fair' game against my opponent anymore?

This would kill competitive play on the eSport-scale.

That is actually realy good point and as stated before most of the value of the account is tradeable.

Kami
06-21-2013, 01:13 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to discount your comment. I guess I'm not seeing the issue. If a lousy player buys a Pro-PvPer's account he gets a high ranking which he'll lose rapidly right? What benefit does appearing to be the #1 PvPer do for them? Is the theory it might happen in the middle of a ladder and effectively let the person get a buy into later parts of the tournament by paying a pro player? I may just not be enough of a PvPer to see how it gives an unfair advantage, so by all means educate me.

It has nothing to do with whether a good or bad player purchases a high-ranking/rated PvPer's account. It has to do entirely with the fact that it would make rankings/ratings meaningless.

Let's say if a bad player purchases a #1 ranked account, how long would it take for it to drop down? Or what if the player never plays ranked matches again? How long would he be in the top ten? Or what if a good player purchased accounts in the top ten? Multiple even? Wouldn't he just be stacking the scoreboard in his favour?

It really doesn't have to do with player ability! It's the need for a system that can be trusted.

You could argue the same case for PvE since the format of PvE in this game is different from most MMORPGs.

maniza
06-21-2013, 01:14 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to discount your comment. I guess I'm not seeing the issue. If a lousy player buys a Pro-PvPer's account he gets a high ranking which he'll lose rapidly right? What benefit does appearing to be the #1 PvPer do for them? Is the theory it might happen in the middle of a ladder and effectively let the person get a buy into later parts of the tournament by paying a pro player? I may just not be enough of a PvPer to see how it gives an unfair advantage, so by all means educate me.

In PvE, the MMO side, where account selling happens often as a means to cash out on the thousands of hours played, I am more familiar. The fact that very few people will have for-life perks is precisely what makes them highly valuable.

Here is another senario for you a decent player who has never played hex before buys a top ranked account and gets invited to the world championship, taking another (decent) players spot who actualy earned the right to be there. Or a realy good pro who buys a spot at same tournament and actualy wins it taking a big money price with him. The point is its bad for competitive play to be able to buy or sell rankings.

Refugee
06-21-2013, 01:23 PM
Here is another senario for you a decent player who has never played hex before buys a top ranked account and gets invited to the world championship, taking another (decent) players spot who actualy earned the right to be there. Or a realy good pro who buys a spot at same tournament and actualy wins it taking a big money price with him. The point is its bad for competitive play to be able to buy or sell rankings.

I don't really understand this perspective. Player A is a top player who will get an invite to the world championship. Player B is mediocre. Player B buys player A's account and goes to the world championship. What's the end result?

Player A gets rewarded for their effort put in to be a top player.
Player B gets the invite they wanted.
Player B gets knocked out early because they're mediocre.

No decent player who wanted to go doesn't get to go because of this exchange. Player A is removed from the tournament, player B is added. It is a zero sum exchange. No other player is "knocked out" by Player B's presence, he's simply using the slot otherwise occupied by Player A. The only other individuals effected are those Player B plays at the tournament whom would otherwise play Player A. They assumably now will have easier games.

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 01:24 PM
Yeah, I can see your points, but at least one counterpoint... the invitation that was undeserved only displaced the player who earned it but then chose to sell it. I want rankings to matter certainly, for the people good enough to achieve them, and I suppose it's no surprise then that CZE will make account selling expressly forbidden in the ToS.

League of Legends is probably one of the top eSports, as is Starcraft maybe? The LoL and SC ToS are very clear that you own nothing, they owe you nothing for the money you pay, and they can do anything they want to your account at any time for any reason or no reason at all. But in both cases a quick google search will turn up thousands of accounts for sale ranging from new accounts with "good usernames" up to ranked accounts, early adopters with promo perks, etc. I think the reality is that most people aren't in the top-10 of a game with hundreds of thousands of players, so when the average joe is selling his account it's not about cheating your way into a competitive bracket where you'll just embarass yourself if you ever try to play. It's just about the other side of the economic coin. You pay in thousands of dollars and thousands of hours, and rather than walk away empty handed you receive cash for the value you're surrendering.

Anyway, I'll drop it. I know a lot of people are very passionate about it. As long as CZE doesn't block secondary market sales of cards, boosters and platinum, most players will be able to cash out to some degree. Kickstarter beneficiaries will have to either surrender the exclusive sleeves, exclusive mercenaries, and for-life perks, or just risk the black market.

Kami
06-21-2013, 01:25 PM
I don't really understand this perspective. Player A is a top player who will get an invite to the world championship. Player B is mediocre. Player B buys player A's account and goes to the world championship. What's the end result?

Player A gets rewarded for their effort put in to be a top player.
Player B gets the invite they wanted.
Player B gets knocked out early because they're mediocre.

No decent player who wanted to go doesn't get to go because of this exchange. Player A is removed from the tournament, player B is added. It is a zero sum exchange. No other player is "knocked out" by Player B's presence, he's simply using the slot otherwise occupied by Player A. The only other individuals effected are those Player B plays at the tournament whom would otherwise play Player A. They assumably now will have easier games.

The problem still exists that it hurts the integrity of the games. What's to prevent someone from proxying a player or bringing in a ringer then? This is the same scenario except someone is buying their way in.

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 01:45 PM
this kinda got off track.
In order to sell an account you would need two things, you would need the ability to claim ownership and you would need Cryptozoic to pledge coninue to support the account for the person who you sold it to.
Now, not supporting sold accounts is different from Cryptozoic adding terms and conditions to the deal we already had.
If they will only honor our deal as long as its our deal, that's fine. It is their right to choose whom they enter into contracts with.
If my account is subject to new terms and conditions other then the ones i agreed to on kick starter, I am less fine with that.
We had a deal and no part of that deal was that either of us would get to change it in the future.
personally i kinda want to see the new terms to the deal they want to add before i say i am unhappy with it, and every other backer is free to choose if they feel the same way.

Refugee
06-21-2013, 01:52 PM
The problem still exists that it hurts the integrity of the games. What's to prevent someone from proxying a player or bringing in a ringer then? This is the same scenario except someone is buying their way in.

I agree completely that account sales have the potential to detract from the integrity of a ranking system. I just think an argument of "account sales cause children in China to suffer" (I exaggerate) is spurious. Fact is account sales don't really harm much of anyone (assuming they are legitimate. Obviously scams hurt people).

hex_colin
06-21-2013, 01:56 PM
It's would probably be pretty easy for Cryptozoic to stay completely dissociated from the monetary aspects of an account sale but to allow there to be some way to officially transfer an account. Part of the transfer process could be the reset of any competitive statistics/rankings.

wildcard
06-21-2013, 01:57 PM
deleted

Yoss
06-21-2013, 01:59 PM
The problem still exists that it hurts the integrity of the games. What's to prevent someone from proxying a player or bringing in a ringer then? This is the same scenario except someone is buying their way in.
How does preventing account sale prevent proxying? It doesn't. You can easily have someone else sign into your account and play for you, regardless of what the TOS says. I'm not saying proxying is good or bad, but it is not relevant to the current discussion.


