Dont make mods, boycott Reforged [EULA Update]

[Lord_Marrowgrath]

Blizzard isnt a friendly community, they can steal every idea. I dont trust them after reforged tragedy. So, I'm not modding, creating, writing stuff anymore in reforged. Creative community holds up war3 everytime, they want to destroy it.

 

[hexhound]

Blizzard isnt a friendly community, they can steal every idea. I dont trust them after reforged tragedy. So, I'm not modding, creating, writing stuff anymore in reforged. Creative community holds up war3 everytime, they want to destroy it.

This is the conclusion i've drawn as well. I really, really appreciate Blizzard keeping War3 BNet up for as long as they have and am thankful for the efforts they've made to update the game and add new editor features (until reforged), but the trust bank account is now empty. No hard feelings, i realize it's not the same people at the office anymore as when the whole thing started and there may even be many new people whose efforts/opinions I'd praise if had insider access to their meetings or whatever, just time for me to move on and take my modding efforts into some different arena.

 

[Krom]

I have question is all this just because blizzard was stupid and when people came to him to create dota from W3 map they said f*** off?
And now they are just overracting and making mess with EULA?
And in the end it does not change anything, except they make some of us mad and discouraged?
I mean there is around 0% chance there will be another thing like dota from W3 editor or am I wrong?
I feel like boycott would be overracting to overracting but I do not understand this stuff much, so I probably should not have post anything, well too late for that

Totaly agree with that. Warcraft III is an old game now, why the editor would give a insane concept ? Warcraft have now too low possibilities for his time ! We are in fucking 2020 omg...

 

[Arcmage]

If I assign rights to Party A exclusively and then Subsequently assign to Party B when Party b is not aware that I have already assigned to Party A, then Party A would have to sue me for damages, Party B may still be able to use the copyright material and take full advantage of the rights assigned to them. Remedy is contractual and that is only between 2 parties (privity of contract). Party A in most cases will not be able to get a remedy from Party B, only the author.

Overall, these kinds of schemes have complex legal ramifications and are a bad idea compared to the simple strategy of just not putting valuable IP into your map. I don't think the fact that Party B was unaware that you had already assigned exclusive rights to party A means that Party B would definitely be able to use it. But you could end up liable for any damages that party B sued party A for.

I thought using LUA in Wc3 map making was a form of modification which is disallowed by the EULA / TOS. Or is LUA something that the Wc3 map editor natively supports without any modification?

As of a few patches ago Wc3 has native LUA support.

 

[Brambleclaw]

Overall, these kinds of schemes have complex legal ramifications and are a bad idea. I don't think the fact that Party B was unaware that you had already assigned exclusive rights to party A means that Party B would definitely be able to use it. But you could end up liable for any damages that party B sued party A for.


As of a few patches ago Wc3 has native LUA support.

Party B can't sue Party A. If you assign rights to Party A exclusively it means they have those rights. It does not mean you cannot assign rights to Party B. You can breach the contract and assign rights to Party B. You will then become liable for damages to Party A. Party A cannot necessarily pursue Party B, because 1. Party A does not own the IP, it has merely been granted rights over it, and 2. Nothing can override direct permission from an Author.

This may be different in the USA, but this is the law as is in the EU and UK and many of its colonies like Australia.


Also just found out that Warcraft 3 has been downgraded to a new Reforged edition with the sh** that is Bnet2.0. Well time to go play on Garena.

 

[Arcmage]

Party B can't sue Party A. If you assign rights to Party A exclusively it means they have those rights. It does not mean you cannot assign rights to Party B. You can breach the contract and assign rights to Party B. You will then become liable for damages to Party A. Party A cannot necessarily pursue Party B, because 1. Party A does not own the IP, it has merely been granted rights over it, and 2. Nothing can override direct permission from an Author.

This may be different in the USA, but this is the law as is in the EU and UK and many of its colonies like Australia.

I don't know about this specific case. But, let us say Jill contracts Bob's Building to build a house. Bob subcontracts the electrical work to Tim's Electricians who do a lousy job causing the house to eventually catch fire. Jill can still sue Bob's Building for her house burning down, even though they didn't handle the electrical aspects. In turn, Bob's Building would sue Tim's Electricians to recuperate the damages they paid to Jill.

 

[Brambleclaw]

Yes that is privity in contract. So in the case of a creator assigning rights to a 3rd party that is not blizzard, Blizzard will sue the creator, and the creator is not able to sue the 3rd party, because the 3rd party has not breached its contract with the creator, merely the creator is in breach of his contract with blizzard.

