TOS Question
With Ahnald's situation coming to light, I have a sincere question about the TOS that I don't understand.
What is the competitive advantage of sharing or transferring your account? What do I gain if someone were to play on my phone for a day, and what do I gain if I'm no longer playing? What difference does it make on which body is controlling the game?
What is the purpose of the rule?
Would love some more insight to this. I'm honestly not baiting, btw, I sincerely do not understand the rule.
Thank you.
What is the competitive advantage of sharing or transferring your account? What do I gain if someone were to play on my phone for a day, and what do I gain if I'm no longer playing? What difference does it make on which body is controlling the game?
What is the purpose of the rule?
Would love some more insight to this. I'm honestly not baiting, btw, I sincerely do not understand the rule.
Thank you.
1
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
The money was still spent.
There are various other questions. Some where jurisdictions may matter. Some around dodgy gems (though nobody, as far as I know is accusing Ahnald).
Still, whatever, looks like less of a case of shooting yourself in the foot and more a case of using a sodding massive nuclear missile. Incredibly poor judgement.
Ptw/“ftp” games at their core are basically virtual slot machines. Legislators have been looking at them closely for years now. The main argument that keeps these types of games from being considered gambling is that users do not actually gain any real world money from playing them.
Now if a developer knowingly allowed or facilitated the sale of in game items or full game accounts, the main argument for why these are NOT gambling can no longer be used since people can now cash in on the game.
Since being regulated as gambling would most certainly take away from the overall profit of these types of games, you see basically every mobile tos prohibiting transfers/sales.
If player A spends 50k and then gives or sells his account to player B, thats lost money for the developer. They want player B to also spend 50k with THEM, not with some other party.
It’s not about a competitive advantage, it’s more about controlling a possible secondary market of selling accounts. Much like why scalping tickets can be illegal or at least controlled.
Both points can be true, plus they have no way of knowing if money was exchanged or not.
We all accept the Terms of Service when starting the game, there is no legal ground on account transfer as it breaks those terms. Besides, those same terms (or the EA ones?) State that all data in the game belongs to CG/EA, not the user.
Just because something is in the TOS doesn't make it enforceable. If it is contrary to or superceded by laws in the user's jurisdiction they may have legal recourse.
Now, whether someone wants to bother pursuing this is another matter, as the likeliest outcome is the user going to binding arbitration over compensation and then being locked out of the game entirely (which is precisely what has Ahanld concerned, as his channel generates more revenue for him than he would get from a refund on the Mando characters).
Most EULAs and TOSes are full of all kinds of overreach and unenforceable provisions. Gotta give those corporate lawyers credit for pushing the envelope and seeing what they can get away with.
Hopefully he's a better lawyer than player
You are correct in this.
That said, what makes you think that any legal finding would ever benefit individuals over a corporations in the gaming industry?
Corporations spend millions and millions lobbying so they are ensured that they get their ways. Individuals don't tend to do this.
And certainly Ahnald isn't going to spend money on a lawsuit against a company with massive resources.
The account was sold, so this point is irrelevant anyway.
I skimmed the TOS, and binding arbitration is indeed the de facto resolution method in the US (but not everywhere). This is a pretty typical ploy to head off class-action lawsuits and to reduce leverage by preventing plaintiffs from comparing settlement awards.
If Ahnald pursued this course, I'm actually fairly confident he'd receive some sort of compensation, but a) we'd never hear about it as it would be under NDA, and b) it might be tied to the condition of him walking away from SWGoH entirely. As Ahnald's income is directly related to views and clicks it's far more lucrative for him to pursue this in the court of public opinion. Even if he loses with CG and gets bupkis from them he will still win with the increased YouTube revenue.
Perhaps one day the law will require all "buy" buttons to be replaced with "rent".
This is the biggest reason I refuse to purchase most digital content out there. Especially if that content requires a specific platform or portal to view or use.
Actually there was a case in France that sided with the player against steam. It’s still being litigated their because steam plans on appealing but it has been done I just don’t think it’s actually been tried in the US yet.
1. It is often used to take advantage of players. Someone sells you their account, keeps your money and then recovers said account. You end up with no account and no money. The Company in the end becomes arbitrator which diverts time and resources. Look at Ahnald he sent multiple emails, Reddit posts, phone calls, even text messages.
2. Prohibiting this has also the benefit of balancing the game from the point of view of players that won't be sharing their account. Assuming that account sharing is allowed, a player who wanted to have an account only for himself could think. Ah, even if I dedicate my whole time to this game, and even if I play in the best way possible, there is no way I can beat those guys with shared accounts - while one sleeps and the other works, the third player plays and there is no way I can level up as much of those guys, Therefore I don't stand a chance, and I won't even start to play this...I.E. guilds that complete content for better rewards, shards etc.
3. There are also simple business reasons. Some games charge people by account. If you let two people share an account, you lose 50% of your revenue. Other games like this one charge people for being allowed to use ingame content. That content is bound to each account. If you would allow account share, only one person would have to buy content which all of them could then use. In the case of SWGOH their profit comes from packs, crystals, which are used to purchase in game items. If Player A buys these things, then sells the account Player B now does not have to. The only business model where you would not have any losses by allowing account share would be a pay-by-minute price model. Which is not a thing anymore.
For terms of service to be enforceable they have to be applied equally and consistently. Selectively enforcing terms of service has been used to invalidate those terms in the past.
In this case the CG lead producer openly admitted to account sharing. People have been account sharing since day 1 and I know several accounts in elite guilds that have been inherited. Those accounts are not banned so there is a valid argument that account sharing isnt a banable based on the precident cg has set over the last 4 years.
What if someone moves to a new area and gets a new phone. They get banned and CG takes away all the purchases the player made. Seems wrong and maybe even illegal to take away something someone paid for because they relocated or bought a new phone.
Taking a 0 tolerance stance on account sharing and selectively enforcing it against only the people who are critical of you while at the same time allowing caught cheaters to continue to play seems ridiculous but if some of u endorse it then that's your call.
I'm gonna say it is wrong and that's my take on it. They should be permanently banning cheaters and negotiate with alleged or proven account sharers.