×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Battle.net Accounts Becoming Mandatory For WoW

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-know-what-this-means dept.

Games 234

An anonymous reader tips news that Blizzard will be requiring all World of Warcraft players to use Battle.net accounts to log into the game starting on November 11th. After that time, players who don't switch will be unable to play the game. Some time after the transition is complete, players will be able to "participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft, create real-life friends lists, and communicate across different games." More details on the new Battle.net and what it will do are available in our Blizzcon wrap-up and interviews from August. Naturally, the idea that the new Battle.net is getting closer to deployment has sparked speculation that the StarCraft II beta might come along soon.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729297)

But what will it change? I mean, other than having to open an account at Battle.net, what is the news exactly?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729305)

You get a free penguin pet, and there is speculation that this is a precondition for releasing StarCraft II.

As for Battle.net itself, it should allow you to chat in real time with friends playing other Blizzard games. Blizzard likely wants to use this to make it easier to leverage WoW into new franchises.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Funny)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729311)

It means your WoW guild leader can see that you are online playing Starcraft II instead of being in WoW during raid time. And that is 50 dkp minus.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729349)

And if one account is banned, you lose online on all your games. So smart people will make separate accounts.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729367)

or just abide by the rules like really smart people

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729387)

Really smart people usually prefer to figure out how not to get punished for breaking rules harder than they would be punished by abiding by the rules.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729433)

Bullshit. Really smart people just don't cheat because they are smart enough to understand that it ruins the experience for all involved, including themselves. Noob.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (-1, Troll)

courseofhumanevents (1168415) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729527)

An MMORPG where I can't cheat is already a ruined experience by me.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730191)

Then go crawl back into the cess pit you crawled out of and let those who wish to play for fun do so. Not to find some noob who has level 5 million armour on day 1 with the sword of death and is camping the quest everyone needs.

Loser!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729773)

Cheating is just playing a different game

Accepting the rules as fixed and inflexible is silly. Almost every MMO has some sort of stats you can minmax, is that cheating? You can certainly gain a superior advantage above anyone who doesn't and "ruin their experience". Just because something is forbidden by the rules doesn't make it bad, and just because some behavior is permitted doesn't make it desirable.

MMOs are sandboxes, and as a broader abstraction so is everything online. You can try and tell people how to play in sandboxes, but there will always be those who seek out the gaps because a complex system is interesting for its own sake.

Not every hacker/exploiter cares about ruining peoples fun. Some just like exploring the limits of the programming.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730263)

Its forbidden by the rules but isn't bad? Hmm sounds like what the last serial killer used in his defense. You sir are a total waste of the oxygen your taking in.

v. cheated, cheating, cheats
v.tr.
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
4. Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base.
n.
1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.
4. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
5. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730497)

I'll bet there are cases where cheaters improved the game by forcing the developers to fix exploits and do some other maintenance.

Me, I'm not smart enough to cheat.

I find it interesting though that people who would never, ever cheat in an MMORPG would have no problem downloading the latest Arcade Fire album from sooperbigtorrentzzz.org

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29731207)

Its forbidden by the rules but isn't bad? Hmm sounds like what the last serial killer used in his defense. You sir are a total waste of the oxygen your taking in.

Because using software in an unintended fashion is the same as murdering people. That's good enough to be a BSA/RIAA/MPAA argument. There's degrees to morality.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729811)

Bullshit. Really smart people just don't want to get locked in because they are smart enough to understand cross-game data-mining and the fact that they can no longer gift/sell a used game if they are all tied to one account.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730241)

Really smart people don't get CAUGHT! ^^

And really smart developers have integrated the cheating into the mechanics and — without the user knowing that — made it just another one of the ways of playing the game.

Because if in real life, you live a successful life and have many children, because you cheated... does it really matter that you didn't do it the "right" way? Evolution doesn't care.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730443)

Really smart people just don't cheat because they are smart enough to understand that it ruins the experience for all involved, including themselves.

Yes, but the really, REALLY smart people...

