PDA

View Full Version : Forbidden from selling virtual assets for any value outside of game?



Svenn
10-09-2013, 02:43 PM
I was just reading the EULA (yes, I do that) and noticed this bit:


5. No External Transfer or Sale of Virtual Assets.
HEX Entertainment does not recognize any purported transfers or sales of event tickets or other virtual assets outside of the HEX Game. Accordingly, you are strictly prohibited from selling, gifting or exchanging virtual assets, event tickets or any other virtual HEX Game currency for other any value outside of the HEX Game.

I know that Cory said they would kind of turn a blind eye to it... but it seems weird to me that it is strictly forbidden altogether by the EULA technically.

Daer
10-09-2013, 02:48 PM
What were you expecting? Seriously.

Shadowelf
10-09-2013, 02:49 PM
They need to cover their backs somehow..only reasonable if you ask me

Zomnivore
10-09-2013, 02:50 PM
This is one of those gray areas.

If they have the rule but don't enforce it...well that's about as good as you're like to get.

Legally probably necessary for them to be free of liability.

WSzaboPeter
10-09-2013, 02:51 PM
I think they want to protect themselves from cases like: “I brought this HEX account on ebay for a gazillion of dollars, they told me it has Producer tier rewards, but it was only a Slacker Backer account”.

Facilier
10-09-2013, 02:51 PM
If they allowed it, they could potentially expose themselves to unnecessary ownership disputes, where a player they did not sell or issue the digital product to may be having a problem with a product that may have been caused by the original licensee having a change of mind.

They may not perceive as being worthwhile to enter such a Jerry Springer scenario, and just wish to deal with direct customers, where all the records are available in their system.

keldrin
10-09-2013, 02:51 PM
I agree. They have to state that.
One, they don't want to be in a position of having to moderate if a trade somehow goes bad.
And, if selling the goods, violates some kind of local law, or something, they need it to be setup so it can't come back on them.

Svenn
10-09-2013, 02:53 PM
I guess I was expecting it to not be forbidden, but for there to be a clause that they are not responsible for any outside trades/sales.

Huntyre
10-09-2013, 03:00 PM
we're not even 24 hrs into public alpha testing and this is what people are worried about??? Really?

I think too many people are treating this like it's a late beta or early release launch.

Svenn
10-09-2013, 03:05 PM
we're not even 24 hrs into public alpha testing and this is what people are worried about??? Really?

I think too many people are treating this like it's a late beta or early release launch.

I'm not really worried about it, I just thought it was interesting and I figured most people wouldn't even read the EULA. I'm just waiting for my download to finish. ;)

Facilier
10-09-2013, 03:26 PM
I guess I was expecting it to not be forbidden, but for there to be a clause that they are not responsible for any outside trades/sales.

That would not really work. They have certain obligations towards the owner of the digital license. By allowing ownership change, they create these obligations towards an indeterminate number of owners, without any ability to track if any of them are legitimate.

Xtopher
10-09-2013, 03:39 PM
If we actually owned these things, it would probably end up being a tax nightmare. Can you imagine, every time you generate a Spectral Lotus it being counted as income?

keldrin
10-09-2013, 03:46 PM
If we actually owned these things, it would probably end up being a tax nightmare. Can you imagine, every time you generate a Spectral Lotus it being counted as income?
Wow. That's a scary thought.
The idea of being taxed, based on the real life value of digital goods, acquired through game play has never crossed my mind.
I guess, it could happen.
The raid where the big item drops, and people saying, man, I'll have to pass. Can't afford the taxes for that this week.

Huntyre
10-09-2013, 03:48 PM
the raid where the big item drops, and people saying, man, i'll have to pass. Can't afford the taxes for that this week.

lol

Gwaer
10-09-2013, 04:55 PM
They won't be turning a blind eye to it now. If it's being talked about on their forums they can't just ignore it or it's willful ignorance and they get in trouble just the same. Just by making this thread you've forced them to take a harder stance on the subject.

stiii
10-09-2013, 05:20 PM
As opposed to all the other threads that asked this question in the past? What is different this time?

Zomnivore
10-09-2013, 05:22 PM
I think this is something where you could probably become a partner and it wouldn't affect you if you were trying to do some serious third party stuff.

Xtopher
10-09-2013, 05:24 PM
If it's a problem, the mods should lock the thread, but I think discussion in general is probably allowed, just not specific advertisement to sell or buy.

There will be plenty of websites offering to buy/sell cards once we get into beta, so it will be common knowledge the behavior is happening.

havocattack
10-09-2013, 05:27 PM
It is there to cover them, so people cannot complain when someone scams them or something, I would suggest only ever buy from friends or people you can trust, if you get scammed by some ahole, cryptozoic wont help you and will point to the EULA basically.

Xtopher
10-09-2013, 05:35 PM
It is there to cover them, so people cannot complain when someone scams them or something, I would suggest only ever buy from friends or people you can trust, if you get scammed by some ahole, cryptozoic wont help you and will point to the EULA basically.
They might help. MTGO has the same policy and they do what they can if someone gets scammed. It's not in their interests to have scamming going on, even if the transaction is outside the EULA.

Kietay
10-09-2013, 05:48 PM
If they dont enforce it its fine, if they try to enforce it, selling everything gg.

havocattack
10-09-2013, 06:04 PM
If someone can prove they were scammed, sure, they would probably help, but if you take no steps to protect yourself, prob nothing anyone can do :/

malloc31
10-09-2013, 08:19 PM
This is why I hope at some point they add a option to directly sell your platinum back to them (at a lower rate then you buy it) through the game (an actual check from crypto, or something like that). Because any other stance and people will end up getting scammed by third parties. And yes I know this will probably never happen.

Ginaz
10-09-2013, 08:25 PM
I was under the impression that selling in game stuff like cards for real money was something they supported or were basically going to turn a blind eye to. It's account selling that's the big no no.

Yoss
10-10-2013, 11:51 AM
I guess I was expecting it to not be forbidden, but for there to be a clause that they are not responsible for any outside trades/sales.
This. Why not just a statement of liability limitation rather than an outright ban?


we're not even 24 hrs into public alpha testing and this is what people are worried about??? Really?