 

[Blarto]

Ok so from what I gather, to enforce their new EULA on everyone Blizzard will do any or all of the following:

1) Remove non 1.32 maps from bnet so that all maps are bound to new EULA and not old one
2) Have poor-man's curator system for maps uploaded so that they could enforce copyright strikes
3) Tie maps to accounts so they could ban your account for violation of EULA

Until Blizzard does that, they have no means to enforce the new EULA, save for closing warcraft3 online access permanently for everyone.


Edit:

Should Blizzard enforce the new EULA, only remaining way for you to protect yourself from getting sanctioned would be denying you using the new world editor (Lying in court).

 

[Drake53]

only remaining way for you to protect yourself from getting sanctioned would be denying you using the new world editor (Lying in court).

Or you can use 3rd party tools instead of the world editor, then you don't have to lie about it.

 

[deepstrasz]

Or you can use 3rd party tools instead of the world editor, then you don't have to lie about it.

Aren't those usually derivatives of the original and not made from scratch? Referring to map editors.

Should Blizzard enforce the new EULA, only remaining way for you to protect yourself from getting sanctioned would be denying you using the new world editor (Lying in court).

That won't work. They can check your map for what version it was saved with.

 

[Drake53]

Aren't those usually derivatives of the original and not made from scratch? Referring to map editors.

Pretty sure HiveWE is made from scratch. I'm not sure how the EULA would apply for a derivative editor.

 

[MooNek]

I think there is a big misunderstanding here about this. As someone pointed out the names/ideas/stoeies and so on are about the platform in this case it means DON'T USE WC3 NAMES(and so on) OUTSIDE OF THE EDITOR.
Although the new EULA is abysmal and terrible, we are exaggerating the differences between the old and new one.

Now, the most important thing... let's don't look at this new EULA and what it means. The question is:
IF YOU WORK ON 1.26 + JNGP or 1.29 + SharpCraft SHOULD YOU BE BOTHERED BY NEW EULA OR NOT?
Without ever using or even downloading Deforged.
How does it work under the law?

 

[Brambleclaw]

I think there is a big misunderstanding here about this. As someone pointed out the names/ideas/stoeies and so on are about the platform in this case it means DON'T USE WC3 NAMES(and so on) OUTSIDE OF THE EDITOR.
Although the new EULA is abysmal and terrible, we are exaggerating the differences between the old and new one.

Now, the most important thing... let's don't look at this new EULA and what it means. The question is:
IF YOU WORK ON 1.26 + JNGP or 1.29 + SharpCraft SHOULD YOU BE BOTHERED BY NEW EULA OR NOT?
Without ever using or even downloading Deforged.
How does it work under the law?

If you don't sign the new EULA then it doesn't apply to you. You have to agree to variation of contract.

 

[MooNek]

If you don't sign the new EULA then it doesn't apply to you. You have to agree to variation of contract.

So they can't say something like "This is our policy now even if you use older versions you agree to that by using any version of WE"?
If they can't do that... well nothing changes for me, 1.29 should be the official community supported version.

 

[deepstrasz]

Now, the most important thing... let's don't look at this new EULA and what it means. The question is:
IF YOU WORK ON 1.26 + JNGP or 1.29 + SharpCraft SHOULD YOU BE BOTHERED BY NEW EULA OR NOT?
Without ever using or even downloading Deforged.
How does it work under the law?

It might work retroactively like bank contracts always changing.

Yet, there's no always online custom games database like the Arcade of StarCraft II, your maps aren't directly uploaded to Battle.net but only used via it to be played. So, I'm not sure how it exactly works. I assume you could potentially get away with it in this case.

 

[Amigoltu]

So they can't say something like "This is our policy now even if you use older versions you agree to that by using any version of WE"?
If they can't do that... well nothing changes for me, 1.29 should be the official community supported version.

If you use older versions, Blizz couldn't do anything to you anyways. Bnet no longer supports those versions, and they don't need bnet, or internet access, to run. Thus, banning you is out of the question. Sue you? Maybe they could, but they won't. Such a large company won't waste time and resources to sue some guy playing an older patch.

 

[MooNek]

If you use older versions, Blizz couldn't do anything to you anyways. Bnet no longer supports those versions, and they don't need bnet, or internet access, to run. Thus, banning you is out of the question. Sue you? Maybe they could, but they won't. Such a large company won't waste time and resources to sue some guy playing an older patch.

Sue one guy - yea, not happening
Sue the 2nd IceFrog if there ever will be one - more chances of happening, but that's rare case
Sending Cease and desist to whole communities who agree on the old patch - very likely in my opinion

But yet that is what I will advocate for. Choose version, host everything on our own.

A sad world we live in right now, that's for sure...