I want rankings to matter certainly, for the people good enough to achieve them, and I suppose it's no surprise then that CZE will make account selling expressly forbidden in the ToS.
If CZE allowed transfer, they could reset rankings upon transfer. Then the only way to transfer rankings would be black market sale. (hex_collin beat me to this point)

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 02:03 PM
EVE has a mechanism for transferring characters on your account to other accounts, they even collect a fee. I love this idea for Hex. Transfer, even with a fee, and reset of rankings/current PvP tournament status, etc. Those things are more clearly tied to an individual natural person than exclusive sleeves.

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 02:04 PM
It's would probably be pretty easy for Cryptozoic to stay completely dissociated from the monetary aspects of an account sale but to allow there to be some way to officially transfer an account. Part of the transfer process could be the reset of any competitive statistics/rankings.

it could, but they don't have to honor the agreement you made with them with a third party.
Cryptozoic did say that rewards for kickstarter will not be available at a later time. them honoring that means that they do not support kickstarter benefits being acquired after kickstarter.
if i sold my account(which i will never do) the person who bought it would be acquiring my grandking benefits AFTER the date by which cryptozoic said they would not allow people to acquire kickstarter benefits. So at that point Crypto should kill the account, to honor the promise it made to all of us during the kickstarter.

you cant sell kickstarter accounts because cryptozoic will not let new people get access to the exclusive stuff that they promised would be backers only. that's fine and them keeping their word.

it also has nothing to do with TOS. which is why OP_Kyle's statement is so confusing.

Miwa
06-21-2013, 02:47 PM
Until they have an account for you to sign up for, it's open season. Your KS account isn't bound by their TOS. PayPal purchases can be though. CZE would likely have to delivered promised goods for the KS stuff, due to KS TOS.

It's up to KS to decide how they'd handle KS accounts being sold. So get all your account trading in before alpha. :P

Gorgol
06-21-2013, 03:10 PM
if i sold my account(which i will never do) the person who bought it would be acquiring my grandking benefits AFTER the date by which cryptozoic said they would not allow people to acquire kickstarter benefits.

If I buy Collector Tier AA cards off the AH, I am acquiring that tiers benefits AFTER the date by which cryptozoic said they would not allow people to acquire kickstarter benefits. Does this mean those AA cards are account bound?

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 03:17 PM
If I buy Collector Tier AA cards off the AH, I am acquiring that tiers benefits AFTER the date by which cryptozoic said they would not allow people to acquire kickstarter benefits. Does this mean those AA cards are account bound?

you are not. the specif tier benefits are acquiring the cards annually for free.

Shadowelf
06-21-2013, 03:18 PM
If I buy Collector Tier AA cards off the AH, I am acquiring that tiers benefits AFTER the date by which cryptozoic said they would not allow people to acquire kickstarter benefits. Does this mean those AA cards are account bound?

He taliking about KS benefits to accounts (lifetime perks ); everything else besides mercs and sleeves is tradeable and not account bound;

Gorgol
06-21-2013, 03:33 PM
He taliking about KS benefits to accounts (lifetime perks ); everything else besides mercs and sleeves is tradeable and not account bound;

So Collector tiers get no lifetime perk? Or you mean Collector tier is the only lifetime perk you can sell and others can acquire after game begins?

Shadowelf
06-21-2013, 03:38 PM
So Collector tiers get no lifetime perk? Or you mean Collector tier is the only lifetime perk you can sell and others can acquire after game begins?

I mean that u acquire those cards off the aH and not the benefit of having them transfered to ur account for free for the life of the game. So in essence u bought the fruit and not the tree

DreamPuppet
06-21-2013, 03:54 PM
League of Legends is probably one of the top eSports, as is Starcraft maybe? The LoL and SC ToS are very clear that you own nothing, they owe you nothing for the money you pay, and they can do anything they want to your account at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

And here enters the naughty evil monkey in the room when it comes to anything digital.

The company is selling you what they call trading cards but in the end you own nothing because they're not trading cards they're X's and O's on computer software that they created and own. I don't see Wizards of the west coast coming to peoples houses to take back their cards, but i can see Crypto doing it if they so wish because it will be in the TOS that everything belongs to them.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 04:11 PM
I don't see Wizards of the west coast coming to peoples houses to take back their cards, but i can see Crypto doing it if they so wish because it will be in the TOS that everything belongs to them.

The issue here is that there is no TOS at the moment and a contract has already been formed via offer, acceptance and consideration. At some point before launch, they are going to have to say here is our TOS please agree to it before we give you the rewards you paid for.

At that point I hope we as a group read the TOS carefully, rather than just rushing in to play the shiny alpha. As the XBOX 180 has shown, the community can affect the business decisions of large companies.

If the TOS comes out and says 'you own nothing, we can ban you at will for no reason, we can do what we want' I hope i wont be the only one to see the similarity with being told how I can use my games (licence not ownership) and digital collectable cards (again licence not ownership).

Malicus
06-21-2013, 04:13 PM
And here enters the naughty evil monkey in the room when it comes to anything digital.

The company is selling you what they call trading cards but in the end you own nothing because they're not trading cards they're X's and O's on computer software that they created and own. I don't see Wizards of the west coast coming to peoples houses to take back their cards, but i can see Crypto doing it if they so wish because it will be in the TOS that everything belongs to them.

This is standard fare and the "sky is falling" they are just going to take everything and run idea is somewhat ludicrous. As far as Crypto Vs Wizards. MtG:O probably has the exact same ToS every other online game has, unless they specifically agree to give a physical copy of every MtG:O card if they shut that side down you would be in the same position either way.

Its true that Crypto arent selling us paper cards which is fine because we are not paying for paper cards. Digital isn't new, this game will be around as long as people are interested in playing it. Given the type of community we seem to have even if Crypto was going bankrupt I am confident someone would pick up the rights and keep some servers running.

Malicus
06-21-2013, 04:17 PM
The issue here is that there is no TOS at the moment and a contract has already been formed via offer, acceptance and consideration. At some point before launch, they are going to have to say here is our TOS please agree to it before we give you the rewards you paid for.

At that point I hope we as a group read the TOS carefully, rather than just rushing in to play the shiny alpha. As the XBOX 180 has shown, the community can affect the business decisions of large companies.

If the TOS comes out and says 'you own nothing, we can ban you at will for no reason, we can do what we want' I hope i wont be the only one to see the similarity with being told how I can use my games (licence not ownership) and digital collectable cards (again licence not ownership).

The alternative that someone can't be held accountable is far worse in my opinion. Crypto is absolutely going to set the terms of how you play THEIR game. I backed because I believe they will deliver a game I want to play.

Kami
06-21-2013, 04:21 PM
How does preventing account sale prevent proxying? It doesn't. You can easily have someone else sign into your account and play for you, regardless of what the TOS says. I'm not saying proxying is good or bad, but it is not relevant to the current discussion.

You missed the context.

Someone was arguing how someone would buy their way in and get invited to a tournament in-person. My point was that if that was allowed, what's to prevent someone at the tournament from using a proxy or ringer since it's pretty much the same thing except that a person bought their way in instead of being 'used'.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 04:38 PM
The alternative that someone can't be held accountable is far worse in my opinion. Crypto is absolutely going to set the terms of how you play THEIR game. I backed because I believe they will deliver a game I want to play.