I think too many people are treating this like it's a late beta or early release launch.
Yeah, really. It's foundational to the financial structure of a TCG to know how "real" your assets are. With a paper TCG it's obvious, but with digital we're in new territory. So far as I know, the "Penny Arcade concern" (posted in May) has yet to be answered.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/05/13

By the way, if they say "yeah, that's how it is; take it or leave it", that's fine. It cheapens the value of the assets, but at least we'd know where they stand. However, so far as I'm aware, they've made no such statements one way or the other.


They won't be turning a blind eye to it now. If it's being talked about on their forums they can't just ignore it or it's willful ignorance and they get in trouble just the same. Just by making this thread you've forced them to take a harder stance on the subject.
Fine with me; it's shady having a rule and not enforcing it. I'm not saying CZE is the "bad guy" here (they're not), but this whole legal system needs to catch up with the internet age so that we can have rules that are actually both reasonable AND enforced. I should not have to feel like I'm breaking the law if I want to do something that the company secretly thinks is OK. I currently have no plans to ever cash out, but the ABILITY to do so (and do so legally) is very important to me. Blizzard managed it with D3*, so hopefully CZE will also figure it out.

*I know D3 gets a bad rap, but it was the free market enabling of the AH that was to blame, not RMT. The Diablo loot structure was never intended as a free market because the loot grind was the entire purpose of the game (after the short plot line was exhausted). Allowing any trade at all, real money or otherwise, really hurt the play experience because your 20 hours of grinding could be completely bypassed with $2 on the AH. Thus their "Loot 2.0" that they came out with, which seeks to put the fun back into finding loot for yourself rather than trading/buying it. Hex, being a TCG, is a totally different thing. For a TCG, the free market is a GOOD thing, not a liability. (End of rabbit hole.)


I was under the impression that selling in game stuff like cards for real money was something they supported or were basically going to turn a blind eye to. It's account selling that's the big no no.
Yes, they support it in a "it sure would be nice if" kind of way, but they have no legal structure to handle it right now so they're stuck with acting like it's prohibited until they figure out how to do RMT and whatever other things are currently holding them back.


That would not really work. They have certain obligations towards the owner of the digital license. By allowing ownership change, they create these obligations towards an indeterminate number of owners, without any ability to track if any of them are legitimate.
Does the EULA say anything about who owns the digital assets? The part the OP quoted could imply player ownership, but it's not clear. In MTGO you actually own the cards, right? (Meaning, it's not just "you have the right to use this but do not own it".) In order for "ownership change" the seller must first have ownership.

If they've given us ownership, then you may have a point about responsibility for ownership tracking. I do not know those laws well enough to say.


If we actually owned these things, it would probably end up being a tax nightmare. Can you imagine, every time you generate a Spectral Lotus it being counted as income?
Actually, it's only taxable if you are able to cash out. In Second Life, they send you monthly statements of pay in versus cash out and you are only responsible for the net cash out. Since Hex currently does not plan to support cash out any time soon, there is no income to report. (When/if they figure out RMT, taxes will become a valid concern, but only on cash in versus cash out. You will not need to track and report individual in-game assets.)

Turtlewing
10-10-2013, 12:25 PM
This. Why not just a statement of liability limitation rather than an outright ban?


Most likely their lawyer took a standard boilerplate MMO EULA and filled in all the names.

It may also be the case that a limitation of liability would not protect them whereas a prohibition would. Note that the main case they'd be worried about is if someone's account sale goes bad:

Say two people claim to be the owner of an account. One says he bought it on Ebay, and the other says he never sold it. If the EULA forbids selling the account CZE can say either "to bad account still belongs to the creator" or "too bad we're banning that account".

If they just limit liability they may be required to make some effort to determine who is the rightful owner as neither party violated the EULA.


Also there may be some trouble with selling accounts in that a contract isn't valid unless both parties agree to it, so unless they make you agree to the EULA every time you log in, a transferred account can result in the account owner not having a contract with CZE for some period of time, which could get messy. SO again cleaner to juts say "no selling accounts allowed"

Syphers
10-10-2013, 12:47 PM
There have been hints that crypto is working on an auction house or some similar way of selling cards in game

Svenn
10-10-2013, 01:14 PM
There have been hints that crypto is working on an auction house or some similar way of selling cards in game
"Hints"? There is definitely an auction house. Cory has said he wants people to be able to do real money transactions via auction house many times, but that it all depends if they can work out the legalities of it.

wildcard
10-10-2013, 01:52 PM
Whole EULA (http://www.scribd.com/doc/174876716/HEX-End-User-Software-License-Agreement-8Oct13-UPDATED) if anyone is interested. You don't get any ownership rights in the digital assets, no warranty, service can be cancelled at any time, no liability for damages, compulsory arbitration, etc. As Turtlewing said, boilerplate with name changes. Speaking of names, the contract is with a "HEX Entertainment, LLC", no mention of Cryptozoic.

keroko
10-10-2013, 02:18 PM
very satisfied with the EULA currently.

at your own risk couldn't be more clear.

Facilier
10-10-2013, 03:07 PM
Thanks, Wildcard. No ownership of digital goods, obviously, but still a binding license until the time it is terminated.

This clause is a bit odd:

"HEXENTERTAINMENTMAYMONITOR,RECORD,REVIEW,MOD IFY,AND/ORDISCLOSEYOURCHATSESSIONS,WHETHERVOICEORT EXT,WITHOUTNOTICETOYOU,ANDYOUHEREBYCONSENT TOSUCHMONITORING,RECORDING,REVIEW,MODIFICATI ONAND/ORDISCLOSURE."

It doesn't state that this is for chat through the game client, so could hypothetically allow them to record your Skype conversations or whatever. Seems like it would be an insane move to program that into the game client, but still odd.

Xtopher
10-10-2013, 04:26 PM
Thanks, Wildcard. No ownership of digital goods, obviously, but still a binding license until the time it is terminated.

This clause is a bit odd:

"HEXENTERTAINMENTMAYMONITOR,RECORD,REVIEW,MOD IFY,AND/ORDISCLOSEYOURCHATSESSIONS,WHETHERVOICEORT EXT,WITHOUTNOTICETOYOU,ANDYOUHEREBYCONSENT TOSUCHMONITORING,RECORDING,REVIEW,MODIFICATI ONAND/ORDISCLOSURE."

It doesn't state that this is for chat through the game client, so could hypothetically allow them to record your Skype conversations or whatever. Seems like it would be an insane move to program that into the game client, but still odd.