 

[Amigoltu]

Sue one guy - yea, not happening
Sue the 2nd IceFrog if there ever will be one - more chances of happening, but that's rare case
Sending Cease and desist to whole communities who agree on the old patch - very likely in my opinion

But yet that is what I will advocate for. Choose version, host everything on our own.

A sad world we live in right now, that's for sure...

Oh I agree, they wouldn't let another dota happen. That's what the EULA is there for, likely. But for people just playing and modding older patches, I doubt they would, or even could, do anything. The new EULA came with Reforged, and wasn't signed by anyone playing older patches. It's not illegal to play older patches, either.

 

[Blarto]

Or you can use 3rd party tools instead of the world editor, then you don't have to lie about it.

I think that's a flimsy defence for reasons that are outside the scope of this topic in my opinion, but its a layer of defence nontheless, I guess.

That won't work. They can check your map for what version it was saved with.

.w3x file can be hex edited to spoof any editor version you want. Not rocket science either.

 

[Ardenaso]

Alright so... time to migrate to the DotA 2 modding, I guess?

 

[Drake53]

.w3x file can be hex edited to spoof any editor version you want.

People still use hex editors in 2020? Come on, we have open source projects for handling warcraft 3 files now.
Also, I think you meant .w3i files, which contains the game and editor version. The .w3x is more like a .zip, and usually has its files compressed, so good luck hex editing that.

 

[Hyperdrift]

I think there is a big misunderstanding here about this. As someone pointed out the names/ideas/stoeies and so on are about the platform in this case it means DON'T USE WC3 NAMES(and so on) OUTSIDE OF THE EDITOR.
Although the new EULA is abysmal and terrible, we are exaggerating the differences between the old and new one.

You're referring to the discussion between @Brambleclaw and @Tommi Gustafsson, which was about the current Blizzard End User License Agreement.

The OP of this thread, and most of the discussion pertaining to this issue, are focused on the current Custom Game Acceptable Use Policy, which supersedes the former document. Particularly this section:

Ownership Custom Games are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Blizzard. Without limiting the foregoing, you hereby assign to Blizzard all of your rights, title, and interest in and to all Custom Games, including but not limited to any copyrights in the content of any Custom Games. If for any reason you are prevented or restricted from assigning any rights in the Custom Games to Blizzard, you grant to Blizzard an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, unconditional, royalty free, irrevocable license enabling Blizzard to fully exploit the Custom Games (or any component thereof) for any purpose and in any manner whatsoever.

Make no mistake, Blizzard is trying to own (or gain exclusive license to) whatever copyrightable content is in your map, this would include original stories and characters. What is undetermined is whether a judge would allow it.

 

[Homor]

The new EULA extends to old Warcraft 3 maps too? Basically overwriting their old policy? That's just really scummy.

 

[Cespie]

When is this ever relevant to the casual modder? (in regards to you not owning your mod)
Do you want to sell your map/mods? because I do not want that.

Unless you are the 0.001% the owns a Dota level popular map it does not matter.

edit: Feels a bit similar to Steam, technically you do not own the games you purchase there.

Yes, it's relevant.
Say that you develop a new original concept in your map, and decide to make a real game with this.
Guess what, Blizzard now owns this game that you make, because you conceived the concept and "intellectual property" in their map maker.
This not only applies to directly reusing the same IP that you made in their map editor. It can be used as ammunition in a bullshit-trial where Blizzard would use legal muscle to completely hijack any semi-related game projected that you may associate with in the future. Even vague correlations between your map and a product made in the future, would be grounds for a lawsuit. A lawsuit that would hold up in the long run? Probably not, but if you were a small independent developer/studio, that wouldn't matter. They'd be able to bleed you dry in legal fees with absolutely no effort.

Making and publishing Warcraft 3 maps is now setting yourself up for future legal vulnerability.
It's scary. Seriously, just stop posting maps at this point, unless you want to literally open your door to future IP robbery.

 

[Chaosy]

And how many modders do 1. publish a map and 2. are capable game makers 3. Commit to remaking said project and finish it. 4. Also needs to use 0 of Blizzard's material in terms of story and characters.
If you think this is common you're delusional.

I am aware of three. Element TD, Dwarven Monster Slayer, Dota

Even if you are aware of a few more, it is like 10 out of hundreds of thousands of maps.
This is not something that impacts the average modder.

 

[deepstrasz]

.w3x file can be hex edited to spoof any editor version you want.

I don't think it's that simple. They can include something specific in their newer patches like the way they implemented 24 players since 1.29.

And how many modders do 1. publish a map and 2. are capable game makers 3. Commit to remaking said project and finish it
If you think this is common you're delusional.

