Yeah, I suppose that sucks if you never stopped to think about it.
In my case, it’s the reason I never bought Diablo 3 - when they turn an offline game into a mandatory online game, I figured that sooner or later they’d pull something like this.
Does Blizzard even make any single-purchase games that require a Blizzard account? WoW is a subscription, Overwatch is free-to-play, I doubt the old Starcraft games require accounts, and I don’t know much about Diablo.
So no, it’s only subscription games that would be affected? So you just can’t use the service in the future, they’re not locking anyone out of a purchased product.
Diablo (at least 3 - excluding the console versions and 4, not sure about the older ones) is an online-only game, if they’re locking you out of your account, then you will not be able to authenticate to the game server and thus won’t be able to play.
If Steam puts up a bunch of new Agreements, and you refuse to accept, you’ll continue using the non-updated version - correct?
In theory you could keep using the service that adheres to the old agreement - but they will only provide the service under the new agreement. So effectively, no.
Unfortunately, Diablo 3 is an online game - even singleplayer. In case of starcraft, it’s even worse - the only reason for it to be online is multiplayer (fair enough) and drm (boo!).
Yeah, I think that a EULA change should reasonably permit for some kind of refund. Maybe have some mechanism for deprecating the value of the service based on use – like, if you expect a typical online game to be online for 10 years and a user has used it for 5 and the service wants to change the EULA, mandate the option for a 50% refund in lieu of continued service under the new EULA or something.
That’d make games more expensive, but it’s a risk that companies could factor in when deciding on EULAs and the initial price.
Paid-for games aren’t a service that should be able to be taken away in this manner
For software (like games) the usual rule is “use the old version if you don’t agree to the new terms”, but that’s not possible without piracy here
Yeah, I suppose that sucks if you never stopped to think about it.
In my case, it’s the reason I never bought Diablo 3 - when they turn an offline game into a mandatory online game, I figured that sooner or later they’d pull something like this.
Does Blizzard even make any single-purchase games that require a Blizzard account? WoW is a subscription, Overwatch is free-to-play, I doubt the old Starcraft games require accounts, and I don’t know much about Diablo.
Diablo is indeed a single purchase game (with tons of MTX and soon to be DLC of course, but the base game is a single purchase).
So no, it’s only subscription games that would be affected? So you just can’t use the service in the future, they’re not locking anyone out of a purchased product.
Diablo (at least 3 - excluding the console versions and 4, not sure about the older ones) is an online-only game, if they’re locking you out of your account, then you will not be able to authenticate to the game server and thus won’t be able to play.
Stupid question and I honestly don’t know.
If Steam puts up a bunch of new Agreements, and you refuse to accept, you’ll continue using the non-updated version - correct?
Where in this scenario, Blizzard just locks you out of your account?
In theory you could keep using the service that adheres to the old agreement - but they will only provide the service under the new agreement. So effectively, no.
Unfortunately, Diablo 3 is an online game - even singleplayer. In case of starcraft, it’s even worse - the only reason for it to be online is multiplayer (fair enough) and drm (boo!).
Yeah, I think that a EULA change should reasonably permit for some kind of refund. Maybe have some mechanism for deprecating the value of the service based on use – like, if you expect a typical online game to be online for 10 years and a user has used it for 5 and the service wants to change the EULA, mandate the option for a 50% refund in lieu of continued service under the new EULA or something.
That’d make games more expensive, but it’s a risk that companies could factor in when deciding on EULAs and the initial price.