PDA

View Full Version : Gifting



mudcrabkilla
04-30-2014, 05:27 AM
I know it is not allowed to trade or sell accounts but I see there are a number of people who bought accounts to gift to friends and family. I have multiple pledges and have used all the codes to merge into one account but I still have the other account which I have never logged onto. I would like to gift it to a friend and when its working change it over to his email. Is this allowed? I'm a bit confused in what ways you are allow to gift things and whats a no no.

Zomnivore
04-30-2014, 05:28 AM
Don't think you can do it, legit...but I don't see a reason why you couldn't ill-legit let him borrow it while its in closed beta.

mudcrabkilla
04-30-2014, 05:34 AM
hmm ok thank you for the reply

Xenavire
04-30-2014, 05:46 AM
Actually, I think gifting him an empty account is fine. If support refuses to do it, theres your answer.

mudkip
04-30-2014, 08:23 AM
Gifting the empty account is fine, this was stated during the Alpha.

The more players the better!

Yoss
04-30-2014, 09:10 AM
Gifting unredeemed codes is also fine.

mudcrabkilla
04-30-2014, 09:23 AM
Oh great! Thank you all : )

Gwaer
04-30-2014, 10:11 AM
Gifting unredeemed codes is also fine.
This is specifically not fine according to the hextcg twitter so ymmv

Xenavire
04-30-2014, 10:13 AM
This is specifically not fine according to the hextcg twitter so ymmv

I thought gifting codes was allowed? (I know some codes explicitly are allowed, like the guild master packs codes). I thought it was only sales or trades that violated the ToS - buying tiers for family members and friends was allowed and even encouraged, and I have not heard any policy changes since then, except against selling/trading.

Gwaer
04-30-2014, 10:15 AM
Their prohibition against code trading didnt seem to carve out exceptions for gifts, but mayhaps?

ossuary
04-30-2014, 10:18 AM
Things have been so weird and negative on the boards lately, I accidentally read this thread title as grifting instead of gifting. ;)

Xenavire
04-30-2014, 10:19 AM
Their prohibition against code trading didnt seem to carve out exceptions for gifts, but mayhaps?

I do distinctly remember that one or more devs explicitly encouraged people to buy tiers as gifts. However, that may have been true only while the kickstarter was active. I wouldn't be surprised if they are against gifting codes that originally weren't intended to be gifted.

Which would actually make me guilty of receiving an illegal gift, in which case I would happily put in a ticket to have it removed from my account.

Miyordon
04-30-2014, 10:31 AM
Actually on twitter, five days ago, someone specifically asked and was told they could give away codes and that they were generous for it. No mention at all of it being the 30 booster codes.

Kami
04-30-2014, 10:36 AM
Keyword is gift. If money is involved, it is in the realm of account trading and terms & conditions.

If someone 'gifts' you code(s) for something tangible (like money), you will have zero recourse if it goes south.

Likewise, if you 'gift' someone your code(s) for something tangible (like money), you will have zero recourse if it goes south.

Gifting in itself is innocent as far as I can tell.

Yoss
04-30-2014, 10:46 AM
Gifting is a one-sided transaction and therefore no legal worry for them. If you gave a code away, you obviously weren't expecting compensation. Likewise, if you were gifted something, you have no right to complain about the quality of the gift (i.e. if the code doesn't work, it's not like it cost you anything).

ossuary
04-30-2014, 10:59 AM
I do distinctly remember that one or more devs explicitly encouraged people to buy tiers as gifts. However, that may have been true only while the kickstarter was active. I wouldn't be surprised if they are against gifting codes that originally weren't intended to be gifted.

Which would actually make me guilty of receiving an illegal gift, in which case I would happily put in a ticket to have it removed from my account.

Put in the ticket to have it added to my account instead. Then YOU don't have to feel guilty. I can take the hit. ;)

Xenavire
04-30-2014, 11:04 AM
Put in the ticket to have it added to my account instead. Then YOU don't have to feel guilty. I can take the hit. ;)

I would consider it if I didn't think it would offend the gifter. After talking with him, he seemed fairly sure he wanted me to have it, even with the flip on stacking.

I am trying to have a happy guild, so I have to step lightly when things like this are involved. But I am sure you understand, eh, guildy? :D

ossuary
04-30-2014, 11:22 AM
Just don't ask me to add a giant signature jpg. :)

Gwaer
04-30-2014, 11:34 AM
He's not asking. He's telling. One of us... One of us...

Xenavire
04-30-2014, 11:43 AM
Just don't ask me to add a giant signature jpg. :)

Is it still too big? I cut the size in half recently. :p


He's not asking. He's telling. One of us... One of us...