I find it hard to believe they'd be hacking our private data streams outside the game, but I see your point. When I read it originally I figured it meant using CZE's chat and voice interface.

Yoss
10-10-2013, 04:49 PM
Thank you for the EULA link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/174876716/HEX-End-User-Software-License-Agreement-8Oct13-UPDATED

Section A. Grant of Limited Use License
We are granted non-commercial use authority. We may own the computer on which we run Hex, but CZE owns "the Hex Game itself". By a strict reading I would say "the Hex Game" does not include the individual commodities (digital assets) we purchase, only the underlying design, art, software, and so on. (When you buy a pack of MTG cards you own the physical assets, but not the copyright, art, or other intellecual property.)

Section C.3. Intellectual Property
They claim rights to all the IP, as they should, but that does not mean players cannot own the digital assets. In other words, they own the design/art/etc for a Spectral Lotus in general, but we could (maybe) own a specific commodity instance of a Spectral Lotus. The strongest potential "non-owner" statement I could find is this:
"Your account and your use of the HEX Game or related products and services does not grant you any ownership interest in and to the same."

That statement says we cannot own: (1) our account (an account is separate from the digital assets it containts so this is fine), (2) the Hex Game (the game is not the same as the digital assets so this is fine), nor (3) "related products and services" (which is rather vague and broad and may or may not cover digital assets).

Section C.5. Duration of the Online Component
This says basically exactly what the Penny Arcade comic said: Hex can vanish completely at any moment and players have no recourse whatsoever. That means that even if they granted us some ownership of what we're buying, our ownership would at that point become meaningless.

This means that Hex cannot function as an MTG replacement and cannot be considered a true collectible since Hex could vanish at any time. Invest at your own risk.

Section D.5. No External Transfer or Sale of Virtual Assets
This is the one quoted in the OP, which we've already discussed somewhat. Prohibiting sale does not necessarily imply lack of ownership. (There are physical goods whose sale is limited even when you're the owner.)

Section D.7. Limitation of Liability Indemnity
They claim no liability for loss of (among other things) "digital objects, virtual goods or currency". This may or may not imply that players can have ownership of the goods they pay for, but at the very least it combines with C.5 above to say "invest at your own risk" because it may (per C.5) vanish at any time with no liability for CZE (per D.7).


Overall, it sure seems like they're not going to try very hard to make the cards collectible in the sense of security and long term value retention. If you were looking for an MTG replacement (as a collectible), it sounds like Hex is not what you want. That doesn't mean Hex won't be a great game, just do not fool yourself into viewing it as a collectible or investment. It would seem that Hex is just another video game, and the "digital assets" do not actually exist at all.

I'm curious what the Diablo 3 EULA said about digital goods. Since you were allowed to sell them for real money, didn't that imply some level of ownership?

keroko
10-10-2013, 05:00 PM
Rubbish - you can only redeem out full sets from mtgo. It could vanish tomorrow

Plus there's no physical card equivalent in hex, which is a good thing resulting in cheaper boosters, and rule effects and dynamics good ol mtgo can but dream of.

Facilier
10-10-2013, 05:06 PM
I'm curious what the Diablo 3 EULA said about digital goods. Since you were allowed to sell them for real money, didn't that imply some level of ownership?

No, just allows the transfer of license for certain items across the auction house itself:

http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/legal/d3rmah_tou.html

ossuary
10-10-2013, 05:36 PM
Everyone should also try to keep in mind that they are still in the very early stages of alpha, and probably haven't spent a great deal of time themselves developing a full-fledged EULA. More than likely it is a cookie-cutter one for now until they have the time and resources to have proper legal counsel draw up a proper, specific, custom-tailored EULA for the final release.

The sky is not falling, they are not going to arbitrarily delete your digital goods, and they are not going to fly away in a big blimp stuffed with money.

... YET. :)

Xtopher
10-10-2013, 05:36 PM
Rubbish - you can only redeem out full sets from mtgo. It could vanish tomorrow

Plus there's no physical card equivalent in hex, which is a good thing resulting in cheaper boosters, and rule effects and dynamics good ol mtgo can but dream of.

Not to mention MtGO sets are constantly rotating permanently out of print, so most people playing MTGO would be out a lot of $$ if the game suddenly folded.

Stok3d
10-10-2013, 06:44 PM
Overall, it sure seems like they're not going to try very hard to make the cards collectible in the sense of security and long term value retention. If you were looking for an MTG replacement (as a collectible), it sounds like Hex is not what you want. That doesn't mean Hex won't be a great game, just do not fool yourself into viewing it as a collectible or investment. It would seem that Hex is just another video game, and the "digital assets" do not actually exist at all.


Again, I couldn't disagree more with your statements. Hex is a phenomenal investment imo and I believe it will become THE online TCG at it's official launch. Yes, I've put my money where my mouth is on this.

Sci3nce
10-10-2013, 06:51 PM
Again, I couldn't disagree more with your statements. Hex is a phenomenal investment imo and I believe it will become THE online TCG at it's official launch. Yes, I've put my money where my mouth is on this.

He's not saying it isn't a good investment or a good online TCG, Just that it's not a collectible replacement for MTG. I kinda have to agree with him since, according to the current EULA, when I quit HEX, my "collection" is legally worth $0.

Xtopher
10-10-2013, 07:07 PM
He's not saying it isn't a good investment or a good online TCG, Just that it's not a collectible replacement for MTG. I kinda have to agree with him since, according to the current EULA, when I quit HEX, my "collection" is legally worth $0.
At least MTGO says your collection is worth $10 when they go under.

Deathfog
10-10-2013, 08:25 PM
Platinum to US$ will likely occur via third parties or by direct transfers. Platinum has a approximate cash value already as a common trade medium within Hex, so it'll probably be in the blind eye region of legality. Trading specific cards outside of the convenient AH included in the client or accounts themselves will probably be less acceptable.

EmraldArcher
10-10-2013, 08:38 PM
CE is pretty naive if they think they could actually stop people from selling cards/currency outside of the game.

This is just them covering their asses and leaving themselves an out for when someone actually does something egregious enough to draw their attention.

keroko
10-10-2013, 09:10 PM
I know how to find the sellers and buyers, as do many more.