I agree that they should be able to set the terms and especially deal with bots and cheaters etc. The problem I have is that the way companies tend to assert their rights these days is by covering their TOS with at least 40 pages of mumbo jumbo which boils down to you have no rights and the only recent change I've heard of is when sony decides to make you agree to give up the right to file a joint suit too.

It would be awesome if Crypto did the brave thing and had a TOS that was in plain english and designed to be actually read, not designed to be so long that no one bothers reading it. Also it would be great if they found a line between 'you own nothing' and physical ownership. I get that I wont own these cards in the same way as physical objects but a licence doesn't = lack of ownership, it means limited ownership and no where is that distinction more important than in a digital collectable card game.

Miwa
06-21-2013, 04:58 PM
TOS are in "mumbo jumbo" because that's the only thing that's enforcible. Legalese is the way it is in order to be precise, and complete. "Plain English" leaves too much ambiguity and wiggle room. And legalese isn't really that bad anyway, just people these days live in the tl;dr world.

Malicus
06-21-2013, 05:09 PM
TOS are in "mumbo jumbo" because that's the only thing that's enforcible. Legalese is the way it is in order to be precise, and complete. "Plain English" leaves too much ambiguity and wiggle room. And legalese isn't really that bad anyway, just people these days live in the tl;dr world.

Have to agree. People complain when things are precise because its not how (most) people talk but ambiguity is dangerous for a company, they cant assume everyone will play nice.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 05:14 PM
TOS are in "mumbo jumbo" because that's the only thing that's enforcible. Legalese is the way it is in order to be precise, and complete. "Plain English" leaves too much ambiguity and wiggle room. And legalese isn't really that bad anyway, just people these days live in the tl;dr world.

No, its because thats the way its always been done. Also solicitors used to get paid by the foot (of parchment produced) and so they used the most convoluted phrasing possible (soon everyone decided that how law should sound and judgements then required a legal dictionary and a through grounding in latin to interpret). Many countries are now successfully moving away from that in favor of plain english.

There is nothing wrong with putting words in plain english, the whole point of a contract is that its parties agreeing to something - anything that is plainly agreed upon will therefore be enforceable. On the other hand, anything that is deliberately obtuse in its phrasing may in fact be harder to enforce as the courts will generally interpret the words against the interests of the party that wrote the terms if there is any ambiguity.

fido_one
06-21-2013, 05:32 PM
For open source SLAs:

http://www.tldrlegal.com/

I can't find any for other things (such as games, etc.) but I'm pretty sure one or two sites exist and are driven by the community.

The points that people make here are right, you need the legal crap for liability, but I think it can live side by side with a plain english translation. There are one or two semi-popular services that do this but I can't for the life of me remember what they are.

As an IT manager, I tell people 'if I had my education and career to do over for the role I am in now, I'd have gotten my degree in law, as I spend more and more time each week deciphering SLAs [and ToSs] than doing technical things or managing.' <- Like it or not, it's just the way the world is working these days.

DreamPuppet
06-21-2013, 05:56 PM
Its true that Crypto arent selling us paper cards which is fine because we are not paying for paper cards. Digital isn't new, this game will be around as long as people are interested in playing it. Given the type of community we seem to have even if Crypto was going bankrupt I am confident someone would pick up the rights and keep some servers running.

Eventually every HEX card will be deleted from existence, that is just a fact. Nobody can say when that is but HEX is certainly not to be viewed as anything other than entertainment, unlike magic which you can actually collect something that if taken care of will still be around in 500 years.

Physical things can be collectibles, you can't own or collect anything digital as they do not actually exist and will be gone as soon as crypto stops making a profit with HEX.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 06:20 PM
I hope Crypto remember their fan's first policy and try to design a TOS that they would be happy to accept (if they were not also the ones in charge ;) ) My fear is that being a mainly physical game maker, they will just do what ever their lawyer tells them to do RE TOS and we will end up with a standard 'you have no rights' for no reason other than habit on the lawyer's part.

If they dont, people will forever be able to say not only will your cards be eventually deleted but they could disappear at any time as you dont actually own them no matter how much money you have spent on them.

Pretty hard to sell that to a potential player..

fido_one
06-21-2013, 06:42 PM
If they dont, people will forever be able to say not only will your cards be eventually deleted but they could disappear at any time as you dont actually own them no matter how much money you have spent on them.


As much as I truly wish we lived in a different world, my guess is CZE would do themselves a big disservice if they designed their ToS any other way than restrictive. I hope that CZE will live by its principles but I expect them to do so in practice and not in their ToS. People are the problem - if their ToS isn't tight, they'll get sued.

Yoss
06-21-2013, 07:04 PM
Sorry in advance for the long post. This is a popular thread!


And here enters the naughty evil monkey in the room when it comes to anything digital.

The company is selling you what they call trading cards but in the end you own nothing because they're not trading cards they're X's and O's on computer software that they created and own. I don't see Wizards of the west coast coming to peoples houses to take back their cards, but i can see Crypto doing it if they so wish because it will be in the TOS that everything belongs to them.
Which is a total load of crap.


The issue here is that there is no TOS at the moment and a contract has already been formed via offer, acceptance and consideration. At some point before launch, they are going to have to say here is our TOS please agree to it before we give you the rewards you paid for.

At that point I hope we as a group read the TOS carefully, rather than just rushing in to play the shiny alpha. As the XBOX 180 has shown, the community can affect the business decisions of large companies.

If the TOS comes out and says 'you own nothing, we can ban you at will for no reason, we can do what we want' I hope i wont be the only one to see the similarity with being told how I can use my games (licence not ownership) and digital collectable cards (again licence not ownership).
Exactly. If they try to pull something like this on us, I want my $500 bucks back.


This is standard fare and the "sky is falling" they are just going to take everything and run idea is somewhat ludicrous.
It doesn't matter if it's ludicrous. Let's say they put it in writing and force you to sign it in order to play. If it's so ludicrous, why force a contract on it?


The alternative that someone can't be held accountable is far worse in my opinion.
"Ban at will for no reason" and "ban at will given that you break any of the following enumerated rules" are two very different things. They can maintain accountability without being draconian.


You missed the context.

Someone was arguing how someone would buy their way in and get invited to a tournament in-person. My point was that if that was allowed, what's to prevent someone at the tournament from using a proxy or ringer since it's pretty much the same thing except that a person bought their way in instead of being 'used'.
You're right, I did misunderstand, sorry. Luckily, the discussion has already moved on from this point and we've (I think) agreed that transfer would wipe out ratings and rankings.


I agree that they should be able to set the terms and especially deal with bots and cheaters etc. The problem I have is that the way companies tend to assert their rights these days is by covering their TOS with at least 40 pages of mumbo jumbo which boils down to you have no rights and the only recent change I've heard of is when sony decides to make you agree to give up the right to file a joint suit too.

It would be awesome if Crypto did the brave thing and had a TOS that was in plain english and designed to be actually read, not designed to be so long that no one bothers reading it. Also it would be great if they found a line between 'you own nothing' and physical ownership. I get that I wont own these cards in the same way as physical objects but a licence doesn't = lack of ownership, it means limited ownership and no where is that distinction more important than in a digital collectable card game.
THIS!


Physical things can be collectibles, you can't own or collect anything digital as they do not actually exist and will be gone as soon as crypto stops making a profit with HEX.
Unless they let you download your stuff before they shut down. The logistics of such a thing might be awkward, but it's an interesting idea anyway.


