test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

We clairification ON whats an exploit and whats not.

1568101114

Comments

  • Options
    korgulltekorgullte Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 95
    edited August 2013
    To the tiny percent that might have done these things out of ignorance I do feel for them but any VETERAN mmo player saying that the quest sharing was not exploiting You know you are wrong lets not kid around one bit. The nightmare box is a red herring thrown into this argument to confuse things. No confusion here you cheated bye bye hope you guys learned a lesson.
  • Options
    darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    Well liek you said with the f2p model being more in the governments eye now it may be harder to just do it, but when it comes to in game mechanics not WAI and a rollback happens then none of that should matter.
    Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    With your car situation companies do recalls on vehicles all the time. Toyota did a HUGE recall on there cars within the last 3 years and had to refund/pay for customers rental cars. The situation was out of their hands and needed to happen for the protection of the consumers and was therefore justified.
    You... you realize recalls are voluntary, right? (Although unless you're an idiot, you're obviously going to get it fixed for free.)
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    Also when you buy a car most people finance them at which point the car isnt yours until you completely pay it off anyways, its the banks.
    That's not true, actually. In financing contracts (including mortgages) you're pledging your right to the property only as security/collateral for the loan. It's an encumbrance on your ownership - so long as your loan is in good standing the property is yours.

    That's why you don't need the lender's approval to do things to that property.
  • Options
    dkcandydkcandy Member Posts: 1,555 Bounty Hunter
    edited August 2013
    korgullte wrote: »
    To the tiny percent that might have done these things out of ignorance I do feel for them but any VETERAN mmo player saying that the quest sharing was not exploiting You know you are wrong lets not kid around one bit. The nightmare box is a red herring thrown into this argument to confuse things. No confusion here you cheated bye bye hope you guys learned a lesson.

    +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    /char
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.


    You... you realize recalls are voluntary, right? (Although unless you're an idiot, you're obviously going to get it fixed for free.)


    That's not true, actually. In financing contracts (including mortgages) you're pledging your right to the property only as security/collateral for the loan. It's an encumbrance on your ownership - so long as your loan is in good standing the property is yours.

    That's why you don't need the lender's approval to do things to that property.

    Meh the stuff with car is probably true as i dont honestly know how all that works lol. The roll back statement was probably a bit misstated. What i meant was its completely legal for a company to rollback there servers even in cases wher real money was exchanged as long as that money is refunded.
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    korgullte wrote: »
    To the tiny percent that might have done these things out of ignorance I do feel for them but any VETERAN mmo player saying that the quest sharing was not exploiting You know you are wrong lets not kid around one bit. The nightmare box is a red herring thrown into this argument to confuse things. No confusion here you cheated bye bye hope you guys learned a lesson.

    Im in no way defending the true offenders of this exploit as it truely was an exploit. Im defending the fact that im sure there were innocent parties that did not know it was not intended as is the excuse for not doing anything about nightmare box.
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    It is not my place to defend what amounts to an internal decision by Cryptic. ToS clearly states that PWE/Cryptic has the sole and absolute right to define what is and is not an exploit. Furthermore, lack of action on any given issue does not preclude its definition as an exploit. Not only does PWE/Cryptic have the sole decision on what constitutes an exploit, they also have absolute discretion on any actions to take on the matter, ranging from none at all to a temporary or permanent ban. Actions on any given account are determined solely on a case-by-case basis. They are not bound by any precedent to act in a similar or identical manner on any given violation, now or in the future.

    From Terms of Service:




    By all rights, the above passage should settle the question now and for all time.


    In summary: It's their game, their rules to enforce as they see fit, for what they believe is the best interest of the game, whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with it.

    It isn't the answer anyone wants to hear but it is what it is. In any event, my statement was made in the effort to curb unnecessary name calling in this thread.

    You're completely right. That clause protects them legally when they take any action. Theoretically, they could ban everyone under that clause for any reason at all. But we would still have a discussion about what a horse **** decision that is, which is the point of this thread. Permanently banning first offense players for sharing a quest that gives little if any real advantage over other players is god **** ridiculous.
  • Options
    darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    But my argument is that this same logic can be applied to the quest sharing(although not the "new player" part).
    I don't see how.

    The quest has documentation in-game stating that it's a weekly quest. This means by default, a player is assumed to know that.
    The lockboxes have no documentation in-game stating the odds. This means by default, a player is not assumed to know the odds.

    It's kind of like disclaimers on products. They have labels on electronics telling you not to use them in the shower, because without the label it can be argued that people would not know they shouldn't bring it with them into the shower. Yes it's dumb, but that's how liability/proof works. If something is documented, then you're assumed to know the information even if consumers never actually read the manual. If something is undocumented, then the consumers can successfully claim they can't be expected to know something they're not told (even if it's something Darwinianly obvious like not using a curling iron while asleep).
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    I don't see how.