Madican
10-10-2013, 10:27 PM
There's an entire forum that I can guarantee will incorporate Hex stuff into it when the full game releases.

Yoss
10-11-2013, 09:40 AM
He's not saying it isn't a good investment or a good online TCG, Just that it's not a collectible replacement for MTG. I kinda have to agree with him since, according to the current EULA, when I quit HEX, my "collection" is legally worth $0.
Exactly this. Thank you for reading it right. I said "MTG" not "MTGO", and I said specifically the "collectible" part of it. I am certainly disappointed in this EULA because of the way Cory hyped up the double-back and card value and all that, while the EULA pretty much negates all that hype. However, Hex still seems like it will be an awesome video game and worth an investment in that regard. It just can't be considered a true collectible card game (tradeable yes, collectible no).

And by the way (to certain others), I've also put lots of my money up on this game, so please stop assuming that I'm here to troll. Hex will be awesome.

stiii
10-11-2013, 09:54 AM
Isn't the EULA pretty much exactly the same as magic online where it is pretty easy to cash out from.

EmraldArcher
10-11-2013, 10:18 AM
Exactly this. Thank you for reading it right. I said "MTG" not "MTGO", and I said specifically the "collectible" part of it. I am certainly disappointed in this EULA because of the way Cory hyped up the double-back and card value and all that, while the EULA pretty much negates all that hype. However, Hex still seems like it will be an awesome video game and worth an investment in that regard. It just can't be considered a true collectible card game (tradeable yes, collectible no).

And by the way (to certain others), I've also put lots of my money up on this game, so please stop assuming that I'm here to troll. Hex will be awesome.

Being able to not sell your cards outside of the game doesn't make the game not collectible.

Jynxed
10-11-2013, 10:32 AM
I've played mtgo for a number of years off and on and it's not hard to get real money if you really want to from the cards, I doubt it will be any different here.

Hemotherapy
10-11-2013, 10:56 AM
I guess I was expecting it to not be forbidden, but for there to be a clause that they are not responsible for any outside trades/sales.

If it's not forbidden people will try to bend the clause, and seek legal action, which costs them money. This way they can avoid it all together.

Stok3d
10-11-2013, 01:07 PM
And by the way (to certain others), I've also put lots of my money up on this game, so please stop assuming that I'm here to troll. Hex will be awesome.

Can't be considered a true collectible card game? I'm not going to even feed that statement--this game will be as collectible as any online CCG/TCG gets.

Hemotherapy
10-11-2013, 01:46 PM
Exactly this. Thank you for reading it right. I said "MTG" not "MTGO", and I said specifically the "collectible" part of it. I am certainly disappointed in this EULA because of the way Cory hyped up the double-back and card value and all that, while the EULA pretty much negates all that hype. However, Hex still seems like it will be an awesome video game and worth an investment in that regard. It just can't be considered a true collectible card game (tradeable yes, collectible no).

And by the way (to certain others), I've also put lots of my money up on this game, so please stop assuming that I'm here to troll. Hex will be awesome.

tl;dr:
This (probably) isn't to punish people for selling cool double back cards from well known players that won high stakes tournies.

It's to prevent them from having to legally deal with the aftermath that scammers create when an enviroment like this is legal.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________

I still think it's in there to just protect them legally from certain things they don't want to deal with, but someone wanting to sell a double back from a famous player that used THAT card to win a tournament and was the MVP card picked from the last game he played wouldn't get banned or hear any static from CZE.

That EULA was probably copied pasta as a general EULA that is used in the industry and isn't something Cory probably even knew was in there. CZE called up a law firm, said hey we need an EULA made up for our fking awesome game and btw you should play it, but after you do this EULA for us. And it's something that firm just put in beacuse EVERYONE puts that in their EULA. Cory didn't personally go down there and go through every line item with them. That's not how it's done. Y'know how when people ask you to sign a large form and say "Don't worry it's just a standard ___ document" - That's how they got their EULA done. Called them up, they shipped it over, and said "Here's your standard EULA Mr. Jones."

Wether or not CZE does anything about it, that's what matters. The way Cory and his team are I bet they'd probably encourage people to do this.

It's not like they're federally regulated and are required to take action against people that do it. I'm positive nothing about what Cory said has changed in this department.


All this means is if just like someone spelled out earlier in the thread and comes to CZE and says "Hey, I bought this card on ebay and it isn't the MVP's card I was told it was" or "Hey I bought this account for X dollars and the guy said it was a Producer Tier account and it's not" it means CZE can say tough titties, read our EULA n00b.

keroko
10-11-2013, 02:30 PM
i'd still rather see eq2 Vox, or a system where its all proxied through CZE... Or something like applying discounts to bulk buyers in card stores (must have registered business in operation) to go with things like the '6 ipads in a store' thing they mentioned some time ago.

the whole external traders thing was alright i guess, but its inherently shady and error prone - and we adopt a view in line with that when we officially ban the behavior.

i've never liked turning a blind eye, I get it though and can see it as a valid way of doing things. just left feeling a little dissatisfied.

I'd like to hear more from the CZE staff on RMT, cash in hex and all that. Its complicated, they've said its complicated. I suppose they get considered like a betting company? No idea.

Yoss
10-15-2013, 09:07 AM
this game will be as collectible as any online CCG/TCG gets.
Which is to say, not at all.

EDIT:
And to post 51, I get it, really I do, but as Keroko said, turning a blind eye just doesn't sit well with me. Transparency and honesty should be the rule, not backdoor dealing.

Mahes
10-15-2013, 09:11 AM
Collectability has everything to do with whether or not cash tournaments become possible. If that never happens, then this game will have a very limited possibility of ever having real world value beyond the basic price of purchases.

Hemotherapy
10-15-2013, 10:58 AM
Collectability has everything to do with whether or not cash tournaments become possible. If that never happens, then this game will have a very limited possibility of ever having real world value beyond the basic price of purchases.

True. I could see the cards having somewhat higher value than what a pack is worth. PvE gear certainly could anyway. Time will tell I guess..

Fun note, you should update your Signature to say "I am a 2nd Waver because I cannot afford $500.00 for a video game" :p

hammer
10-16-2013, 04:02 AM
True. I could see the cards having somewhat higher value than what a pack is worth. PvE gear certainly could anyway. Time will tell I guess..

