Real Money Auction House RMAH for poe

"

mayainverse wrote:

not implementing a RMAH is not going to magically make people stop selling items for gold. it exists it will not disapear ever adapt or die.

I am sure, That I was the one saying that...

"

mayainverse wrote:

selling/buying items over webpages is built on trust as you must give your money for the item first then they have full power to give you or not give you the item as many have said it is not legal and you cant go to the police if you are scamed you are scammed thats it. with it being legal its possible to put a leash on the problem and control it at least more than nothing.

Ummm I dont know what you have been smoking....But Arena Net and most other games.
Advise their customer's who use "credit cards" to "contact there credit card company's immediately within 3 months of the transaction and report it as fraud"

And as such, Your money appears back in your bank account lolol. Because it is fraud lol. And you get your money back.

"

mayainverse wrote:

I really do not get what you mean as being scammed with a RMAH the game does the transaction for you and both parties get what they paid for.

The person who pays for a item is not ethicly deserving of it. And it scam's the community of a fair environment.
(I am not answering this question again, as its just getting retarded, "read what has been said")

"

mayainverse wrote:

currently I am playing on a vanilla WoW private server of all places. i have sold 2 crapy geared characters for a little over 100dollars in total on that server. people will buy stuff and people will sell stuff you can not ever stop this from happening blizzard has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop people selling their items it just will never fucking happen. accept it and adapt. unless if you are one of those people who think "out of sight out of mind" oh boy, if I do not see a website or players selling items for real life money they don't actually exist hur dur.

lol, I just embrace a fair system where people get banned or avoid being caught at there own risk...If you want to invest your time/money/effort into a game just to take it for granted, break the rules, and have it all taken away from you. That is your choice.

Well it is nice to know you admit to breaking the law, And considering WoW private server's are completely illegal this just makes you a total peice of scum.

I hope that WoW eventualy mange to catch you :) And I am guessing you cant play legitimate WoW, because you obviously couldnt handle "legit WoW" and needed to cheat and steal from them.

So you obviously do not support blizzard yourself, hell you dont even play there game.... Why should anyone even listen to scum like you now?.

You are the exact kind of people we dont want to play.

Stick to your Pirate server's......

PoE and I will be laughing when you get banned.

"

mayainverse wrote:

the concept of RMAH is not to promote the action of trading game items for real money but to have some degree of control over it.

lol, your opinion is worth shiz.

You and anyone like you are only looking for the game to adapt to you and your pathetic hopes of earning money off someone else's creation.

dragging everyone down with you, looking for a couple pathetic dollar's to make you feel like a real man.

"Stick to asian gold scamming in general chat."
And remember not to drop the soap.

Diablo 3, you will fit in with that community perrrfectly. That game was litterly invented for your kind. I hope you find other's with your morals so you find some happyness.

Other than that, the big boi's will be over here testing our skillz out and our community. Because we dont need to lower ourselves over here to compensate for something........*Wink*..........Play 2 win here bud, Pay to win is D3,..........The door is on the top right.... It involves you clicking the big, red "X" button in the top right corner. Maybee you should delete your account?...seems fair....Might save you some heartache.....


(Maybee I am being mean, but this guy is a total duche)

"

mayainverse wrote:

blizzard has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop people selling their items it just will never fucking happen

Source?

I'm not joining this argument one way or the other, I'm just curious to see evidence of this.

"

tachi203 wrote:

lol, you do realise theyre all "FAILING" examples...Especialy CCP...

"Layoffs

In October of 2011, following a large controversy over its introduction of microtransactions to the game EVE Online, CCP announced that it would be reducing its staff. As stated in a CCP press release, the layoffs affected about 20% of all world wide jobs within CCP, most in their Atlanta, GA office. These layoffs were mainly of staff related to the development of World of Darkness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCP_Games#Layoffs


It destroyed these games dude. Bad Example.

First of all.. I am not sure how familiar with CCP and EvE online you are but you pointed on very different aspect.

Real money trading already exists in EvE for several years (I think it's over 5 years already)..it has nothing with.. microtransactions.

So while you are giving nice examples..you are still making just assumptions.. You hate it..I got it.. and I understand that hate.. but to prove your point..you are able to make up anything which will fits your argument.

"

tachi203 wrote:

If you are to blind to understand that not everyone can afford to buy advantages in a RMAH, then you are just disconnected from reality. "Just try" put yourself in some poor kids perspective just for a moment(If that even is possible for you)...