It's easier to work on isolated cases.

 

[Cespie]

And how many modders do 1. publish a map and 2. are capable game makers 3. Commit to remaking said project and finish it
If you think this is common you're delusional.

I am aware of three.

You're stuck thinking about people who remake an entire map or concept like DOTA or AutoChess.
This applies beyond that. Any and all concepts you ever release inside a map, you're signing over legal ammunition to Blizzard.
I can name a handful of game developers who made Warcraft 3 maps, and they have expressively stated that they have seized any and all activities within this community, effective immediately, out of fear of legal compromise.
This goes for absolutely anything creative you may want to do in the future.
Include a few characters from an idea you have for a novel in your map?
That idea now belongs to Blizzard.
Make up a general game concept in your map?
That concept now belongs to Blizzard.
Use custom art in your map?
It belongs to Blizzard, as well as the likeness of any similar art being open to prosecution for appropriation of intellectual property.
Use custom music/sound in your map?
It belongs to Blizzard, and it once again opens you up to being vulnerable when releasing anything even remotely similar.

The important thing to remember, is that there's so many god damn angles one can approach a copyright lawsuit from, that it doesn't even need to logically make sense. Absolutely anything you sign over to Blizzard, can be twisted and turned in such a way, that they could use it as a point of entry for legal prosecution.
And like I said, they don't even need to win the trial, they can literally just drag it out and bleed your dry on legal fees, thereby forcing you into submitting your intellectual property, even if the lawsuit is complete bullshit.

This is a very commonly underestimated issue.
NEVER sign over ANY intellectual property rights to any company, unless you are literally selling out with no intention of ever touching anything related ever again.

 

[Hyperdrift]

This goes for absolutely anything creative you may want to do in the future.
. . .
Make up a general game concept in your map?
That concept now belongs to Blizzard.

This is incorrect, at least in the United States you cannot copyright general ideas or concepts. The other examples you used are correct, though.

 

[DracoL1ch]

Even if you are aware of a few more, it is like 10 out of hundreds of thousands of maps.
This is not something that impacts the average modder.

hunderds of thousands of maps are utter garbage made by a newbie who just found the WE button inside the folder. do you actually see hundreds of thousands different maps being played around bnet? I bet thats 10-20 maps starting over and over and over again.
but even then, it's not something what makes modder's life better or simpler

 

[Chaosy]

That is pretty much my point. @DracoL1ch If your no-name map that no one knows about gets made into a book or game. Literary no one would know.
So, would not impact the majority. Hell most modders do not even release a map to begin with.

 

[MooNek]

That is pretty much my point. @DracoL1ch If your no-name map that no one knows about gets made into a book or game. Literary no one would know.
So, would not impact the majority. Hell most modders do not even release a map to begin with.

Because it won't affect* most of us, it doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

*and I don't agree that it doesn't affect us

 

[rayburn]

EULA or not, any new addition to modmaker community would have to suffer the consequences of the game being a meme at this point.
How many ppl even online playing at this point, huh? Most of them are on reddit instead. And this was supposed to be the best time to roll out a map. Won't really get better from here.

You don't really get several chances to make a first impression.

Received my refund. Sincerely wish you luck, feel your pain. Want nothing to do with this however. Gotta turn all that frustration into productivity, hard as it is.

 

[Blarto]

The new EULA extends to old Warcraft 3 maps too? Basically overwriting their old policy? That's just really scummy.

New EULA is not retroactive on old maps, yet.

Old EULA Maps(1.28- editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it

That's all.

New EULA maps (1.32+ editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) The user agrees that he used the world editor lawfully (according to what Blizzard defines the "law")
3) Any original concepts and ideas are licensed (BY YOU) to blizzard to use it how they see fit, DEFACTO (no contract needed, you void all contract possibility or actions of law by uploading)
4) If you cannot assign license or claim copyright for any reason, Blizzard can just assume your stuff as copyright-free and use it as such
5) In an event 3rd party claims license, Blizzard either will negotiate with license owner (0.0001% chance), or remove map based on copyright laws (99.9999% chance)

1.31 editor is kinda in gray area since it uses 1.32 software, and is a "beta" phase of 1.32, but also technically not under new EULA.

And lastly,
Maps made under NO OFFICIAL Blizzard editor (100% 3rd party tools):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) Blizzard might update EULA to exclude this option in the future for no other reason than corporate greed/stupidity

 

[Brambleclaw]

New EULA is not retroactive on old maps, yet.

Old EULA Maps(1.28- editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it

That's all.