Fun note, you should update your Signature to say "I am a 2nd Waver because I cannot afford $500.00 for a video game" :p

Sadly Iam second wave and did pay $500

Kathy
10-16-2013, 04:50 AM
If we actually owned these things, it would probably end up being a tax nightmare. Can you imagine, every time you generate a Spectral Lotus it being counted as income?

A common myth in gaming and not a tax professional, but collectibles are taxed on the profit at sale, not the potential profit at acquisition. If you go to a garage sale and buy a Rembrandt for $5, you are not taxed on the potential $20-30 million it might be worth, you only have tax liability when you actually sell the item. So no, allowing sales of cards are not a tax issue other for the company, they're only a tax issue for the people actually profiting from sales. Also, that tax liability exists whether or not the game allows it.

Zomnivore
10-16-2013, 09:16 AM
I think Cryptizoic should come out and make a statement to some effect...whether they're going to use a verification system or a partnership sort of thing, either way I think it would help a lot of people not pucker butts in response to the can't trade clause.

Xtopher
10-16-2013, 11:15 AM
A common myth in gaming and not a tax professional, but collectibles are taxed on the profit at sale, not the potential profit at acquisition. If you go to a garage sale and buy a Rembrandt for $5, you are not taxed on the potential $20-30 million it might be worth, you only have tax liability when you actually sell the item. So no, allowing sales of cards are not a tax issue other for the company, they're only a tax issue for the people actually profiting from sales. Also, that tax liability exists whether or not the game allows it.
That's true, however prizes that are won, for example, are taxed based on their value. If wouldn't take much legislatively to deem items found or earned in games as prizes. Assigning a value would be tricky, but I wouldn't underestimate the IRS's ability to overcome that difficulty.

Yoss
10-16-2013, 12:16 PM
That's true, however prizes that are won, for example, are taxed based on their value. If wouldn't take much legislatively to deem items found or earned in games as prizes. Assigning a value would be tricky, but I wouldn't underestimate the IRS's ability to overcome that difficulty.
If the prizes cannot be extracted into real world money (Plat doesn't count) then the value of the prize (for tax purposes) is zero. You will not have to pay taxes on your Draft winnings.

Even IRL, do people really pay taxes on their FNM or poker winnings? The answer is no, unless you're making "lots" of money, defined as $5000 or more. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Poker-Tournament-Winnings-Must-be-Reported-to-the-IRS

Xtopher
10-16-2013, 12:19 PM
I was referring to what we could see in the future. There are plenty of speculative articles on this subject.

From a legal standpoint, an individual is supposed to self-report winnings if they fall under the federal/state minimum of what the casino/prize provider is required to report. So, you're correct that most people don't do it, however it is the law that they should.

nylian
10-16-2013, 06:42 PM
Anyone know if the modo eula says something similar?
Trades outside of normal venue happen all the time there...

ossuary
10-16-2013, 07:41 PM
I really think that the EULA you are seeing now is, like I said some time ago in this thread, a boilerplate EULA. And we will see a more appropriate one down the line, before the game is released, that deals with this kind of thing more directly (once they've had time to work out all of the legal ramifications with their counsel).

Yoss
10-17-2013, 02:58 PM
Yeah, it's almost certainly boilerplate. Here's hoping CZE is able to find a better solution that both protects their interests and also figures out a way to create true digital goods for its customers to buy. I think there are some players who would spend a lot more money on Hex if the goods could somehow be made durable, ownable, tradeable, and saleable. (Not trivial, I know.)

For now they've got their hands full with Alpha testing.

Karmic
10-17-2013, 06:32 PM
Anything less than being able to sell cards in game for platinum and being able to convert that platinum into real money (for a fee) is detrimental to the game for me.

Xtopher
10-17-2013, 07:36 PM
Anything less than being able to sell cards in game for platinum and being able to convert that platinum into real money (for a fee) is detrimental to the game for me.
The only game I know of that allows players to collect unlimited virtual currency and transfer it into something with value that can then be sold is EVE. Are there many other games like this out there?

ossuary
10-17-2013, 07:46 PM
The only game I know of that allows players to collect unlimited virtual currency and transfer it into something with value that can then be sold is EVE. Are there many other games like this out there?

No, there are not. Even EVE doesn't let you cash out money, you are basically trading game time, sold by the company. Players do buy and sell it to each other though, independent of CCP... which is exactly how I expect Hex will go.

For those people who fear virtual items won't have the same kind of intrinsic value that a physical TCG does, just look to EVE... they are doing fine, and the players are quite happy with it all.

Xtopher
10-17-2013, 08:36 PM
There was also a mmorpg game where you supposedly could cash out, but I don't recall if that really worked out or not. You could mine, hunt, forage, etc. $1 was worth 10 in game currency.

I guess there's MTGO, too. Convert a set of virtual to a set of real and maybe sell the real set. But they don't let you convert tickets, which is the in-game currency. I'm really not understanding where the expectation comes from that Hex is somehow going to be exceptional on the virtual to cash level.

Jeronan
10-18-2013, 12:08 AM
There was also a mmorpg game where you supposedly could cash out, but I don't recall if that really worked out or not. You could mine, hunt, forage, etc. $1 was worth 10 in game currency.
.

Second Life and Entropia Universe both have a cash out option.

There are entire Professional businesses that operate in those game making a profit an plenty of People managing to make a living.

It's not really my kind of games. But hey... it's popular tho.

havocattack
10-18-2013, 04:30 AM
um diablo 3? :P

keroko
10-18-2013, 04:36 AM
I hope they keep every bit of the existing eula, for at least 5 years ;)

Jeronan
10-18-2013, 05:21 AM
um diablo 3? :P

After february 2014 not anymore.

Xtopher
10-18-2013, 07:53 AM
Entropia was the mmorpg I was thinking of. Played it when it was very first released and I thought it was really a struggle to get a positive return on a $1. Weapons degrade to the point of being junk, every ammo you fire costs money. You could fire 10 rounds killing something and get much less loot that what you spent in ammo (sometimes zero loot). Mining was like playing a slot machine. It was cool, though, exploring the world and figuring the ins and outs.

Didn't care for it at all after one of their updates and never went back to it.

Never messed around with Second Life.

Hemotherapy
10-18-2013, 08:05 AM
I'd rather have CZE keep the EULA the way it is and just take a blind eye to everything, that way they can protect themselves legally from having to do deal with some ridiculous things.