People are the problem - if their ToS isn't tight, they'll get sued.
Who says their ToS won't be "tight" if they don't copy the crap that everyone else tries to pull? Doing something new doesn't have to mean that it's crap. (If it did, none of us would be backing this game, given that it's something new.) Doing something different just means you have to put in more effort to make sure it's right.


EDIT:
I've spent thousands of dollars on MTG. I backed Hex as a replacement for that hobby, with an expectation that they would be upholding the spirit of what Cory's said in interviews regarding investor/trader value retention. If they're going to go back on that, I'll just go back to spending my money on MTG. (And that means I'll lobby my friends to bail as well. One of the main draws of Hex for me is being able to more easily game with my friends and family.)

But man, that sounds horrible! I don't want Hex to be that way! I want this thing to rock the gaming world for the next two decades. It just seems so short sighted of them to fight the free market approach on this.

fido_one
06-21-2013, 07:11 PM
Who says their ToS won't be "tight" if they don't copy the crap that everyone else tries to pull? Doing something new doesn't have to mean that it's crap. (If it did, none of us would be backing this game, given that it's something new.) Doing something different just means you have to put in more effort to make sure it's right.

I wasn't arguing that they should or shouldn't go with what everyone else does, I was responding to Beastmaster's comment that they should or can design a ToS that makes people happy. ToS are designed to restrict and strip away rights from the buyer... as they should because if they aren't tight the buyer will sue over something stupid.

Especially regarding a TCG community that bases their play on reading into intricate detail every rule on their cards and then designs a deck to exploit those rules.

On making it 'easy to read' and preventing themselves from liability, I believe people have made good comments on why it's kind of hard to have both in the same ToS, but they can have a legalese ToS and an 'unofficial' plain english translation side by side.

Yoss
06-21-2013, 07:27 PM
In that case, I agree with you. They need to have a well written ToS. The primary debate will be what's in the ToS (with an assumption it's written well to prevent abuse).

fido_one
06-21-2013, 07:32 PM
In that case, I agree with you. They need to have a well written ToS. The primary debate will be what's in the ToS (with an assumption it's written well to prevent abuse).

To add to this I think it's going to be damn hard for CZE to do their ToS - I've always seen TCG games as a practice in reading legalease albeit in a fun and addictive way. The game is all about exploiting rules. My guess is writing a ToS for our demographic is going to be a nightmare.

ShadowTycho
06-21-2013, 07:39 PM
I've spent thousands of dollars on MTG. I backed Hex as a replacement for that hobby, with an expectation that they would be upholding the spirit of what Cory's said in interviews regarding investor/trader value retention. If they're going to go back on that, I'll just go back to spending my money on MTG. (And that means I'll lobby my friends to bail as well. One of the main draws of Hex for me is being able to more easily game with my friends and family.)

But man, that sounds horrible! I don't want Hex to be that way! I want this thing to rock the gaming world for the next two decades. It just seems so short sighted of them to fight the free market approach on this.
this is what i was really trying to get at. I am in at a investment on this.


I do not want Crypto to not have a terms of service, i really want them to protect their butts(and by extension my game!!!)
what i do want however is them to give us the terms of service so we can look over them and consider them.
some people will not be happy with whatever they come up with. some people will expect everything they bought at this point to be property they can trade rather then a service they have contracted from crypto to make this wonderful game.
I really don't expect to own the cards on Cryptozoic server for example.
It would be awesome if rather then banning people they created locked accounts that could only trade cards away, so even if you were banned you still had access to your collection(since Cory said they can roll back ill gotten gains)and could sell.
is this going to happen? probably not.

I dont want to speculate on what the TOS will be though.
Cryptozoic needs to either present us with what they will be or post what it is thinking for some community feedback.

I would urge those interested to request this in a email from Cryptozoic. nicely.
its important. it should not be left until the last minute.
And when we as a community see them for the first time we need to remember that the people we are dealing with do not have any animosity for us.

Avignon
06-21-2013, 08:57 PM
So the short of all this from what I can gather is people are upset because

A. They wanted to sell their account (specifically something like Grand King which will be worth bucket loads potentially) when in a few years they decide to bail out.

B. They have stocked up on kickstarter tiers and want to sell them on their online store for 4 times the price after release.

C. They want to pay to win by getting a high ranked account.


For anyone in the A category, you can still sell your collection. Admittedly I am a bit annoyed that I can't sell the kickstarter bonuses down the track, but that's if they didn't do that then B would run riot.

For anyone in the B category, offload them now imo. If you are made to register with a credit card come account creation, you will be stuck with all of them (which I sincerely hope they do and put a time limit on it). I am sure at least 1 person will have done this and will come in crying when it all turns to crap because they tried to profiteer off the community,.

For anyone in the C category, learn to play.

The way I look at it, the kickstarter is the reward for YOU. This means, not the person you will sell it to in a month or year or anyone else, just you. People think its for the account, that is incorrect imo.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 09:59 PM
I really have to disagree.

People are upset because

A OP_Kyle said something based on being against their TOS, which is the first any of us backers have heard about the TOS and we are in aan unusual situation of having a completed contract in place without any Crypto TOS just the KS one that says they are bound to deliver the promised rewards if they have any possible way of doing so.

B DRM and 'ownership' of digital goods is a hot topic right now with microsoft getting owned in the Xbox 180 fiasco. If we are given the TOS before the Alpha (and we should be), read it and decide en-mass that it is going to screw us over, and therefore dont accept it, Crypto will be forced to alter it or return all the money (a disaster). Now I think Corey and Crypto are awesome and are unlikely to try and screw us over with the TOS but lawers are all a-holes (I should know im studying law) and so its a non zero possibility that the TOS will not support HEX operating as a collectable and trading card game due to not allowing people to collect or trade securely and without breaking the rules.

Take banning for instance - if you were to directly port the banning system from a physical TCG, it would mean no more tournaments for the banned person. Thats all - no loss of cards and still able to play casually with friends. Whereas the standard banning from a MMORPG is to delete the account as there is no 'real money' lost, just in game items. That might have been true when MMOs first came out but it is not anymore and it is even less true for HEX.

So I would like to see for example a guarantee that your cards will not be 'confiscated' or your account deleted unless you have acted fraudulently and then still limit the confiscation to cards that you have not legitimately paid for unless the fraud is very serious. This is so that 'Timmy' who buys a card outside of hex from someone kind of dodgy but without actual knowledge of what that guy is doing wont loose all his other cards too if the guy turns out to be botting, unless Timmy does it again after being caught or is a botter himself.

blitz1442
06-21-2013, 10:36 PM
Since I brought up the League of Legends TOS, I thought I'd mention I thought it was in pretty plain English -- http://na.leagueoflegends.com/legal/termsofuse

Some highlights:

RIOT GAMES RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU, AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND TO YOU. Additionally, Riot Games may stop offering and/or supporting the Game at any time.


When using the Game, you may accumulate in-Game assets associated with your Account, including, without limitation, objects, artifacts, currency, items, equipment, and/or other value or status indicators (“Game Assets”) that reside on servers operated by Riot Games as data. You acknowledge and agree that such Game Assets are accumulated as part of your Account and therefore you shall have no ownership or other property interest in any of those Game Assets. You further acknowledge and agree that Riot Games has the right, but not the obligation, to delete, alter, move, remove, or transfer any and all Game Assets, in whole or in part, at any time and for any reason, with or without notice to you, and with no liability of any kind to you. Riot Games does not provide or guarantee, and expressly disclaims any value, cash or otherwise, attributed to any data residing on servers operated by Riot Games, including without limitation the Game Assets associated with your Account.


NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN YOUR 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 RIOT GAMES. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO CLAIM, RIGHT, TITLE, OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE GAME ASSETS, VIRTUAL ITEMS OR RIOT POINTS THAT YOU ACQUIRE, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSIDERATION OFFERED OR PAID IN EXCHANGE FOR RIOT POINTS OR VIRTUAL ITEMS. FURTHERMORE, RIOT GAMES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE IN ANY MANNER FOR THE DESTRUCTION, DELETION, MODIFICATION, IMPAIRMENT, “HACKING,” OR ANY OTHER DAMAGE OR LOSS OF ANY KIND CAUSED TO THE GAME ASSETS, VIRTUAL ITEMS OR RIOT POINTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DELETION OF GAME ASSETS, VIRTUAL ITEMS OR RIOT POINTS UPON THE TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION OF YOUR ACCOUNT.

... Doesn't get any more clear than that. Let's hope CZE's ToS has a little more respect, but that is certainly the plain English everyone is hoping to see.

Beastmaster
06-21-2013, 11:57 PM
+1 to you sir, plain english doesn't always mean better but at least its honest and straight forward.

The only thing worse that having this as a TOS would be having a lengthy TOS with the same ultimate meaning but designed to hide that meaning behind complex phrasing.

If that was the Crypto TOS, I would have serious thoughts about accepting it despite the awesomeness of the game and the honesty projected by Crypto and Corey in their videos.

The first point I would make is that a TOS is only enforceable as far as it complies with other laws (including consumer protection laws) someone already commented in another thread about the value of Pro player that a recent case in Europe clarified that people have a right to buy second hand games and and the new legitimate owner even re-download them from the manufacturer's site if bought online for instance. That was just an example as Crypto is based in the US but i think that the clause 'you shall have no interest in riot points regardless of consideration paid' would never stand up in court and so adds nothing to the TOS. Despite this it is common practice to put as many clauses like this as possible into the TOS just in case one of them does stand up - if it doesn't, the rest of the TOS still stands and the company loses nothing from having it in there in the first place. (except goodwill)

Secondly I agree that Crypto has to protect itself from liability (like people trying to sue when a card is nerfed or banned after they paid real money for it) and should protect itself from class action suits that would bankrupt the company (like the sony hacking scandal) and needs to be able to implement its system of rollbacks etc to deal with botting and abuse of the system for personal gain. However, I think that it is the wrong approach to do this by saying everybody has no rights - IRL this is known as sovereign risk (the risk that a country will just confiscate your property on a whim) and is a major deterrent to investing. A clear set of rules with specified consequences and some form of (limited) property rights in the cards that you own is how it works in the real world and there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't work here too.

MTG went as far as to make a no-reprint list to give players the confidence to invest large amounts of real money in a TCG - I would view a fair TOS that enshrined some basic player rights to be the equivalent step for HEX to take and I hope they do so.

Either way if they are going to quote the TOS, then I would appreciate it if they told us what it is first... (and that doesnt mean in the pop up window seconds before alpha when everyone is so desperate to play that they would sign away their soul without a second glance ;) )

Malicus
06-22-2013, 01:03 AM
The problem with a limited ToS targeting specific infractions is it needs to foresee every exploit or perversion of the system or by its nature accept anything it failed to foresee.

I would prefer a standard ToS which has broad powers and trust Crypto to enforce them fairly. I invested my money because I do trust them, but as I have trusted them with my future collection I want to make sure they have the powers necessary to protect it from abuse.

I honestly have no issue with not being able to sell my account in the future. I supported the game because I wanted to play and I saw myself playing for a long time, I had thought about the possibility of selling my account down the line but I had pretty much dismissed it.

In some ways I see my accounts as an extension of myself and the idea of someone else playing it actually bothers me. I supported the game and I receive lifetime rewards as compensation for that support, I don't think they need to give me the right to transfer this obligation down the line.

EntropyBall
06-22-2013, 07:00 AM
I've spent thousands of dollars on MTG. I backed Hex as a replacement for that hobby, with an expectation that they would be upholding the spirit of what Cory's said in interviews regarding investor/trader value retention. If they're going to go back on that, I'll just go back to spending my money on MTG. (And that means I'll lobby my friends to bail as well. One of the main draws of Hex for me is being able to more easily game with my friends and family.)

But man, that sounds horrible! I don't want Hex to be that way! I want this thing to rock the gaming world for the next two decades. It just seems so short sighted of them to fight the free market approach on this.

This is pretty much where I'm at on this. I own 1 PP tier, I bought it to play it rather than sell it, but I also bought it with the expectation that it would have a resell value if I decide to get out of the game down the road. I also got 2 friends into the game who bought a DC tier with the expectation that part of its long-term value (over a King tier) would be its unique benefit. This tier (and RL and GL), unlike a PP tier, is a completely worthless bonus once you stop playing. If I quit and can't sell my account, I can always just log in once a week and rare draft for platinum that I later sell. The Collector tier maintains just about all of its value with account sales being prohibited.

To me, this was not an unavoidable choice. People have enumerated some pretty simple systems for legal account transfer that would address every concern brought up in this thread. As far as I can tell, the restriction on selling an account is only to make CZE a little more money by cutting out a little portion of the secondary market (or they don't want to spend the time/money to code a system for legal account xfer).

I guess one concern that I haven't seen fully addressed is that allowing account xfers opens up the door for account scams/theft. If someone gets your account and then "legally" xfers it to themselves, it will be hard to prove it was stolen. With a straight prohibition on account transfer, it will always be clear that the account belongs to the original owner.

ossuary
06-22-2013, 07:11 AM
I'd just like to point out that, while it's true a Kickstarter pledge amounts to what the US courts would consider a "binding verbal contract," it's important to remember that that contract is between Crypto, and YOU. Not between Crypto and whoever logs into the email address you supplied at the time you created the Kickstarter account.

It is absolutely NOT a violation of Kickstarter's policies, or the US legal system's definition of binding contracts, for Crypto to state that the contracted items are non-transferrable. Numerous businesses, especially ones which deal in digital goods, have successfully defended the "licenced" aspect of digital goods (vs straight-up ownership). Whether or not the individual players feel this is a fair definition is not, strictly speaking, relevant. The fact remains that such contract stipulations are LEGAL, even if they are not completely 100% popular with the community.

Of course, all of this is complicated by the fact that US law is woefully behind the times as it pertains to the digital world, and various judges and courts have treated these matters in both very forward thinking and also very draconian manners, depending on their personal or political leanings. The law is in desperate need of modernization... but that's an entirely different conversation.

I would absolutely love it if there was a way to guarantee ownership of our digital goods forever. But until that happens, I'll content myself with playing a great game and enjoying an excellent community. I'm not overly concerned about being screwed out of what's owed to me by Crypto. And I certainly don't think that their ToS, whatever it turns out to contain, will invalidate or negate any of the Kickstarter rewards that we are entitled to.