Gooble gobble! Gooble gobble! But Oss has expressed interest without me strong-arming, so he is free to come and go as he wants.

Too bad I can't subtly hint to all the forum posters to come and join... :p

oncewasblind
04-30-2014, 01:05 PM
... but you just did!

Cowbot
05-01-2014, 07:17 AM
Ok, I've seen a lot of these sorts of threads, where even moderators give false information. Maybe CZE themselves haven't read their own TOS, I don't know. NO gifting, NO transferring, NONE for any reason done outside of the Hex engine. Here is the TOS, on page 4:

"7. 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."

Virtual assets = cards. You can't sell cards outside of the game engine.

Gifting accounts is mentioned specifically, as well. On page 3

"4. Ownership and Transfer of Account.... [Bunch of all cap stuff] You may not rent, lend, redistribute or sublicense your Account or any part of the HEX Game."

If people are gifting things or giving away items as prizes they are not being punished ONLY because CZE chooses not to. They are certainly within their rights to punish.

The trick is on the last page, page 9:
"If any provision of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable, that provision shall be severed and the remainder of the Agreement shall be given full force and effect."

So if they can't enforce it, you're free to do whatever.

There is no way for them to practically enforce a restriction on gifting accounts, or under-the-table selling/buying of accounts. But you do it at your own risk, they will not help you, and if they find out about it they are well within their rights to ban you. (In fact, they can ban you for ANY REASON without even telling you.)

So no more of this "gifting is ok with the TOS." It, strictly speaking, isn't.

Kami
05-01-2014, 07:33 AM
The TOS is just legalese to protect themselves and provide clauses to enforce when required.

The key point is that it is their decision whether to enforce certain parts or not. They've stated publicly about what you can do or not do.

There is no false information when it's coming directly from CZE themselves.

As you've realized:


If people are gifting things or giving away items as prizes they are not being punished ONLY because CZE chooses not to. They are certainly within their rights to punish.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 08:03 AM
This creates a very bad precedent for other people though. If the conduct is against the TOS but allowed, then people will believe similar conduct against the TOS is allowed.

For example, I don't understand how we have a third-party Hex card store selling cards for cash. It is clearly against the TOS--an external sale of virtual assets. If I want to sell my account containing my virtual assets, or any piece of them, I cannot do that according to CZE.

Kami
05-01-2014, 08:10 AM
This creates a very bad precedent for other people though. If the conduct is against the TOS but allowed, then people will believe similar conduct against the TOS is allowed.

For example, I don't understand how we have a third-party Hex card store selling cards for cash. It is clearly against the TOS--an external sale of virtual assets. If I want to sell my account containing my virtual assets, or any piece of them, I cannot do that according to CZE.

Have you seen WotC's MTGO TOS?

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1358/~/magic-online%3A-user-agreement-and-software-license

Even they prohibit it with nearly the exact same phrasing but there's a huge 3rd-party market out there despite that.

Conduct against TOS is not officially allowed, so to speak. It is more reasonable to think of CZE as providing permissions on a case-by-case basis or even situation-by-situation basis.

As far as I'm aware, for example, the HEXTCGPro store was cleared by Cory himself. Afterall, CZE has final say. Like I said earlier, the TOS has to be more strict to give them options if something truly bad happens.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer but this seems logical.

Edit:

Long story short, if you go against TOS, you do so at your own risk. Whether CZE chooses to enforce it or not is their prerogative.

I should put a disclaimer though: These are just my thoughts on the matter. ^^;

Zomnivore
05-01-2014, 08:22 AM
Its just annoying to see that they don't have any answers to the problem either.

You put yourself at risk to do the things you think you're allowed to do, even though it says you're not...but they said its ok....so...

Bleh. Just not fun at all. Hopefully they can re write it later to be much more specific and less...seemingly risky on the part of the individual.

Then again the people willing to take the risks probably have a big incentive to, and its the smaller cost-benefit ratios that make people say no to certain actions, that may actually be allowed.

Obviously the reality is that more likely then not you're not going to get screwed, and in a situation where they would try, they'd have to take into account the net affect, but at the end of the day, thats still a whole lot of grey area and bleh. No fun.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 08:24 AM
Then again, I'm not a lawyer but this seems logical.

Well, I am. Selective enforcement of contractual terms can lead to waiver, and waiver can lead to an inability to enforce those terms. This is a higher risk in the TOS, a contract of adhesion, where a third-party could claim the ban on selling virtual assets was not a reasonable expectation given the allowance of other sellers to exist. Not that anyone is going to file suit over it.