Oh, nevermind.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729455)

Yes, because there will be no false positives whatsoever. And because all the rules are fair and deserve to be followed. And because with LAN play you can always choose to use an alternate way of networking for SC2.

Nope, I'll just be making a new SC2 only account.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730525)

What makes you think there will be "LAN play" for Starcraft 2? I wouldn't bet on it being in the finished product.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730419)

or just abide by the rules like really smart people

The AC presents an interesting philosophical issue here. "Do the "really" smart people "really" do better by "abiding by the rules""?

I think some recent science in the areas of biology and sociology would suggest "maybe not".

Have all of you always done better by "abiding by the rules"?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (4, Insightful)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730751)

It depends what you mean by "the rules". If you want to be a really successful criminal, it almost always means joining or founding some form of organized crime (and before people start, I'm including being elected to political office). Organized crime is simply a replacement trust network for society at large, and while they break society's rules, they don't break their own very often, since the penalty for doing so is usually far worse than anything society metes out.

In order to live almost any kind of life that could be called a "success" you have to form and sustain trust networks with others. It's just unavoidable.

Sometimes you can get away with breaking the rules, but this is quite uncommon. The only reason we don't think this is so is that we are so used to following the rules that we don't tend to notice when we're doing it.

There's also an unexamined assumption here (yet another example of Christianity's baleful influence on our culture) that people can actually choose to be good or bad. I'm not sure that this is the case for most people. Good people tend to be pained, shamed and distressed if they do bad things, so for such people there really isn't much of a sense in which they'd be "better off" breaking moral rules. Bad folks don't seem to care, so that's not a problem for them. Given that by the time most of us are old enough to ponder it, our moral characters are already formed, the idea of a "choice" is somewhat senseless. Ask yourself how many people you know who have radically altered their moral character. All such cases I know have involved some traumatic event, like going to jail, being the victim of a terrible crime, or some sort of head injury.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (2, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730805)

Heh... Considering that Linux users using WINE were tagged as breaking the rules, even though they weren't, I'd say that creating an account for each style of game accordingly might not be a bad idea.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729423)

I think that Blizzard game accounts are banned on a per-game basis, even when linked to Battle.net

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729661)

That's a pretty big "I think".

However, I think you are right.
Cheating isn't against any laws or even the EULA of the game.

So if I cheat in WC3 and get banned, I cannot see how they could legally block access to my other games.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729757)

Almost every game has something in the EULA against using third-party programs (cheats) to modify the game.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730023)

Read the termination without prior notification part again. It says they can lock anyone out at any time for no reason other than that they feel like doing it.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (3, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 4 years ago | (#29731029)

When asked at Blizzcon, they stated that the battle.net account would be banned from all games, they made a joke about how that would be 'real' punishment.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29731183)

Game designers hate cheaters. If it were up to them, someone cheating in HL2 wouldn't be able to play any Blizzard games, either. But it's not really entirely up to them. There's marketing, customer service, and the legal department that all get to weigh in on the issue, too.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Informative)

MWojcik (859959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730371)

That's not true:

The way Battle.net accounts are currently set up, if you receive a suspension on a World of Warcraft account attached to that Battle.net account, it has no affect on any other World of Warcraft accounts that may also be attached.

Source: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=20464488049&pageNo=2&sid=1#39 [worldofwarcraft.com]

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730763)

Note: I am not the grand father poster, nor do I play WoW.

Is suspension considered to be a ban? This sounds very carefully worded to me.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729347)

For a while, Blizzard had little keygen token thingies that would generate a 1-time password for you to log in to your World of Warcraft account.