I can’t afford to quit my job to play 16 hours a day. No other player should be able to play that much, so they don’t have an advantage. (/sarcasm)

"

tachi203 wrote:

"

stkmro wrote:

Ethics and morality is a relative term and they are constantly evolving concepts that are shaped together with the way society evolves with every passing generation.

"Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar." David Herbert Lawrence

There are these things called "ethic's classes"....And they have been around since ...let me check.....

Since officialy "Aristotle 300 something BC" or somewhere around there...

And ever since then....Humanity has never lost a single virtue or ethic. As if you didnt know, ethics only grow and you can only aquire them or choose to ignore them. You either have them or you dont.

You quote people and present facts like someone who should be saying something intelligent… until you look at what you’re using those quotes and facts to support.

Not remotely true. It used to be common practice to marry people against their will (Hey look, it still is in some cultures!). You used to have to respect your elders “or else” (Just to give an example of ethics which have been lost.). It used to be common practice to have sex with people we would consider minors. Your Aristotle probably wouldn’t have blinked twice at a grown man having sex with a 9-year-old boy. (And before people assume something I’m not saying – the “problem” here is the 9-year-old part, not the boy part.), it was quite common in Greek culture. We used to kill people for fornication and adultery (to give another example of ethics going away, instead of being added.)…

"

tachi203 wrote:

Btw I am making a wall of text for a reason, try reading all of it. =D And not just selecting the parts you want to respond to and not the parts that discredit you.

This wasn’t to me, but… Yes, I read the whole thing. No, I’m not going to address every little nitpicky point, because brevity is the soul of wit. And anyway, some of it has already been addressed.

"

tachi203 wrote:

If you still dont understand this....because you have said you couldnt....I cannot explain it to you further than this. Maybee someone with a degree in ethics would help ya.
lol

Someone with a degree in ethics would laugh at you.

This thread sure moves fast.

A few points.

Selling items in other games for real life funds has NEVER been illegal. At worst, it goes against the terms of service of the game, and the game's owners can ban you. However it is not illegal in any way whatsoever, and when you call it illegal you just sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

Ever heard of the war on drugs? Over 18 billion spent to date THIS year. Glad it worked out so well, illegal drugs have been completely wiped out, right? Ever heard of prohibition? There are certain things people will do no matter what.

And for those who adamantly insist that RMAH is "pay2win", here is a little scenario to think about:

Player one is living on his own, just after high school, trying to take collage classes part time. Because his family can't pay for his college, he also works 8 hours a day every day. He can only play Path of Exile for an hour a day for fun. He enjoys playing, but compared to most players who play more often he is leveling very slowly and his gear is not very good.

One day player one wins the lotto. He decides to drop out of collage, since he is set for life, and quits his job. He now plays Path of Exile for 17 hours a day, and due to the immense advantage gained through spending more time playing the game, he obtains a lot of the best possible gear in the game very quickly.

Whats going on here? By spending more money to get more time to play the game, player one "won"! It's like he "paid2win"! With this sort of game, the number one most important thing is not skill, not money, not luck, but time. The player with more time to play will get a stronger character. One possible equalizer is the RMAH, as it allows a player with less time to effectively "buy" some time from a player who can play 16 hours every day. Is that fair? Maybe not. But if it isn't fair to buy a players time, why is it fair that some players can buy more time for themselves by not working, not going to school not having a life, etc? What is the difference?

@Tachi: For some reason it won't let me quote some stuff.

Your understanding of law is as poor as your understanding of ethics. First of all, most EULA/TOS aren’t worded quite that way. Second of all (And far more importantly.), something being against the TOS/EULA doesn’t make it *illegal*. It’s not *Illegal* when I give 2 hours notice that my son is throwing up and I can’t come to work today, despite my agreement when I was hired saying that I promise to give 24 hours notice of any absences. Thirdly, EULA/TOS are often considered unenforceable and unethical (on the part of the company!), and have been ruled as such in multiple court cases in multiple states, multiple countries, multiple circumstances.

tachi203 sez:
aka, if I make a song, and you buy it on a CD at a store....You do not have the right to sell it to other's, you get a warning and if you continue, you goto jail/fine. As that is a digital infringement. The same applies to game "Content" you do not own it(Unless you made the game), thus no consumer has the right to sell it. As that is "Fraud". But as I have said and other's, some people get caught, others dont. That is upto you.

…

But yea... Thats copyright/digital rights law's.... Noway around those.