I think the conversation on the legality / fairness of all this is a separate issue from the discussion on the secondary market and whether or not certain aspects of it are good for business or good for the customers. I've thought about this a lot over the last 12 hours, and I honestly can't decide whether or not I would like to see account transfers being allowed. There are definitely pros and cons on both sides. It's a puzzler!

wildcard
06-22-2013, 08:39 AM
I'd just like to point out that, while it's true a Kickstarter pledge amounts to what the US courts would consider a "binding verbal contract," it's important to remember that that contract is between Crypto, and YOU. Not between Crypto and whoever logs into the email address you supplied at the time you created the Kickstarter account.

It is absolutely NOT a violation of Kickstarter's policies, or the US legal system's definition of binding contracts, for Crypto to state that the contracted items are non-transferrable. Numerous businesses, especially ones which deal in digital goods, have successfully defended the "licenced" aspect of digital goods (vs straight-up ownership). Whether or not the individual players feel this is a fair definition is not, strictly speaking, relevant. The fact remains that such contract stipulations are LEGAL, even if they are not completely 100% popular with the community.

True, but two things - (1) you can assign your half of a contract by selling it to other people. It's called assignment. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assignment-of-contract-basics-32643.html (interestingly you need to inform CZE of the assignment, but updating the e-mail address to which they are to send alpha/beta invites and coupon codes or whatever is probably sufficient... they don't even have people's real names yet, only the KS account that pledged, and the ability to e-mail those accounts through the Kickstarter system. You will provide your e-mail when they send out the post-campaign surveys); and (2) the terms of the Kickstarter had no such claims of non-transferability when we entered into the agreement. It sounds like they will have them in their ToS, but no one has agreed to that yet. So to date, the KS account selling that is happening elsewhere on the Internet appears perfectly legal to me.

tautologico
06-22-2013, 08:42 AM
It seems some people don't really understand what's a Kickstarter. CZE putting up terms of service that you don't agree with is one of the risks, because none of the terms were specified in advance. CZE never said that accounts could be sold, so if they forbid it they're not breaking any "contracts".


I backed X amount of money into this Kickstarter under the expectation that I would be able to sell account(s)

As I said CZE never said accounts could be sold, so you made an assumption and risked your money based on this assumption. You can't blame CZE if they don't allow it.


If they ban account selling from the TOS I want my money back.

Sorry, the only thing CZE is (however minimally so) bound by the Kickstarter is delivering the game, as stated in the project page. I don't see "you'll be able to sell your accounts with your exclusive Kickstarter benefits" anywhere on the project page. The rewards were meant for backers, not for resellers. If the game is delivered I don't think anyone has grounds for asking for a refund just for not agreeing with the TOS.

Yoss
06-22-2013, 08:48 AM
CZE never said accounts could be sold
I don't remember if Cory actually said it explicitly, but he strongly implied it in one of the interviews where he was talking about protecting investor value and the secondary market.

@EntropyBall:
I love your post in general. I have just a couple comments.


As far as I can tell, the restriction on selling an account is only to make CZE a little more money by cutting out a little portion of the secondary market (or they don't want to spend the time/money to code a system for legal account xfer).
There is no reason they couldn't and shouldn't make a small profit off of an official account transfer system and an official Plat-to-$US system.


I guess one concern that I haven't seen fully addressed is that allowing account xfers opens up the door for account scams/theft. If someone gets your account and then "legally" xfers it to themselves, it will be hard to prove it was stolen. With a straight prohibition on account transfer, it will always be clear that the account belongs to the original owner.
If they make an official system, I would assume the fees would cover the cost of checking to make sure that transfers were mutually agreed upon before execution.

Here's my rough draft of a possible process.


CZE makes an official account transfer system, along with a system for converting Plat to $US. As part of an account transfer, all data associated with the previous human owner will be wiped and replaced by the new one. This means all ratings and rankings will be reset. They would also flag the account in some manner to show to other players that it has been transferred. All accountability for the relationship is maintained and transferred to the new owner, who has to sign the TOS just like the original owner did. Also, to cover their costs and risks, and to make a small profit, they would charge a fee for the transfer.

The transfer process could be like this:
1) Seller lists on the RMAH in a section dedicated for the purpose.
2) Buyer wins the auction.
3) CZE sends confirmation emails to both parties, who have 7 days to respond. If either party does not respond, the transaction does not occur. Part of the email could include a reassertion of the TOS if necessary, though by merit of both players being on the RMAH, they should both already be bound by the TOS.
4) A CZE employee (not a script) performs the account transfer, making sure everything looks clean. During this process, all ratings and rankings are reset, and the account transfer is put in a log file for the account. For some duration (maybe 90 days), the account name will have an icon (or change color, whatever) to indicate to other players that ownership has changed.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 08:48 AM
It seems some people don't really understand what's a Kickstarter. CZE putting up terms of service that you don't agree with is one of the risks, because none of the terms were specified in advance. CZE never said that accounts could be sold, so if they forbid it they're not breaking any "contracts".

As I said CZE never said accounts could be sold, so you made an assumption and risked your money based on this assumption. You can't blame CZE if they don't allow it.

Sorry, the only thing CZE is (however minimally so) bound by the Kickstarter is delivering the game, as stated in the project page. I don't see "you'll be able to sell your accounts with your exclusive Kickstarter benefits" anywhere on the project page. The rewards were meant for backers, not for resellers. If the game is delivered I don't think anyone has grounds for asking for a refund just for not agreeing with the TOS.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but there's not much legal reasoning going on in your post. You can't offer to sell something, and after someone accepts tell them there are additional terms to the sale they didn't know about, and when they don't agree, refuse to give them what they bought or their money back.

Putting the ToS up in front of the game (which everyone should have, but didn't necessarily HAVE to have expected) is a new agreement. If you accept the contract proceeds as before. If you don't accept, then they will likely be legally obligated to refund your pledge.

Also I don't think putting "no account selling" in the Terms of Service is a breach of the Kickstarter contract. But refusing to let you have the game, and refusing to let you have your money back, unless you agree to the ToS is. Clearly.

tautologico
06-22-2013, 08:54 AM
I don't remember if Cory actually said it explicitly, but he strongly implied it in one of the interviews where he was talking about protecting investor value and the secondary market.


Almost everything in your account is tradeable and you can sell. Unless this game is a failure, most players won't have any Kickstarter benefits in their accounts so there will be no reason for them to sell their accounts. Protecting investor value and the secondary market has nothing to do with selling accounts, there's a good, healthy secondary market on MTGO and I don't see people selling any accounts there.

tautologico
06-22-2013, 08:55 AM
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but there's not much legal reasoning going on in your post. You can't offer to sell something, and after someone accepts tell them there are additional terms to the sale they didn't know about, and when they don't agree, refuse to give them what they bought or their money back.

Yes, clearly I am not a lawyer :) But does pledging on a Kickstarter configure a sale? I don't think this is clear right now.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 09:02 AM
Yes, clearly I am not a lawyer :) But does pledging on a Kickstarter configure a sale? I don't think this is clear right now.