I wonder if these will cease to function after the migration to Battle.net accounts.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0, Troll)

malkir (1031750) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729365)

Of courrrrse they will. At the very least, that tokenizer will be used to log into BattleNET itself. If the existing ones are obsolete..i 'm sure they'll give them away in bulk. Every Blizzcon attendee got one for free, I don't even play WoW.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729471)

Q: Do Battle.net accounts work with the Blizzard Authenticator?
A: Yes. If you use a Blizzard Authenticator, you will need it when merging the associated World of Warcraft account into the new Battle.net Account. The Authenticator will automatically transfer to the Battle.net Account during the merge process, and you will still need it when managing Battle.net Account information and logging in to the game. In addition, Blizzard Entertainment offers the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, an application for mobile devices that players can use to protect a Battle.net account and any World of Warcraft accounts associated with it. In addition, Blizzard Entertainment offers the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, an application for mobile devices that players can use to protect a Battle.net account and any World of Warcraft accounts associated with it. For more information on the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, visit http://eu.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_GB&articleId=35970.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729457)

Basically, Blizzard is creating their own Steam-like competitor. You need a AAAAA level game that people are willing to register a new account for (like Valve did with Half-Life 2). Some people might bitch about it, but if you drink the Steam-Kool-Aid (like I do) it creates a better community atmosphere for those who play particular video games 10, 20 or even 80 hours a week. But enough about the community aspect, this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam. Valve pioneered the idea of building a D.Distribution network on a AAAAA title, and Blizzard is following their buisness plan step for step, by requiring people to register a battle.net account for Starcraft 2 (and WoW). Between the two, they'll have how many tens of millions of registered customers ready and waiting to buy games through their digital distribution channel? On day 1 no less. Pretty cool, and damn smart. Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year
 
One can only hope (dream?) that battle.net and steam will have some sort of interoperability down the road. Fenced gardens are great, but people aren't going to want to juggle Battle.Net, Steam and Games for Windows Live buddy lists.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729499)

AAAAA

What's that? The Alcoholics Anonymous Association for drunk drivers [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (3, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729519)

this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.

It'll be nice to see some competition. Having one company control the distribution channel will cause issues over the long term when they get too comfortable. Blizzard's one of the few publishers that has the weight to compete.

I doubt they'd be quick with the friends list integration though. Third party tools will probably pop up long before.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730575)

Except when Blizzard and Steam inevitably merge it'll suck.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730621)

Blizzard + Steam = .... Rain?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (2, Interesting)

soupforare (542403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29731021)

I'm not sure Valve is immune to the heat generated from some of the other DD services. Direct2Drive's recent per-week sales are now over. The buzz generated on slickdeals and the gamer forums I frequent was pretty high. I log in to steam last night and lo, they've got an extremely similar per-week deal going. It's even THQ games, which were what most people, again in my circles, were excited about on D2D. Titan Quest/SupCom/CoH/foo.
I can't believe that's coincidence. If hope blizz does get into it, I want more ridiculously cheap games.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729611)

Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year

Dear Mr. Hadlock

In the future, please refrain from requesting performance bonuses on public forums.

M.Morhaime.

P.S.: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729889)

You did not read carefully: he was not requesting performance bonus: he was trash-talking his competiors for the upcoming fights.

teh eXXecutive that pioneered this is gettin a PHAT performance bonus next year! I have the Mortalis!!! BWAHAHAHA!!!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729855)

Blizzard did not copied Valve with Battle.net.

Battle.net existed since 1997, way before Steam (2003).

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730489)

Battle.net as a digital distribution service did not exist since 1997, it was primarily a matchmaking service.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730739)

please. community is not an excuse for DRM. DRM doesn't create community, either.

This is all about their lockdown attempts. *LOTS* of people can and are bitching about it, and rightly so.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

jiteo (964572) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730867)

Blizzard already have their content distribution network - it's called BitTorrent.

No really, their downloader for the WoW client and patches is a (possibly modified/customized) branded BitTorrent client.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730719)

it means your right to resell the game is completely trumped since you can't sell WOW without selling your other blizzard games if they are linked.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA (1)

cabjf (710106) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730893)

Or you just create a new account for your WoW account. But I think selling existing WoW accounts is against their terms anyhow. It isn't about restricting the reselling so much as trying to create a fair environment in-game for everyone that worked for their levels and gear.

Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729359)

D2LagZero (IP Address 190.54.36.11) is a great Server for my WoW CLIENT to auth in Battlenet protocol.

Oh, wait you mean The pwners of Battle.net are forcing my CLIENT into their service contract? Can you say entrapment? anti-trust should clear this up like it split Microsoft into Micros~1 and Micros~2...

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729621)

You mean THEIR software that you are renting?

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve (1)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729767)

No, we rent access to their server. The software is ours, that copy at least. If we want our software to connect to a different server that is our right. The fact that they have the ability to lock it down doesn't make it right even if its legal, for now. I don't think the Supreme Court has made a ruling on this sort of thing just yet.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730119)

Google EULA

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730171)

Google unenforceable, unconscionable, consideration

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve (1)

Gorm the DBA (581373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730881)

"Google unenforceable, unconscionable, consideration"
Google "Has been enforced frequently", "Copyright Law says they don't even have to let you have it at all if they don't want to", and "In exchange for being allowed a license to install the game and access their servers".
No Court is ever going to turn down a game writer's ability to police their game. Yes, if there was a EULA term that says "You agree to give us your first born child and all your base", a Court might turn that away, however, a EULA that says "If you want to play this game, you must play it by our rules, if you don't like it, you should return the software immediately for a refund" has never been defeated in a court of law.

And still... (4, Funny)

Fo0dNippl3 (923930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729411)

WoW players the world over cried out in anger over yet another small change.

Re:And still... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730501)

Yes, but it's still annoying. It's just another way for Blizzard to mine customer data and spamvertise more. In the end, it's really just five minutes of my time wasted filling out a form so they can try and sell me more crap. Anybody who plays WoW only gets exactly zero benefit from this.

That said, you'd think WoW players would be a bit more concerned about, oh, I don't know, the constant server crashes, rolling restarts, major patch bugs (how the HELL do you break an entire MMO by putting a typo in the credits.txt file!? Oh, right, you release the checksum for the rolled up patch file WITHOUT the typo taken into account), and just generally utter crap technical quality of the game. But the same people who will cry and moan for hours about five minutes of form filling for this are the same fanboy idiots who will go onto the forums after a whole day of downtime and make up endless excuses for Blizzard's failure, even though no other modern MMO suffers anything close to that level of technical dysfunction.

I guess what I'm saying is, what more would you expect? WoW players aren't really known for being particularly blessed by common sense. They're paying $15 a month for one of the worst maintained games out there, and they're HAPPY about it.

I like WoW and all, but the way Blizzard runs it since the Activision merger, anybody who's still paying for their awful service is an imbecile.

Re:And still... (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730977)

When a guy is selling you crack, you don't complain that his apartment is dirty. He can pretty much slap you in the face and you'll still come back for more.

This is great news (2, Informative)

malkir (1031750) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729417)

This means that the SC2 beta will be released November...December at the latest. The multiplayer game is polished and ready to be played, from my personal discussed with my Blizzard friends they are simply waiting on BNet to roll out. The fact that they chose to pilot it for WoW instead of testing internally with SC2 just shows that they're confident it's in a solid state.

Fuck yes, finally my beta key will be active :D

Buggy (1, Interesting)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729425)

The implementation seems buggy. I don't play WoW anymore, but I logged into my email this morning to find out some guy used the account migration stuff to link my inactive account to his battle.net account. Well, Blizz have never been good at getting things right the first time.

Re:Buggy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729451)

So he had your password?

At least come up with plausible bullshit if you're going to troll.

Re:Buggy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729491)

It's not a troll, happened to me and at least to 16 other people I know (guild mates and RL friends). I'm not sure how, but if your account is not linked to a battle.net account, and they know your email, they can link that account to their battle.net account and activate it as legitimate users.

Hell, even Blizzard has warnings on their official forums with steps to follow if you get that email, is just they don't acknowledge is a bug on their system. Oh, of course, if you tell them is a bug they deny it, Blizzard doesn't have bugs!