    The quest has documentation in-game stating that it's a weekly quest. This means by default, a player is assumed to know that.
    The lockboxes have no documentation in-game stating the odds. This means by default, a player is not assumed to know the odds.

    It's kind of like disclaimers on products. They have labels on electronics telling you not to use them in the shower, because without the label it can be argued that people would not know they shouldn't bring it with them into the shower. Yes it's dumb, but that's how liability/proof works. If something is documented, then you're assumed to know the information even if consumers never actually read the manual. If something is undocumented, then the consumers can successfully claim they can't be expected to know something they're not told (even if it's something Darwinianly obvious like not using a curling iron while asleep).

    When everyone's screen is spammed with "SO AND SO GOT ANOTHER ****ING MOUNT" @50000x per second, it's obvious it isn't working as intended.

    And they could have done a roll back. Noone would have gotten refunded, they would have just lost the items and the zen would have been restored. So it's really just laziness on their part to not do a 38 minute rollback.
  • Options
    darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    What i meant was its completely legal for a company to rollback there servers even in cases wher real money was exchanged as long as that money is refunded.
    The problem is that it was a lottery. If it was a simple purchase, then yes rolling back wouldn't be an issue as they could simply repurchase the good. In this case though they would be specifically rolling back to negate the winnings from the lottery (grab bag game), which I imagine to be a huge deal with regards to gambling laws. I mean, virtual good grab bags are already sketchy enough with regards to gambling laws, but a rollback specifically to deny winnings?

    Imagine if people won jackpots in Vegas and a casino went "Whoops, sorry guys let's just rewind the last hour. Give us back the millions you won and we'll refund you the hundred bucks you spend."
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    I don't see how.

    The quest has documentation in-game stating that it's a weekly quest. This means by default, a player is assumed to know that.
    The lockboxes have no documentation in-game stating the odds. This means by default, a player is not assumed to know the odds.

    It's kind of like disclaimers on products. They have labels on electronics telling you not to use them in the shower, because without the label it can be argued that people would not know they shouldn't bring it with them into the shower. Yes it's dumb, but that's how liability/proof works. If something is documented, then you're assumed to know the information even if consumers never actually read the manual. If something is undocumented, then the consumers can successfully claim they can't be expected to know something they're not told (even if it's something Darwinianly obvious like not using a curling iron while asleep).

    At the same time a VETERAN MMO player would know that if theres a box of goodies to gamble on and it contains an Epic quality item that the chances of getting that item are small. The fact that people got them in 90% of the boxes that were opened is clearly not wai.
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    the problem is that it was a lottery. If it was a simple purchase, then yes rolling back wouldn't be an issue as they could simply repurchase the good. In this case though they would be specifically rolling back to negate the winnings from the lottery (grab bag game), which i imagine to be a huge deal with regards to gambling laws. I mean, virtual good grab bags are already sketchy enough with regards to gambling laws, but a rollback specifically to deny winnings?

    Imagine if people won jackpots in vegas and a casino went "whoops, sorry guys let's just rewind the last hour. Give us back the millions you won and we'll refund you the hundred bucks you spend."

    but there are no legal agreements in vegas saying your winnings belong to the house regardless. Stop perpetuating nonsense.
  • Options
    melodywhrmelodywhr Member Posts: 4,220 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    It is not my place to defend what amounts to an internal decision by Cryptic. ToS clearly states that PWE/Cryptic has the sole and absolute right to define what is and is not an exploit. Furthermore, lack of action on any given issue does not preclude its definition as an exploit. Not only does PWE/Cryptic have the sole decision on what constitutes an exploit, they also have absolute discretion on any actions to take on the matter, ranging from none at all to a temporary or permanent ban. Actions on any given account are determined solely on a case-by-case basis. They are not bound by any precedent to act in a similar or identical manner on any given violation, now or in the future.

    From Terms of Service:




    By all rights, the above passage should settle the question now and for all time.


    In summary: It's their game, their rules to enforce as they see fit, for what they believe is the best interest of the game, whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with it.

    It isn't the answer anyone wants to hear but it is what it is. In any event, my statement was made in the effort to curb unnecessary name calling in this thread.

    +10k thanks for that.
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    The problem is that it was a lottery. If it was a simple purchase, then yes rolling back wouldn't be an issue as they could simply repurchase the good. In this case though they would be specifically rolling back to negate the winnings from the lottery (grab bag game), which I imagine to be a huge deal with regards to gambling laws. I mean, virtual good grab bags are already sketchy enough with regards to gambling laws, but a rollback specifically to deny winnings?