That’s copywrite infringement. Not the same thing. And even there, “fair use” laws apply, but this is much more like buying a CD at the store, deciding you don’t like it, and selling it to a friend (which you abso-friggin-lotely have the right to do.)

Again, you speak as if you are knowledgeable, except… you’re talking out your ass.

tachi203 sez:
But now in a RMAH, two people are allowed to legaly sell there ingame items through a game sponsered RMAH, this has pro's and con's, but all the pro's are just about making money and not about making ethical, quality competition. Which is my problem with it and many do not see it as anything less than cheating.

I say:
In your opinion. In my opinion, there are lots of pros, and they’re all about making ethical quality competition.

Tachi203 sez:
"more and more are adapting.. CCP, ArenaNet, Blizzard"

lol, you do realise theyre all "FAILING" examples...Especialy CCP...

"Layoffs

In October of 2011, following a large controversy over its introduction of microtransactions to the game EVE Online, CCP announced that it would be reducing its staff. As stated in a CCP press release, the layoffs affected about 20% of all world wide jobs within CCP, most in their Atlanta, GA office. These layoffs were mainly of staff related to the development of World of Darkness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCP_Games#Layoffs


It destroyed these games dude. Bad Example.

I say:
They mainly laid of staff of their RPG line, completely unrelated to their online game (EvE) which allows you to sell game time in-game for currency (effectively allowing real money transactions, albeit with a step in between.)

Here are some other games which allow you to buy things which can then be resold in game:
World of Warcraft. It’s in the crapper quality wise (IMO, YMMV), but it has nothing to do with being able to sell certain mounts in game that you bought with RL money.
Dungeons and Dragons Online. They made a TON more money after going “free to play”, and they have allowed you to sell many of the items you bought in the Turbine store practically from the beginning, some of which are quite valuable in game. Still going strong.
Lord of the Rings Online – same as DDO, by the same company.
Champions Online – if you don’t pony up and pay, you can only get certain powers, certain combinations, very limited backpack space – and you can resell some of the items purchasable (the action figures come to mind) in game


And by the way, I've never bought or sold anything in any game, and I've had plenty of max level characters or currency or valuable items in plenty of games...

There needs to be some clarification here.

In most cases, if the user of a software accepts the Terms of Service or End-user License Agreement that comes with said software, it is a legally binding agreement (at least in the US). For example, if you click "I agree ...etc..." before the software installs, you've made a legal contract with the software owner.

If the EULA says that included digital items are the property of the software creator and that these items are non-transferable except through methods provided by the software creator, then selling items for real money is breaking a legal contract, which is (for all intents and purposes) illegal.

This is basic law. If the creator of something asserts that he attains all ownership of said thing, no one else has any right to sell it. This is where the ethics come into play: you don't have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to you. I can't sell your car without your permission. I can't sell music that someone else wrote without his permission. Software and digital entities are no different.

The analogy of selling a used CD or movie doesn't correlate to selling items in a game. It correlates to selling your copy/license of the entire game. When you pay for software, you're buying a license to use the software. You don't own the software itself, but your license gives you permission to use it and to have a copy of it. You can sell your used CD if you want, but you're not allowed to sell a song from the CD and retain the CD.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

There needs to be some clarification here.

In most cases, if the user of a software accepts the Terms of Service or End-user License Agreement that comes with said software, it is a legally binding agreement (at least in the US). For example, if you click "I agree ...etc..." before the software installs, you've made a legal contract with the software owner.

If the EULA says that included digital items are the property of the software creator and that these items are non-transferable except through methods provided by the software creator, then selling items for real money is breaking a legal contract, which is (for all intents and purposes) illegal.

This is basic law. If the creator of something asserts that he attains all ownership of said thing, no one else has any right to sell it. This is where the ethics come into play: you don't have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to you. I can't sell your car without your permission. I can't sell music that someone else wrote without his permission. Software and digital entities are no different.

The analogy of selling a used CD or movie doesn't correlate to selling items in a game. It correlates to selling your copy/license of the entire game. When you pay for software, you're buying a license to use the software. You don't own the software itself, but your license gives you permission to use it and to have a copy of it. You can sell your used CD if you want, but you're not allowed to sell a song from the CD and retain the CD.

From Wikipedia: (Under "End-user License Agreement".)

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[2] Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd..[3] Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,[4] Microsoft v. Harmony Computers,[5] Novell v. Network Trade Center,[6] and Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.[7] may have some bearing as well. No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.