I don't believe there's been a published ruling in the US, which would be required for legal precedent. The closest I know of is: http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/22/why-this-jilted-kickstarter-backer-decided-to-sue-why-he-was-right/ where a lawyer did sue a project creator for failing to deliver or alternatively offer a refund, but the project creator never showed up in court, so the plaintiff was awarded summary judgment. This does mean that the court felt the plaintiff at least made a sufficient case to be debatable, but it doesn't count as a statement that his claims were found to be true.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 09:06 AM
Almost everything in your account is tradeable and you can sell. Unless this game is a failure, most players won't have any Kickstarter benefits in their accounts so there will be no reason for them to sell their accounts. Protecting investor value and the secondary market has nothing to do with selling accounts, there's a good, healthy secondary market on MTGO and I don't see people selling any accounts there.

A few things average users will have will be sleeves and PvE mercenaries (and their XP/level) which aren't tradable, achievements (which may give access to something in game like a title, content, etc.), maybe some locked content (like you can't do a raid until you've cleared a related dungeon), and the username/handle they chose. But of course right now most people are concerned with DC/RL/GM abilities I think, and to a lesser degree PP and C (because it's fairly easy to just collect the benefit and liquidate it from there). And as others have said, selling an account is the easiest way to transfer thousands of cards... although a bulk-sale option in the AH could cover that.

ossuary
06-22-2013, 09:10 AM
True, but two things - (1) you can assign your half of a contract by selling it to other people. It's called assignment. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assignment-of-contract-basics-32643.html (interestingly you need to inform CZE of the assignment, but updating the e-mail address to which they are to send alpha/beta invites and coupon codes or whatever is probably sufficient... they don't even have people's real names yet, only the KS account that pledged, and the ability to e-mail those accounts through the Kickstarter system. You will provide your e-mail when they send out the post-campaign surveys); and (2) the terms of the Kickstarter had no such claims of non-transferability when we entered into the agreement. It sounds like they will have them in their ToS, but no one has agreed to that yet. So to date, the KS account selling that is happening elsewhere on the Internet appears perfectly legal to me.

I'd just like to point out that I was only referring to CZE's ToS, which covers the selling of your entire CZE account. I was not referring to selling your KS account prior to actually receiving / creating your CZE account with its accompanying rewards.

In principle, I agree with you - so long as selling the contents of a KS account are not against KS's ToS, CZE has no legal recourse to stop you from doing this prior to claiming your reward. It is only once you create an account with them that you fall under their ToS. That's all I was discussing.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 09:27 AM
I'd just like to point out that I was only referring to CZE's ToS, which covers the selling of your entire CZE account. I was not referring to selling your KS account prior to actually receiving / creating your CZE account with its accompanying rewards.

In principle, I agree with you - so long as selling the contents of a KS account are not against KS's ToS, CZE has no legal recourse to stop you from doing this prior to claiming your reward. It is only once you create an account with them that you fall under their ToS. That's all I was discussing.

Sorry, I misunderstood. When you said the contract was only between CZE and "you" I took that to mean you thought they didn't have to honor the agreement if you transferred it.

tautologico
06-22-2013, 09:30 AM
A few things average users will have will be sleeves and PvE mercenaries (and their XP/level) which aren't tradable, achievements (which may give access to something in game like a title, content, etc.), maybe some locked content (like you can't do a raid until you've cleared a related dungeon), and the username/handle they chose. But of course right now most people are concerned with DC/RL/GM abilities I think, and to a lesser degree PP and C (because it's fairly easy to just collect the benefit and liquidate it from there). And as others have said, selling an account is the easiest way to transfer thousands of cards... although a bulk-sale option in the AH could cover that.

Achievements, PVE advancement and this kind of stuff is there on MMO accounts too, but as far as I know MMOs don't allow selling of accounts either.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 09:38 AM
Correct, many games do not allow selling accounts, although EVE is one I know of where you can transfer the characters inside the accounts, which bring all of their in-game achievements, combat history, skills, etc. with them. Leaving the account with literally nothing but a login name (not visible to other players) and empty character slots. EVE's free market is a spectacle to behold, and has a vibrant secondary market. Time "invested" in EVE is not wasted at all. That said, games where it's strictly forbidden (like WoW) there's still a rampant secondary market (thousands of accounts for sale right now) but it's rife with scams obviously, because you have no one to run to when you get screwed.

Yoss
06-22-2013, 09:39 AM
as far as I know MMOs don't allow selling of accounts either.
People keep bringing up the "everyone else does it" argument for all sorts of things around here. It doesn't hold water. The best it can do is lead you to recheck your argument to see if you've missed something that "everyone else" knows. If "everyone else" does it for a good reason, then put forth that reason rather than just saying "everyone else does it, and I'm sure they have some good (unknown) reason". So far, every reason brought forth against account transfers has been answered. (If I've missed one, please point it out so we can answer that one too.)

EDIT:
Fantastic point, wildcard.

EDIT2:
After feedback through PM, I have an updated proposal:


CZE makes an official account transfer system, along with a system for converting Plat to $US. As part of an account transfer, all data associated with the previous human owner will be wiped and replaced by the new one. This means all ratings and rankings will be reset. They would also flag the account in some manner to show to other players that it has been transferred. All accountability for the relationship is maintained and transferred to the new owner, who has to sign the TOS just like the original owner did. Also, to cover their costs and risks, and to make a small profit, they would charge a fee for the transfer.

The transfer process could be like this:
1) Seller lists on the RMAH in a section dedicated for the purpose.
2) Buyer wins the auction.
3) CZE sends confirmation emails to both parties, who have 7 days to respond. If either party does not respond, the transaction does not occur. Part of the email could include a reassertion of the TOS if necessary, though by merit of both players being on the RMAH, they should both already be bound by the TOS.
4) A CZE employee (not a script) performs the account transfer, making sure everything looks clean. During this process, all ratings and rankings are reset, any guild association is removed, friend list is cleared, and the account transfer is put in a log file for the account. As part of the transfer, the buyer may change the account name. If the name does not change, the for some duration (maybe 90 days), the account name will have an icon (or change color, whatever) to indicate to other players that ownership has changed.

keldrin
06-23-2013, 02:42 PM
The only way account selling, post start of game would be viable, to avoid problems of people buying world ranking, would be if they setup account transfers through Cryptozoic for a fee. And at time of transfer, cleared account ranking, and potentially forced a account name change, to avoid purchasing a persons Identity.
I'm actually questioning that same issue, of if I died, and someone inherited my account, and I was a competitive ranked player, that there might be a issue with someone taking over my account.
And as for the lousy player buying a top ranked account, that's probably not what would happen. It would be a good player, buying a top ranked account. The situation of last year, I played at the top world tournaments. This year, I got a couple of bad draws, and got eliminated from play. But my friend Bob made it. And his cars transmission went out last week. I'm going to buy Bobs account, by repairing his transmission, and now I get another shot at world champion. (Bob might even get all his cards transfered to his new account)

keldrin
06-23-2013, 02:44 PM
Yoss, the transfer system idea is what needs to happen, like you said.
It deals with scams. And every other issue. plus Cryptozoic would collect some kind of fee in the process.
Everyone wins.

fido_one
06-23-2013, 03:27 PM
Gwaer made a good point, I think it was on one of the VIP threads, that investing in TCGs are like investing in 'Nerd Stock.' I think he said that to get a chuckle and push a point back in that thread, but it holds water.

