• aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Maybe if Activision gets bought by Microsoft, Blizzard won’t be as scummy.”

    Hahaha, nope.

    Between the company rape culture and enabling internet & gambling addiction, Blizzard is dead to me.

    Support your local private servers.

  • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    First Roku did a quick force TOS change before a beach disclosure, now Blizzard is mysteriously forcing a change to their TOS. I have no idea what’s coming next. Seems like it’s going to become part of the breach playbook to minimize financial loss. Maybe there will be a law against it in… oh…15 years?

    • STOMPYI@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      8 months ago

      So i’m not a lawyer but isn’t there a law for unconsciability, When a contract is so one-sided, it’s obvious that me the signer has absolutely no rights.The entire contract is voided.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        EULAs and TOSes are as legally binding as a secondhand piece of toiletpaper with a contract written in shit. Almost every single one will be thrown out in court. The problem is getting to that point in the first place, and incurring the (time, effort & money) costs while enduring. Most common people can’t afford that, which the companies know, so they keep making unenforceable EULAs.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Roku wasn’t breached. They reported that a bunch of people who had reused passwords from other breached sites were compromised.

      • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So you have all users sign a new TOS to force a password change? I’m not seeing the connection.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The TOS had nothing to do with having announced that some peoples’ accounts had been compromised due to password reuse from other hacked sites. People just started conspiracy theoryin’

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I understand why Louis likes privacy.com so much. But he really needs to stop telling people to use them as a means of stopping payment with scummy vendors and companies so frivolously without having a disclaimer that it can open that person up to getting their credit dinged for non-payment.

    Maybe he doesn’t care about such things, but his viewers might.

    To get around the Blizzard dark pattern the “right way”, agree to the EULA, login, cancel subscriptions, remove payment details, close account (if possible), stop using Battle.net, done. Now the EULA is irrelevant. This also has the knock on effect of being the path that Blizzard/Activision/MS will actually notice since it will cost them money at scale in a way they can’t explain away as childish internet trolling.

    Edit: a word (irreverent > irrelevant)

  • kwebb990@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    hopefully a class action lawsuit in the making. i wouldnt think doing this would hold up in court would it? INAL tho

  • Raxiel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I haven’t watched Louis’ video, but I do have a Blizzard account, and up until a couple of days ago I had an active WoW subscription (ended because I wanted to play other games, not to make a point).

    I didn’t get presented with any new terms recently, presumably I will in the future should I decide to sign up again, or even dip in on a free trial account.

    I did look up the terms though. I’m not in the US so it’s not clear if I’d be bound by it anyway but not only do they have an opt-out clause (11.A.vi) they’re actually less egregious than some EULAs, allowing opt-out via email, rather than requiring a mailed in letter (Roku) and being prominently highlighted at the top.

    Lot of folks here dreaming about them going bankrupt, I have to say, I think that’s wishful thinking. The current WoW expansion has been very successful with the highest signups and retention in a long time as they’ve apparently figured out what players actually want. Even without their other IP’s they’re doing ok.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think in the case of forced agreements (both Roku not having a way to select disagree and disabling all hardware functionality until you agree, and blizzard not allowing login to existing games including non-live service ones) no reasonable court should be viewing this as freely accepting the new conditions.

      If you buy a new game with those conditions, sure you should be able to get a full refund though, and you could argue it for ongoing live service games where you pay monthly that it’s acceptable to change the conditions with some notice ahead of time. If you don’t accept you can no longer use the ongoing paid for features, I expect a court would allow that. But there’s no real justification for disabling hardware you already own or disabling single player games you already paid for in full.

      It’ll be interesting to see any test cases that come from these examples.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The problem here is “reasonable court.” One party in the US has spent decades stacking the courts with unreasonable judges who will agree to anything a corporation hands them.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          My brother in christ, both parties have been doing this for ages. You aren’t looking at the right lines. This one is about wealth, not about party affiliation.

          If you had the money to put safeguards in place to protect you and your stuff in the event something went wrong, you probably would. It would be a mistake not to.

          A simple example is keeping some money set aside as a savings or emergency fund. For rich people, lobbying for more favorable laws, and helping more friendly judges rise up the ranks is a similar thing. Some have went on to make and plan apocalypse bunkers too.

          When you have enough money that you don’t have to worry about spending a certain amount, you just go and do it. Like people not worrying about spending on Starbucks every morning because it’s equivalent to 30 minutes of their time or less.