Zomnivore
10-18-2013, 09:44 AM
I don't think its useful at this point to continue on.

A lot of player centric worries have been stated, and we're stuck until Cryptizoic puts the resources (and it will take some resources) into answering these pretty deep concerns.

Until that point we're just going oh no oh no lordy lordy halp halp, wat? Wat is dis? eeeeeeee.

So I say we sit and wait if they don't EVER respond...then there is a new serious concern to be had.

Yoss
10-18-2013, 11:30 AM
After february 2014 not anymore.
True, but to be clear, D3 is cancelling the AH because it degraded gameplay, not because of legal concerns. At its heart Diablo is designed to be an enjoyable loot grind where you are enlessly searching for that next rare drop, and the AH destroys that experience because you could just spend $1 to pick up what you need rather than play the game.

Hemotherapy
10-18-2013, 11:42 AM
True, but to be clear, D3 is cancelling the AH because it degraded gameplay, not because of legal concerns. At its heart Diablo is designed to be an enjoyable loot grind where you are enlessly searching for that next rare drop, and the AH destroys that experience because you could just spend $1 to pick up what you need rather than play the game.

That's the PR stunt, there's gotta be more to it than that.

They could just offer a way to play that locks the AH and requries you to be self found, like hardcore is a different game mode, that could be too.

There's gotta be more to it than "we just want to bring it back to what it's suppose to be".

Maybe that's it though, making more game modes just seperates the population even more, which would mean there'd be a smaller % of people to play with if you played the true form, which makes for a bad game, etc etc...so Maybe that's it, I still think there's more to it than just that though :D

Yoss
10-18-2013, 11:54 AM
That's the PR stunt, there's gotta be more to it than that.
Since I'm not a mind reader, I don't know what the Blizz team is actually thinking about it. All I have to go on is what they've said and how it resonates with my play experience. My Diablo 1 & 2 experience (I didn't play 3) tells me they're right to kill the AH. Without the loot grind I would have played 1/100th as much as I did. The hope for loot keeps it interesting, assuming you do actually get a good drop now and then. Grinding the exact same short path over and over because it's the "hot spot" for loot also gets old, but that's another matter which is somewhat far afield of the topic for Hex.

The relevance to Hex remains that there are other games out there that do RMT and allow player "ownership" of in-game stuff, therefore we know it can work. Whether CZE is willing and able to put up the capital investment to make it happen remains to be seen. Obviously they would need to have a clear business case for the investment that says the game will be more profitable with RMT and player ownership than it would be without. Adding RMT and ownership would make Hex truly a giant in the dTCG market, in my opinion, but I do not know how much cost is involved in setting it up. If the implementation cost is $1B (exaggerating) and the benefit is $1M, obviously they wouldn't want to do it. Flip those numbers and they obviously would.

Hemotherapy
10-18-2013, 12:00 PM
I agree completely, and it's probably for the better you didn't play D3, it didn't live up to D2's standards at all! lol..

But wether or not there's more to it, it was better for it to be gone.

I agree that having "onwership" of the items would help make it a giant in the dTCG and it would be a great.

But just like with bitcoins, people will ultimately decide the value of things themselves, and just like with D2, a EULA doesn't mean value can't be retained.

A friends brother made a "living" off farming and selling items in D2 through a third party channel, and did so for a very long time until the game lost it's luster to a great many as things go and the game was going downhill from it's peak.

When he say that happening, he cashed out everything else he had and that was it for him in Diablo. Unless the game


Just because CZE isn't adding a market to sell these things for real currency doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means they won't be the ones overseeing it. And that's a GREAT thing if you ask me. the RMAH was cool for D3 but you have to remember, Blizzard took 15%, then Paypal took another 15% to take it out of blizzards hands and put it into yours.

Where as with a market ran by the player base via a third party channel, all you have a 3% fee from Paypal, and that's it.

Granted, it at that point CZE isn't acting as a middle man to police and gaurentee you get what you pay for, but maybe paypal could. Who know's. Either way, there could be a ranking system put in like eBay, so you can only buy from trusted vendors. So buyer beware, but you'll get more from your sales. So it's give and take.

Which is sort of the way I think they're going to go, Cory himself said (shadowelf help a brother out here!) in one of the subsequent youtube videos that came out alongside their kickstarter video on youtube they want to do, HAVE to do a "hands off" approach to this. Because if the company gets invovled, it just doesn't work.

So I'm sure their EULA will stay the same, and it'll be up to the playerbase to establish the market, and keep it going, and they'll just take a blind eye to it.


I've cashed out of WoW and sold it when I quit.

The only way the cards wouldn't be worth anything to someone when you try to sell them, is if CZE announce it's shutting its doors and Hex is going to cease to exist. There will always be a third party channel to "cash out" on things anytime you want to as long as the game itself isn't going anywhere

Ju66ernaut
10-18-2013, 12:54 PM
When my girlfriend says she wants to do something really kinky that I think I'll enjoy, I shut my mouth and run with it. If I start asking all sorts of questions, have her list exact details, she's going to come around and lock off the topic.

Please stop asking my girlfriend all the wonderfully nasty things she'd like to do; you are ruining it for everyone.



Peace in the Middle East, three cheers for having an operating gov't, and watch your brother's back.

Ju66ernaut out.

stiii
10-18-2013, 01:52 PM
When my girlfriend says she wants to do something really kinky that I think I'll enjoy, I shut my mouth and run with it. If I start asking all sorts of questions, have her list exact details, she's going to come around and lock off the topic.

Please stop asking my girlfriend all the wonderfully nasty things she'd like to do; you are ruining it for everyone.


Peace in the Middle East, three cheers for having an operating gov't, and watch your brother's back.

Ju66ernaut out.


Is there some forum competition I don't know about to make the most confusing post?

Hemotherapy
10-18-2013, 02:12 PM
His post is basically a tall glass of milk for a shirt drink for "It's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"

Or atleas thats how I took it.

ossuary
10-18-2013, 04:28 PM
Realistically speaking, having the AH in D3 was in all likelihood a test run for whatever Blizzard is planning for Titan. Also, a good way to more fully monetize a game that was traditionally only a one-time cost.