    Imagine if people won jackpots in Vegas and a casino went "Whoops, sorry guys let's just rewind the last hour. Give us back the millions you won and we'll refund you the hundred bucks you spend."

    Well if gambling laws are a concern then PWE better make sure they have a games of chance license as MANY states are cracking down on this type of thing. Because operating games of chance without that license is a severe felony. Gambling laws are what stops casino from being able to do that type of thing to people that win, but they only apply to people that have there games of chance license.
  • Options
    darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    When everyone's screen is spammed with "SO AND SO GOT ANOTHER ****ING MOUNT" @50000x per second, it's obvious it isn't working as intended.
    Or it could be buggy notifications. Again, we can't definitively conclude what someone else should know, when there is no documentation to support it.
    And they could have done a roll back. Noone would have gotten refunded, they would have just lost the items and the zen would have been restored. So it's really just laziness on their part to not do a 38 minute rollback.

    Well, as I said earlier, I do think they should have rolled it back. What I'm saying now is that there could be legal reasons why they didn't.
    melodywhr wrote: »
    and it's in the TOS/EULA that you are granted a limited license to use the software and PWE/cryptic owns all of the in-game items. they have the right to change these items, remove these items or do whatever they want with these items because they are all proprietary to the company.
    Yes, I know. That is the current legal gray area I'm talking about. Last I checked (about 2 years ago), the IRS were doing studies on how they could tax those virtual goods. Courts around the world have been attributing innate value to those same virtual goods (therefore making them subject to things like ownership, allowing for convictions for offenses like theft).

    It is in the interest of the large gaming companies (PWE, Blizzard, etc.) to maintain the status quo where they have control over their gameworlds and items. That requires not recklessly invoking the wrath of consumer protection entities, financial regulators, gaming commissions, and legislators.
  • Options
    melodywhrmelodywhr Member Posts: 4,220 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    You're completely right. That clause protects them legally when they take any action. Theoretically, they could ban everyone under that clause for any reason at all. But we would still have a discussion about what a horse **** decision that is, which is the point of this thread. Permanently banning first offense players for sharing a quest that gives little if any real advantage over other players is god **** ridiculous.

    but the company reserves the right to take whatever action they deem necessary on a case by case basis. and you, by downloading and agreeing to the EULA, are bound by these terms whether you think they are ridiculous or not. you have every right to not agree to these terms and uninstall the software at your discretion.
  • Options
    darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    but there are no legal agreements in vegas saying your winnings belong to the house regardless. Stop perpetuating nonsense.
    Are you even reading my posts before you respond? The legal status of virtual goods was what my last few posts were about. The time and effort to obtain a virtual good was deemed by at least one Dutch court to imbue it with innate value, allowing for individual ownership.
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    melodywhr wrote: »
    but the company reserves the right to take whatever action they deem necessary on a case by case basis. and you, by downloading and agreeing to the EULA, are bound by these terms whether you think they are ridiculous or not. you have every right to not agree to these terms and uninstall the software at your discretion.

    So.... I don't see anything anything in your post that conflicts with what I stated. Thanks?
  • Options
    azlanfoxazlanfox Member Posts: 436 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    Are you even reading my posts before you respond? The legal status of virtual goods was what my last few posts were about. The time and effort to obtain a virtual good was deemed by at least one Dutch court to imbue it with innate value, allowing for individual ownership.

    http://www.perfectworld.com/about/terms This is pwe's EULA. This is the section that refers to specific ownership:


    5. Proprietary Rights

    PWE is the owner of the Website, the Games, the Software and the Service, which are protected by US and international law including copyright laws. All rights and title in and to the Website, the Game, the Software and the Service, all features and content thereof (including without limitation any user accounts, titles, computer code, files, game software, client and server software, tools, patches, updates, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, storylines, objects, content, text, dialogue, catch phrases, themes, locations, concepts, artwork, designs, graphics, pictures, video, animation, sounds, music, musical, compositions, sound recordings, audio-visual effects, information, data, documentation, , "applets", chat transcripts, character profile information, game play, and recordings ) and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively the "Proprietary Materials") are the proprietary property of PWE or its licensors and are protected by U.S. and international copyright and other proprietary rights laws. In the event that you make any modifications, adaptations or derivative works of any kind to the Proprietary Materials (the "Modifications"), whether authorized or unauthorized, you understand and agree that you shall retain no rights of any kind in and to such Modifications and that all rights therein shall belong solely to PWE. You hereby assign and transfer to PWE, without any compensation, any and all rights you may have in and to such Modifications.