I was actually surprised how short the TOS was when I read it.

mach
05-01-2014, 08:59 AM
Well, I am. Selective enforcement of contractual terms can lead to waiver, and waiver can lead to an inability to enforce those terms. This is a higher risk in the TOS, a contract of adhesion, where a third-party could claim the ban on selling virtual assets was not a reasonable expectation given the allowance of other sellers to exist. Not that anyone is going to file suit over it.

I was actually surprised how short the TOS was when I read it.

IANAL, but CZE is well within their rights to offer different entities (such as HEXTCGPro) different licenses, right? The existence of a "vendor license" which allows external transfer does not make the ban on such transfers in the "normal user license" unreasonable.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 09:13 AM
IANAL, but CZE is well within their rights to offer different entities (such as HEXTCGPro) different licenses, right? The existence of a "vendor license" which allows external transfer does not make the ban on such transfers in the "normal user license" unreasonable.

I have no idea what kind of license they have. All I have read is that it got Cory's "blessing," which makes me think there is no separate writing. Having a separate license is all well and good, the problem is the TOS say they don't recognize any outside sales, rather than those they have approved.

What I am saying is that taking all these differing stances waters down the strength of the contract. It's like Zomnivore said, if the terms say one thing, they come out and say another, and then try to fall back onto the terms to stop someone, that is not as strong a legal footing as people think.

I don't think any of this is likely to end up in a legal dispute simply because the value is not there. However, the perception bothers me. They would have been better off telling the outside stores nothing, and let it be a grey market area. Giving the "blessing" would not have been my advice.

ossuary
05-01-2014, 09:13 AM
I have said this before and I will probably say it again before the heat-death of the universe: I am 100% positive that the current TOS and EULA CZE are using are boilerplate ones, marginally adapted from commonly available ones. When the final version of the game comes out, I fully expect there to be a significantly enhanced (and personalized) TOS and EULA better matching the actual intentions of the company. This is another one of those "we need something for now, we'll deal with it later" placeholders. Chillax. :)

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 09:18 AM
I have said this before and I will probably say it again before the heat-death of the universe: I am 100% positive that the current TOS and EULA CZE are using are boilerplate ones, marginally adapted from commonly available ones. When the final version of the game comes out, I fully expect there to be a significantly enhanced (and personalized) TOS and EULA better matching the actual intentions of the company. This is another one of those "we need something for now, we'll deal with it later" placeholders. Chillax. :)

As am I, since the TOS and EULA still reference alpha software which no longer exists.

mach
05-01-2014, 09:27 AM
I have no idea what kind of license they have. All I have read is that it got Cory's "blessing," which makes me think there is no separate writing. Having a separate license is all well and good, the problem is the TOS say they don't recognize any outside sales, rather than those they have approved.

What I am saying is that taking all these differing stances waters down the strength of the contract. It's like Zomnivore said, if the terms say one thing, they come out and say another, and then try to fall back onto the terms to stop someone, that is not as strong a legal footing as people think.

I don't think any of this is likely to end up in a legal dispute simply because the value is not there. However, the perception bothers me. They would have been better off telling the outside stores nothing, and let it be a grey market area. Giving the "blessing" would not have been my advice.

If I'm reading them correctly, the quotes from the TOS forbid selling but not buying. They don't recognize outside sales by those bound by that TOS. This is academic if it's the only license available, but very significant if there's also a vendor license out there.

So I think it boils down to what exactly Cory's Blessing is. If it's just an informal "sure, go ahead" I agree with you. If it's a contract from CZE's lawyers, I think everything's fine.

(Who else thinks that Cory's Blessing would be a great card name?)

ossuary
05-01-2014, 09:31 AM
It grants you immunity from feeling shame.

Xenavire
05-01-2014, 09:32 AM
It grants you immunity from feeling shame.

And gives you an awkward hug if it leaves the warzone.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 09:37 AM
Presumably they have to have accounts bound by the in-game TOS and EULA though, otherwise how would they deliver the product to players?

AFAIK, that store is selling cracked packs from Kickstarter rewards. Those are going to expire at some point and new sets are going to come out. I don't think buying packs and cracking them is a viable business model for acquiring new cards to sell, so I assume this would operate the same way as the grey market MTGO stores, trading packs and cards for tickets and then selling the tickets for cash.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 09:41 AM
Cory's Blessing
Quick Action
2, DD

Target troop gains protection from damage, takes 10,00,000 damage, then apologizes for not dying.

ossuary
05-01-2014, 09:44 AM
What, mechanically speaking, is an apology? That sounds like a keyword.

GatticusFinch
05-01-2014, 09:46 AM
What, mechanically speaking, is an apology? That sounds like a keyword.

Apologize: Grants all opponents one threshold of each shard in compensation for sadness.

ossuary
05-01-2014, 10:14 AM
Damn, I need to build an apologist deck so I can finally get full use out of Midnight Shepherd. :p