Zomnivore
10-18-2013, 06:24 PM
Realistically speaking, having the AH in D3 was in all likelihood a test run for whatever Blizzard is planning for Titan. Also, a good way to more fully monetize a game that was traditionally only a one-time cost.

The funny thing is that Titan may not even succeed so throwing a successful fan-loved ip into the toilet to test out their market place may actually not have been the best thing.

Certainly the marketplace made them money, but how many people are really going to spend 60 dollars for another lame version of diablo when they can buy or play f2p versions that appreciate the genre just as well, if not more then they've shown with their product.

Still it probably wasn't hugely inefficient, probably just mildly.

ossuary
10-18-2013, 07:47 PM
People keep saying Rockstar needs to look at the rest of the industry around them and innovate their products, too... and yet, GTA5 still makes a billion dollars in sales revenue in 1 week.

D3 sold something ridiculous like 10 million copies in the first 3 months. Yeah, it didn't have the lasting power they expected, and the AH really hurt them, but the fact remains that companies like Blizzard still have the name power to do basically what they want, and people will happily ask for more. Blizzard may very well burn one bridge too many one of these days, but so far, they have continued to be untouchable, just like Rockstar.

Xtopher
10-18-2013, 07:56 PM
For me the problem with D3 wasn't the AH, it was that the game format isn't innovative any more. Like when D2 came out the cut scenes between chapters seemed like a serious reward, but now, cutscenes, bleh. As far as isometric gameplay goes, I'd rather play something like Jagged Alliance 2 or X-Com than something like D3.

ossuary
10-18-2013, 08:01 PM
Yeah, "the same, but prettier" isn't good enough anymore. Hasn't been for a long time... but companies keep seeming to get away with it, sadly.

Zomnivore
10-18-2013, 08:38 PM
I think that can be both a very depressing thought, and a very exciting proposition. Its one of those things that, you say as a consumer...but as potentially someone wanting to create content. That gives you a lot of space to explore, which is partly how the system works.

Small company explores x space taking y risk, gets bought into the borg z people get rewarded, and you now have a new thing. I guess that's the optimistic sort of spin.

The flip side is this really dangles people on a tight rope to success, and that companies will be as crap as they can get away with, because ooo look there's that person on the tight rope!

Also, I do understand that establishing a digital market place with goods is a similar dance with disaster. The infrastructure to handle that system isn't well researched, and laws are clunky and not as adaptable to this new space....so ya, no doubt that Crypt has their work cut out for them on this front.

Xtopher
10-18-2013, 09:50 PM
Small company explores x space taking y risk, gets bought into the borg z people get rewarded, and you now have a new thing. I guess that's the optimistic sort of spin.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Are you speculating on a CZE buyout by a bigger corp? If so, there's nothing good about that from a consumer perspective. A company that makes an acquisition doesn't simply want profits, it wants more profits than the fiscal year before, with incentivized bonuses. This can result in a poorer and poorer consumer experience over time (e.g. MTGO) as the previous independent company scrambles to figure out ways to become more profitable over the next 12 month period. This kind of myopathy would smother Hex in the cradle as it's easier to cut costs, to bring about short term profit, than it is to invest in new features.

So, yeah, the flip side you speak of would be the outcome, unfortunately.

If you're not referring to that, then nevermind.

ossuary
10-19-2013, 03:35 AM
I highly doubt it's a buyout or merger. CZE was only founded in 2010, specifically to give themselves the creative freedom they need and want to accomplish their goals (mainly, HEX). Also, it's extremely doubtful the community at large would find that news "exciting," and Cory doesn't strike me as the kind of person to try to spin that kind of announcement as exciting. He's way more in touch with the pulse of his supporters than that.

Zomnivore
10-19-2013, 10:34 AM
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

You rued that D3 wasn't very innovative.

Blizzard isn't a new company that's going to take risks from my perspective. Not after establishing a hit like WoW.

The statement makes sense in that context. I was trying to bring in the conversation away from d3 as a topic to orient it around the possible situation Hex and crypt might have had to deal with.

I don't think Hex is any more insulated from that possible reality of an acquisition than any other game company, it really just depends when people personally feel like its time to wrap up involvement.

Niedar
10-19-2013, 10:37 AM
Seriously, any talk of a buyout I think is just plain crazy and not at all going to happen right now. I can definitely see a a partnership being made in the esports arena being made though.

ossuary
10-19-2013, 10:43 AM
Yes, an eSports partnership could be a valid pairing that would be good for the game, too.

Yoss
10-21-2013, 03:01 PM
I do understand that establishing a digital market place with goods is a similar dance with disaster. The infrastructure to handle that system isn't well researched, and laws are clunky and not as adaptable to this new space....so ya, no doubt that Crypt has their work cut out for them on this front.

Exactly this. It's new territory that no one wants to touch. CZE seems like the type that's willing to tackle big risks for big payoff, so maybe they'll do it. However, that may be just a little bit too much innovation for one project; Hex is already revolutionary.

(In case they do go that route, here's an idea. Create a distributed network for distribution of digital goods, similar to the BitCoin idea. This protects the data from everything except toal internet failure. Then, have succession planning in case they ever want to stop investing in Hex and shut down the servers. This could entail giving the server code to a 3rd party to run on a donation basis, or maybe creation of a LAN/TCPIP downloadable client for peer-to-peer play once the Hex servers go down.)


Seriously, any talk of a buyout I think is just plain crazy and not at all going to happen right now. I can definitely see a a partnership being made in the esports arena being made though.

You're right about one thing. Any potential buyout wouldn't happen right now. It would happen later, after Hex rocks the world.

It's not crazy. It happens all the time. Person (or company) A has a brilliant idea, builds it, sells it, gets it running. Big company B sees success, swoops in with an offer to the owner for more money than he's ever seen in his life, more than he's expecting to make on the venture in the next 10 years. Maybe he agonizes over the decision to sell his brain-child, but eventually the money talks and he sells out. Good for him, I say. Yet, the customers are often left in the lurch.

Would CZE go that route after Hex is a billion-dollar success and someone like WOTC (or whoever) wants to do a buy-out? I do not know. Cory seems like the type to hold onto his baby, but he's also in this for the money just like any business.