Not a big issue if you don't play any more, but not nice for heavy players who find their toons naked and without all the epix l00t they gathered in these months.

Re:Buggy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729571)

That's fine though, epic loot is so stupidly easy to get these days that it shouldn't matter how much you lose, right? Hell I've probably disenchanted enough epics for a whole guild of 'alts'.

Re:Buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730223)

You probably failed to respond to one of their emails with your account information to verify that you didn't sell your account.

BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances? (1)

mrbene (1380531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729473)

There's word of cross-server instances [ign.com]. I expect the functionality to support these features is baked into the newer authentication system.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729859)

The mentioned cross-server LFG tool looks interesting, but I'm just wondering if it will make people act even worse in instances than before because there would be no worry about bad reputation with people not on the same realm.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances? (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730583)

The mentioned cross-server LFG tool looks interesting, but I'm just wondering if it will make people act even worse in instances than before because there would be no worry about bad reputation with people not on the same realm.

Agreed. Add to that, that instability for the instance servers is often bad enough as it is.

It's one of the bad ideas that Chilton/Ghostcrawler have been able to implement, now that WoW is essentially their own feifdom which is more or less entirely seperate from Blizzard's upper management.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances? (1)

drjuggler (1121225) | more than 4 years ago | (#29731125)

It's something that should have been set up long ago. If I'm playing an online FPS I can always play with people I know IRL. The friends I have who play WoW are all on different servers; what good is Massive Multiplayer in that case?

Legal? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29729849)

The legality of this requirement with less than 30 days notice is questionable. It might be a positive thing, and it might be beneficial to all, but changes in terms are, in fact, required by law to have a "reasonable" lead time. And I don't know of any case that has been appealed, for which the courts have decided that less than 30 days was "reasonable".

Re:Legal? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29729949)

Hmm, well the notice went up on October 12th with the change to be made on November 11th latest. That is ummmm 30 days?

Re:Legal? - Depends where you are (2, Interesting)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730033)

Dont forget there are requirements that such changes are 'legal' not just in the USA, but subject to laws in Australia, New Zealand, as well, at least for the US version... then there is the can of worms that is the EU (not being judgemental, but alot of the laws the EU have tend to look down upon a company changing the rules on their customers). As to anyone who says 'oh but your EULA/TOS is binding in the USA, even if youre from country X, ill say this: Im an ex WoW player, and im glad ive given up WoWCrack and im not a lawyer... but when a company like Blizzard, sells (yes i said sell, they SELL the game) the transaction is local in my country, and here, neither party is allowed contract out of your legal rights... infact Blizzard has already made reference to said laws a couple of times ;)

Re:Legal? (3, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730067)

The change was announced about half a year ago and the deadline was announced 31 days ahead so I have no idea what you're on about.

Re:Legal? (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730335)

For what it's worth, if you played WoW everyone was already told this day was coming. Way back when Wrath of the Lich King came out, people were told that we would eventually be forced to move to Battle.net logins. If you hadn't moved over by now, that's your dumb fault.

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730565)

So says the wanna-be Lawyer looking for an excuse to sue someone.

Makes sharing Accounts problematic (1)

Hutz (900771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730139)

This is one of their points, although they do mention that it is still within their TOS to share with your child. I have 2 children, and I manage their accounts. So now they log in with My email address -- happily, I have 2 email addresses as that's what is required now.

I'm sure every 12-year-old in America (or the world) has his own credit card and pays the bill each month. No? Why should the bill payer get the billing notices? Much better to let the minors manage the accounts.

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730375)

you know what it means: time to get your 12-year-old kids come credit cards!

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic (1)

Nqdiddles (805995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730455)

I have 3 WoW accounts on my battlenet login (2 friends who quit the game), and I can be online with all three at the same time, with the same login - you have a drop-down box to select which account to log into. So you don't necessarily need 3 email addresses - the only issue I see is that when they log onto their accounts they'll use your login (email), and password. Yes, that's an issue, but you seem to have solved that by using 2 email addresses (presumably 2 bnet accounts). Not sure where the credit card issue comes into it... subscription to each account hasn't changed.