One of the [minor] deciding factors (and by 'deciding' I mean 'justifying' the expenditure) I used when I purchased my tiers was under the hopes that if times got rough, my wife and I would be able to sell them. Realize that I knew at the time of purchase that the game may not be successful, or wouldn't be successful when I would be forced to sell them, or that it could be prevented at some point or discouraged by CZE. I am far from questioning my decisions to buy those tiers but I will say it would have been nice if CZE drew a concrete line in the sand during the KS if they had made this decision at that time.

I agree with those here and with the quote that Yoss drummed up and the resulting call asking for a CZE AH engine that allows for the transfer of accounts with appropriate fees and checkpoints.

I'm sure we're not seeing the whole picture, and I'm sure the ToS is in a primordial flux right now, but I would ask CZE to comment on it in detail when they are comfortable with doing so (favorably before or immediately after they release the ToS that contains the legalease). I think it's a topic that many or most KS backers are passionate about selling their accounts if they need to but are a wee bit shy of coming out and saying they are against CZE's comments [so far] on the matter.

LordRaven
06-23-2013, 03:42 PM
Just another point to throw out regarding account transfers...

Since this is intended to be a competitive eSport it seems safe to assume that at some point there will be tournaments awarding real cash prizes. If CZE does not officially support account transfers and a "purchased" account wins money, does the money go to the current account holder or the original? And, as with casino/gambling wins, payouts of a certain value are reported to the IRS for tax purposes, potentially exposing both parties to some complicated tax situations.

ossuary
06-23-2013, 03:43 PM
If we're just talking about what "ought" to happen, I would go ahead and say that I think it would be best all around if CZE offered this as an option, tightly controlled. However, if they hold to their stance that account transfers are not allowed, we have to accept that (though we can still try to change their minds about it and/or bitch loudly about it). :)

Yoss
06-23-2013, 03:53 PM
If they take a hard line, there will be a black market, which will lead to all the "bad things" that have been listed so far, including the most recent one by LordRaven. It will be interesting to see if they take our suggestions to heart or not. Their biggest hurdle, from what I've read on these forums, will be getting real money transactions (RMT) implemented. After that, things like account transfers are easy.

EntropyBall
06-23-2013, 06:56 PM
Their biggest hurdle, from what I've read on these forums, will be getting real money transactions (RMT) implemented. After that, things like account transfers are easy.

This is a pretty big point though. From what I understand, RMT is pretty complicated and requires quite a bit of work, both legal and technical. The other thing (that I failed to really think about until now), is that no one will have something of value tied to their account except KS backers at $250 and above. Everything else that has value can be traded.
That means we are asking them to spend time and money implementing a feature that will be used by only a (hopefully) small fraction of their player base (less than 3500 people). And a feature that effectively makes them no additional money. They have our pledges, they won't make appreciable money from the xfers themselves, and allowing perks like PP to xfer is just depriving them of some draft money indefinitely.

While it'd be nice, and I'd like it, I can see how its not a great business decision for them, even if they implement RMT for other reasons.

sckolar
06-23-2013, 07:19 PM
I would think the TOS would be pretty reasonable, and easy to follow along with for just a TCG, right?

Yoss
06-23-2013, 07:49 PM
The other thing (that I failed to really think about until now), is that no one will have something of value tied to their account except KS backers at $250 and above. Everything else that has value can be traded.
There's also mercs, champions, and sleeves that cannot (currently) be traded, and there may be other things that we don't know about yet. I had a thread on that topic already, suggesting that maybe they should be tradeable.

zWolf
07-22-2013, 11:02 AM
It's an interesting situation that you back w/ KS and thereby enter a contract with CZE to get the rewards promised, but then they put a TOS between you and said rewards. My guess is if you don't agree with the TOS you're at least entitled to a refund of the pledge amount.

I'll also say I'm disappointed that account selling is against the TOS. CZE's position that they didn't want to interfere with the secondary market led me to believe they'd be silent on the subject. I certainly understand their desire to not have it on their official forums of course. Blocking account sales entirely however is cutting off a significant path to cash-out from your investment in the game. Or rather, transferring a significant risk to the future buyer of said investment.

There are still two more pages of this thread for me to read, but - this was my assumption as well, when I dropped cash on the Grand King - not knowing my exact financial situation, I figured that since they had stated so clearly, that they did not intend to interfear with the 3rd party market - that the kick starter perks would be included in that non - interference.

I'm actually looking for info. on how to associate the KS perks to my account right now... I assume there is an FAQ or an e-mail to my KS account that I'm missing... I just wanted to comment that my assumption regarding this was similar to the fellow that I quoted.

ShadowTycho
07-22-2013, 11:19 AM
holy necro batman.
I did write Cryptozoic about this, and got back a cryptic response which i am not sure i am allowed to post because of the community standards.

Shadowelf
07-22-2013, 11:27 AM
I'm actually looking for info. on how to associate the KS perks to my account right now... I assume there is an FAQ or an e-mail to my KS account that I'm missing... I just wanted to comment that my assumption regarding this was similar to the fellow that I quoted.

Not sure if this is what you want to know, but you will be sent a code at you KS/paypal email where you can put in game to claim those rewards


holy necro batman.
I did write Cryptozoic about this, and got back a cryptic response which i am not sure i am allowed to post because of the community standards.

What community standards ? :p

ShadowTycho
07-22-2013, 11:33 AM
What community standards ? :p
these ones.
http://www.cryptozoic.com/coc

Shadowelf
07-22-2013, 11:41 AM
these ones.
http://www.cryptozoic.com/coc

I see; and their response falls under what category? Discussing Disciplinary Actions ?

ossuary
07-22-2013, 11:41 AM
these ones.
http://www.cryptozoic.com/coc

Posting that link should be a violation of the standards outlined in those rules, as the address looks suspiciously like a vulgar term (which the rules forbid). Shouldn't we call it RULES of Conduct instead? ;)

Shadowelf
07-22-2013, 11:53 AM
Posting that link should be a violation of the standards outlined in those rules, as the address looks suspiciously like a vulgar term (which the rules forbid). Shouldn't we call it RULES of Conduct instead? ;)

Why Code of Conduct seems about right :p And besides it's their term, not ours

zWolf
07-22-2013, 12:22 PM
Not sure if this is what you want to know, but you will be sent a code at you KS/paypal email where you can put in game to claim those rewards



What community standards ? :p

Yup, that's the info. I was looking for. sounds good - any word on whether people will be banned if they end up selling that code they get on E-Bay when they get it?

Here is what the code of conduct says about accounts...

"Account Trading

Forum violations include both advertising your account or characters for sale or trade, or advertising that you are looking for an account or characters to purchase through:

Forum posts
Linking to eBay or other online marketplaces
Listing something for trade and then offering your contact information"

if they don't mention the KS codes, that you then add to your accounts... that might be the 'don't get involved in the 3rd party market' stance they talked about in the KS.

Yoss
07-22-2013, 12:36 PM
holy necro batman.
I did write Cryptozoic about this, and got back a cryptic response which i am not sure i am allowed to post because of the community standards.
I do not see anything in the COC restricting sharing of Q&A information obtained through email. "Posting Unreleased Content" is talking about data that you have illicitly, not stuff you obtained fairly from CZE when CZE did not specifically request you to keep it confidential.

Regarding "necro", it's better than duplication, in my opinion. Though both are (conflictingly) banned by the COC.