Gwaer
10-21-2013, 10:34 PM
Cory wouldn't be the one to make the call. He's the CCO. Not the COO, CFO, or CEO any of which would be more likely to make a call like that.

jetah
10-22-2013, 05:01 PM
CZE would have become a consignment store for those that want to sell items. CZE could take a small cut, while also delivering the goods to the buyer.

The other option would be to have CZE create an in-house Auction House (ebay) just for HEX. CZE would host the website and would take a cut while delivering the goods to the buyer and funds (minus fees) to the seller. This would be outside of the game.

CZE would have to decide to never help someone who buys or sells items outside of this consignment shop.

I'm just not sure how CZE would deal with the IRS, if they needed to.

Yoss
10-24-2013, 10:01 AM
Cory wouldn't be the one to make the call. He's the CCO. Not the COO, CFO, or CEO any of which would be more likely to make a call like that.

Fair enough. Replace "Cory" in my paragraph with whatever name is appropriate.

Ebynfel
10-24-2013, 10:52 AM
Well, the new publishing agreement with Gameforge and LevelUp! reported to the forums here:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=28962&page=20&p=310569&viewfull=1#post310569

Could very well change things for this topic, as CZE would have the responsibilities of the NA, while the legal from the other regions could be handled at the distribution/publishing level in their native regions. Don't know what it would necessarily mean outside NA, or who gets the better end of the deal worldwide when it comes to this topic. Any thoughts?

Karmic
10-25-2013, 05:45 PM
The only game I know of that allows players to collect unlimited virtual currency and transfer it into something with value that can then be sold is EVE. Are there many other games like this out there?

There are a few, Entropia is one that I play and do very well at. Just about every single MMO (maybe all?) have a "black market" to buy and sell in-game items. I'd rather not use that. I don't want to give those sites my money, and I don't want to risk being banned in game if I did. There is no question anymore that virtual items have value, this should be no different than buying and selling WoWTCG cards.

ShadowTycho
10-26-2013, 07:36 AM
Just popped in to note that this is the EULA for the alpha.
as such it has to change every time they patch it, the sale and transfer of digital goods by account holders may be a thing that crypto allows down the line, but right now with everyone inside owning a playset and everyone outside wanting in this is basically a "no account selling" clause.

Yoss
10-28-2013, 09:45 AM
Just popped in to note that this is the EULA for the alpha.
as such it has to change every time they patch it, the sale and transfer of digital goods by account holders may be a thing that crypto allows down the line, but right now with everyone inside owning a playset and everyone outside wanting in this is basically a "no account selling" clause.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense for Alpha, now that you mention it. I was thinking "this is their draft of what the real EULA will look like", but as you point out it might just be that Alpha has no ownership (which we already knew anyway) and Beta will have an entirely different EULA.

Zomnivore
10-29-2013, 06:16 PM
Eh, honestly I hate entrapment-eula's.

It looks like this is the tone that's been set for the future eula's to come and I'm fairly disappointed.

Not that I had reasonable expectations, this has been an issues that's been war-gamed so much by the industry that there is no real consumer protection. Lame.

ossuary
10-30-2013, 04:52 AM
I'll say again, I am 100% sure this is a cookie-cutter EULA they got from an online resource, because they didn't have the time or money to have legal counsel make them a custom one. This is not the final EULA, and is not indicative of their overall intentions as a company, it's just the protection they need for the stage of development they are at.

The final EULA will be an actual EULA produced by real legal counsel, based on what they want to accomplish and the kinds of ownership and transfer of goods that Cory wants to support. It just isn't necessary (or productive) at this point in development to have that.

Svenn
10-30-2013, 06:27 AM
I just want to point out that there is a EULA text file inside of the Hex folder that is not the same as the one we signed initially. I didn't see this section in there. I'm not sure what's going on with that.

ShadowTycho
10-30-2013, 06:31 AM
since you don't have to click through it, its just a contract that you didn't and do not have to agree too(and it would be unenforceable if you did, because agreeing to the EULA you already agreed to gives you access to the program. Cryptozoic would not be giving you any consideration even if you agreed to the new contract. Without consideration, it would be voidable.)

It might have something to do with them wanting the Eula to pop up when the game updates, just another non functional thing they are working on.

Ebynfel
10-30-2013, 07:52 AM
since you don't have to click through it, its just a contract that you didn't and do not have to agree too(and it would be unenforceable if you did, because agreeing to the EULA you already agreed to gives you access to the program. Cryptozoic would not be giving you any consideration even if you agreed to the new contract. Without consideration, it would be voidable.)

It might have something to do with them wanting the Eula to pop up when the game updates, just another non functional thing they are working on.


im no legal expert(thus this post is prefaced properly)
The EULA popping up on patch, could it be a suggestion from the legal team? A lot of games are doing it, so I'm not sure if it's a necessary evil or not?

ShadowTycho
10-30-2013, 09:06 AM
im no legal expert(thus this post is prefaced properly)
The EULA popping up on patch, could it be a suggestion from the legal team? A lot of games are doing it, so I'm not sure if it's a necessary evil or not?
So here is how this breaks down.
you receive a email letting you into he game with a link so long as you agree to the EULA, also linked.
This is an offer.
the conversation would be like this:

"CZE: you may play our game if you agree to give up certain rights and considerations, listed here.
you:I accept your offer."

If you download the game you agree to the eula in this situation.
but now you have the right to claim access to the game, provided you don't violate the EULA.
Cryptozoic releases a patch. now the game that you have is not the game that you agreed to!
If a new EULA does not pop up when the patcher ends, the you don't have to click through an offer from CZE for the new game you now have.
That makes it a gift, since CZE sent it to you, and you accepted it.
making the new transaction:
"CZE:Here is a great game!
you: Rockin."

you still are bound by your contract for the old version of that game, but the new one is clearly not the old one... so you need a new contract.
To make matters worse if CZE cut off access to the new game after you got it without agreeing to a new contract(IE, makign you sign to play a newer updated version) you could agree and it would be uninforcable, because CZE is not giving you anything in consideration for you giving up your rights that you have in the EULA since past consideration is not consideration AND the new contract would have been made in bad faith(and any contract made off of it).

Ebynfel
10-30-2013, 09:21 AM
so basically, it is necessary if not functional ,in order to distribute patches

ShadowTycho
10-30-2013, 11:25 AM
yep. from a legal standpoint.

Ebynfel
10-30-2013, 11:26 AM
Sounds good :) I'll take it