Just wondering.... (1)

HazMat 79 (1481233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730281)

since I am not into MMOs, but how is this different than Xbox live? I assume maybe the fact is you can't play without being online but I am talking about the friends lists and cross game chat mostly. Live and from my understanding Steam already does this. Aren't they just catching up?

Still better than Square-Enix (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730313)

They started to require "Verified" credit cards, or whatever the hell it's called, a few months ago.

My bank doesn't support that. So I just can't play FF XI anymore, period. Way to go dumbasses, you just lost a customer.

So I say fuck them and their upcoming new FF-online game. I'm fucking tired of monthly fees everywhere anyway.

Re:Still better than Square-Enix (1)

lbbros (900904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730385)

The verification was required due to increase in compromised accounts and the associated credit card chargebacks by compromised users. Also, it's not mandatory for EU accounts and you can request an exemption via the customer service. Lastly. if you haven't changed credit card data prior to the introduction of verified cards, it's not required.

Re:Still better than Square-Enix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29730427)

I'm in Canada, and it's mandatory. Also, credit card payments had stopped (maxed out) so I can't re-activate my account again.

Fuck Square-Enix.

Well. Fuck. (-1, Troll)

JonJ (907502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730421)

I do not want any contact with the StarCraft retards, so I might quit playing. They're even worse than the other WoW-players. And yeah, I do expect the people that would gladly suck all the cocks at Blizzard HQ for a new StarCraft to mod me down.

This will change everything!!!!! (1)

Groggnrath (1089073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730483)

I've had my account merged since the option became available. The number of differences is near nil for the end user.

I am however astounded at the amount of FUD and fear mongering taking place over what amounts to 5 minutes worth of an inconvenience. The Internet breeds people who alternately love and fear change in all forms.

Re:This will change everything!!!!! (1)

roachdabug (1198259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730779)

I merged my account as soon as I could to take advantage of the authenticator app for the iphone. The first week or so there were some connection issues once in a while, but they worked the kinks out and it's been smooth as butter for many months.

The only difference now is that your login is your full email address instead of an arbitrary user name.

Misconceptions.... (5, Informative)

cigawoot (1242378) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730543)

There are a few myths stated in the comments I wish to clear up:

1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.
2) As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2.
3) If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account.
4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned.
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account. You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login. If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).
6) Alarmists ARE indeed funny to read.

Re:Misconceptions.... (1)

davaguco (771514) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730697)

I can't log into the account management section of their website with my battle.net username, now. It seems the battle.net server login servers are now. I hope this never happens with the game login.

Re:Misconceptions.... (1)

cigawoot (1242378) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730911)

Maybe because its Tuesday? I think they brought down the Battle.net authentication servers for maintenance.

Re:Misconceptions.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29731079)

And here are your misconceptions that I wish to clear up:

1. completely subjective, and how exactly does logging in need to be made easier? it's currently hard?
2. afaik = I don't know
3. fair enough
4. subjective
5. fair enough
6. naive people are even funnier

And on a serious note (1)

awjr (1248008) | more than 4 years ago | (#29730845)

The merge itself is good imho, however there is a major problem with Parental Controls. The old login server used to terminate your connection when you hit a 'no play' time. Now it leaves you logged in. If you try and login in during 'no play' time then it stops you which is fine.

This is a major issue for somebody that enjoys the game, wants their child to enjoy the game, but doesn't want that child ruining their education. I know how addictive WoW can be.

Have raised it with Blizzard, but they haven't responded as yet. This needs fixing. Yes I want to instil a sense of responsibility in my child, but sometimes a machine just saying no, is very difficult to argue with.

Free for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29731057)

...but how long until they start requiring pay-per-play.

1) Sell game to gullible gamers.

2) Get them addicted to the game.

3) After a while, make them pay additional fees to get to use what they already bought.

4) ???

5) Profit!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...