    They claim ownership of everything, including your user account.
    The fox said, "lock and load"

    glassdoor.com - Cryptic Studios Review
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    Are you even reading my posts before you respond? The legal status of virtual goods was what my last few posts were about. The time and effort to obtain a virtual good was deemed by at least one Dutch court to imbue it with innate value, allowing for individual ownership.

    Uhhh... who gives a **** about dutch courts? =P Are their servers located there? Do they have nexus there? How does a dutch ruling pertain to this conversation?
  • Options
    azlanfoxazlanfox Member Posts: 436 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    As I stated, pwe claims ownership of everything. This EULA you agree to when you download, install, and run their game software. End of thread as it pertains to who owns what.
    The fox said, "lock and load"

    glassdoor.com - Cryptic Studios Review
  • Options
    lewstelamon01lewstelamon01 Member Posts: 7,415 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Uhhh... who gives a **** about dutch courts? =P Are their servers located there? Do they have nexus there? How does a dutch ruling pertain to this conversation?

    No, but Perfect World Entertainment, B.V. is the European arm of Perfect World, and they are located in the Netherlands. Ergo, the ruling of a Dutch court may hold relevance.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

    Great Weapon Fighter: Because when is today not a good day to die?

    PC and PS4 player. Proud Guildmaster for PS4 Team Fencebane. Rank 5 Officer for PC Team Fencebane. Visit us at http://fencebane.shivtr.com
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    darkjeff wrote: »
    Are you even reading my posts before you respond? The legal status of virtual goods was what my last few posts were about. The time and effort to obtain a virtual good was deemed by at least one Dutch court to imbue it with innate value, allowing for individual ownership.

    Except when youve allready signed over all of your rights to anything that has to do with NW. If they didnt put an ownership clause in the ToC then you would have foundry authors sueing to get paid for there work.
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    No, but Perfect World Entertainment, B.V. is the European arm of Perfect World, and they are located in the Netherlands. Ergo, the ruling of a Dutch court may hold relevance.

    But NW is Dev'ed by Cryptic(A Cali. based company) and Published by Perfect World Entertainment(Which is the American Arm of Perfect World also based in Cali.) is it not? Honest question here not mocking/trolling lol.
  • Options
    womendriverslolwomendriverslol Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Either way, my point isn't the legality of the decision, but how it effects the experience of the player base.
  • Options
    lewstelamon01lewstelamon01 Member Posts: 7,415 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    pwe4lif wrote: »
    But NW is Dev'ed by Cryptic(A Cali. based company) and Published by Perfect World Entertainment(Which is the American Arm of Perfect World also based in Cali.) is it not? Honest question here not mocking/trolling lol.

    Yes, but multinational corporations give me a headache in any case.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

    Great Weapon Fighter: Because when is today not a good day to die?

    PC and PS4 player. Proud Guildmaster for PS4 Team Fencebane. Rank 5 Officer for PC Team Fencebane. Visit us at http://fencebane.shivtr.com
  • Options
    pwe4lifpwe4lif Banned Users Posts: 48
    edited August 2013
    Yes, but multinational corporations give me a headache in any case.

    Haha you have no idea. Im a tax preparer and i process a few corporate returns that are NA and Canadian returns and let me just tell you its a nightmare.
  • Options
    melodywhrmelodywhr Member Posts: 4,220 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    So.... I don't see anything anything in your post that conflicts with what I stated. Thanks?

    i was disagreeing with you about the horse **** ridiculousness. i'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
  • Options
    kunekadenkunekaden Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 115 Bounty Hunter
    edited August 2013
    I'm honestly shocked and frustrated that PWE has yet to acknowledge what is going on here.
    It's not like only a handful of players have been affected; this is very widespread.
  • Options
    stoxbox2stoxbox2 Banned Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    kunekaden2 wrote: »
    I'm honestly shocked and frustrated that PWE has yet to acknowledge what is going on here.
    It's not like only a handful of players have been affected; this is very widespread.

    Their support sends the same automated responses, and when you try to respond to them the tickets are marked as duplicate...
  • Options
    melodywhrmelodywhr Member Posts: 4,220 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Either way, my point isn't the legality of the decision, but how it effects the experience of the player base.

    yes but you must agree that nearly every video game in existence has a EULA and a TOS and by clicking OK or opening (or downloading) the software and installing it, you are agreeing to those terms and are bound by them. so how that affects the player base is irrelevant since everyone is bound by those same terms. in order to play a game, you must accept those terms. if you disagree with those terms but accept them anyway, you are still legally bound by them. if you don't read the terms and blindly accept them, you are still bound by them. if that sucks and is unfair, then perhaps you should stop playing video games.
This discussion has been closed.