The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The 8th Circuit case of Davidson & Associates v. Jung[8] determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers.[9]


In short, no, it's not legally binding by default in the US. It's been ruled both ways, depending on the actual question being asked, and what court is hearing the case.

The key point here is often that they are contracts of adhesion - That means that one side (the company selling the software) make the contract, and the other side (the user) has no say - these are generally harder to enforce, because the concept of "take it or leave it" adds an element of duress to the agreement - If I want to use the software I payed $60 (or $6000...) for, I have no choice but to say yes, and in many cases, I have no viable alternative.

(Yes, I know, Wikipedia. But, it has links to the sources. Feel free to address their reliablity or lack thereof.)

Sure, there have been cases where courts rule that an EULA is worded unfairly or deviously or it breaks a law inherently, but the fact is that the user agreed to it. For the most part, if two parties agree to something in a contract, it's a valid contract.

We're mainly talking about the right to sell digital goods here, anyway, so let's focus on that aspect of the EULA. If it says not to sell the items and you agreed (by clicking "Accept" and installing the game), then you're breaking an up-front contract by selling items. There is no moral or ethical backing for this to be acceptable.

"

AgentDave wrote:

That means that one side (the company selling the software) make the contract, and the other side (the user) has no say - these are generally harder to enforce, because the concept of "take it or leave it" adds an element of duress to the agreement - If I want to use the software I payed $60 (or $6000...) for, I have no choice but to say yes, and in many cases, I have no viable alternative.

I can't agree with this at all. If you bought a software and for some reason won't agree to use it the way the creator allows, you can return it and not use it. Nothing forces you to use a software. If you're worried about not seeing the EULA before you buy, every software distributor I've dealt with will send you a copy of it for free. I've done this with many distributors to arrange government software purchases. I highly doubt any game distributor would operate under different policies, as the consumer has the legal right to see an agreement before a transaction is made.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Sure, there have been cases where courts rule that an EULA is worded unfairly or deviously or it breaks a law inherently, but the fact is that the user agreed to it. For the most part, if two parties agree to something in a contract, it's a valid contract.

We're mainly talking about the right to sell digital goods here, anyway, so let's focus on that aspect of the EULA. If it says not to sell the items and you agreed (by clicking "Accept" and installing the game), then you're breaking an up-front contract by selling items. There is no moral or ethical backing for this to be acceptable.

"

AgentDave wrote:

That means that one side (the company selling the software) make the contract, and the other side (the user) has no say - these are generally harder to enforce, because the concept of "take it or leave it" adds an element of duress to the agreement - If I want to use the software I payed $60 (or $6000...) for, I have no choice but to say yes, and in many cases, I have no viable alternative.

I can't agree with this at all. If you bought a software and for some reason won't agree to use it the way the creator allows, you can return it and not use it. Nothing forces you to use a software. If you're worried about not seeing the EULA before you buy, every software distributor I've dealt with will send you a copy of it for free. I've done this with many distributors to arrange government software purchases. I highly doubt any game distributor would operate under different policies, as the consumer has the legal right to see an agreement before a transaction is made.

Returning the software isn't using it - you can not use what you paid for, unless you agree to the EULA. You *may* be able to get your $60 (or $6000) back (Although, less and less these days - with increasing DRM, more and more titles have some aspect which prevents them from being effectively returned once opened. For example, Best Buy doesn't know if you've used the cd-key to open/active a D3 account on Battle.net, preventing them from effectively reselling the item (or even returning it to the company, as is often done with returns of other sorts.). Sure, you could contact Blizzard directly, identify the account (or provide the CDkey if an account was never made, for example due to reading the EULA and having a problem with it.), hope they cooperate, hope they don't take 6 months to send you back your money, etc etc - even then, however, the company can change the EULA at any time - even if you buy a game (or a non-game piece of software), the company can force you to agree to an updated EULA or cease to have access - Just because the Shrink Wrap EULA is acceptable doesn't mean that when you log in 2 days after you buy the software, they couldn't change it to "The user agrees to pay the company $1 should, at the company's sole discresion, the user should be considered to be utilizing a disproportionate amount of server resources, per occurance.".

It *is* a contract of adhesion by defintion. That doesn't *inherently* make it unenforcable, but it makes it much harder to enforce. It also means that in case of any ambigity, questionable wording, etc, you (almost...) always err on the side of the person who didn't write the contract (unlike in "normal" contracts, where intent and outside discussions, etc, can be critical, with Adhesion contracts they are irrelivent.)