New EULA maps (1.32+ editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) The user agrees that he used the world editor lawfully (according to what Blizzard defines the "law")
3) Any original concepts and ideas are licensed (BY YOU) to blizzard to use it how they see fit, DEFACTO (no contract needed, you void all contract possibility or actions of law by uploading)
4) If you cannot assign license or claim copyright for any reason, Blizzard can just assume your stuff as copyright-free and use it as such
5) In an event 3rd party claims license, Blizzard either will negotiate with license owner (0.0001% chance), or remove map based on copyright laws (99.9999% chance)

1.31 editor is kinda in gray area since it uses 1.32 software, and is a "beta" phase of 1.32, but also technically not under new EULA.

And lastly,
Maps made under NO OFFICIAL Blizzard editor (100% 3rd party tools):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) Blizzard might update EULA to exclude this option in the future for no other reason than corporate greed/stupidity

EULA seems to be retroactive if you agree to it. If you dont agree to it and just use the old WE versions then you are fine.

 

[Blarto]

EULA seems to be retroactive if you agree to it. If you dont agree to it and just use the old WE versions then you are fine.

I'd like to add they probably have no admissible proof if you agreed to it or not.

That is, just because you opened the world editor privately offline, does not mean you signed a binding contract. That shouldn't fly in any sane Court. If this was not the case, Vexorian could "retroactively sign" a billion dollar contract with Blizzard by updating vjass/jasshelper EULA and sue them successfully.

 

[Chaosy]

Because it won't affect* most of us, it doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

*and I don't agree that it doesn't affect us

Disagreeing with something does not equal to a boycott.

 

[HerrDave]

How about uninstalling the games, cutting subscriptions, and spreading the word that Blizzard has pulled a move the likes of which Bethesda and Electronic Arts would be jealous of?

 

[Brambleclaw]

I'd like to add they probably have no admissible proof if you agreed to it or not.

That is, just because you opened the world editor privately offline, does not mean you signed a binding contract. That shouldn't fly in any sane Court. If this was not the case, Vexorian could "retroactively sign" a billion dollar contract with Blizzard by updating vjass/jasshelper EULA and sue them successfully.

I think we are missing each other here. When the new version of the EULA pops up, if you click okay and continue then you have agreed to the variation. If you don't agree to new EULA then how are you able to use the new version of the software?


If Vexorian did what you said, he would need to get the other party to agree to it. You can't vary a contract without agreement in some form. Agreement can be express or through conduct. If they say new version of this software new EULA, then you agree to all and any terms of that EULA by accessing that software.

 

[Homor]

How about uninstalling the games, cutting subscriptions, and spreading the word that Blizzard has pulled a move the likes of which Bethesda and Electronic Arts would be jealous of?

My current plan is to uninstall my current version of Warcraft 3, pirate the most up-to-date pre-patch version, and switch to the Hive World Editor. That way I can play the game I love without having to worry about what Blizzard does.

 

[Chaosy]

Interesting. If you hate (recent) Blizzard patches, surely you would go back to 1.24 without the new natives and wide screen support.
Because if you think 1.28 or 1.30 is fine, then 1.35 or whatever patch is required to make reforged what it was meant to be.

That being said, I do understand that using 1.30 until shit is fixed is a good option.

 

[Blarto]

I think we are missing each other here. When the new version of the EULA pops up, if you click okay and continue then you have agreed to the variation. If you don't agree to new EULA then how are you able to use the new version of the software?

If Vexorian did what you said, he would need to get the other party to agree to it. You can't vary a contract without agreement in some form. Agreement can be express or through conduct. If they say new version of this software new EULA, then you agree to all and any terms of that EULA by accessing that software.

I don't think arguing about the EULA is productive. I think its a red herring and is just Blizzard lawyers covering themselves up. But here is what I meant by the comment about Vexorian:

Vexorian could convince an employee of blizzard to "agree" (by tricking them to click "I agree") to a new vjass TOS that makes all IP owned by Blizzard retroactively belong to him (the emplyoee = blizzard therefore Blizzard "agreed" and subject to lawsuit). Since Warcraft 3 campaign is largely made out of the World Editor, and the new World Editor has Vjass support, it would take effect immediately and retroactively on all Warcraft3 IP & Derivatives, including WoW, HotS, and Hearthstone. Don't get me wrong, this is 101% absurd and ridiculous, but this is in essence what the new EULA is for us. Except in our case, we are the "employees" of our own business and our "IP" is tiny in comparison to Blizzard's. We don't agree to jack sheet even if we click 100 check boxes in some random half baked software. Its not enforceable because if it was, Blizzard would lose its own IP in nano seconds, as Blizzard's own employees would sell it on the black market with this "EULA trick".

As I said before, the real problem here is Blizzard is showing intent to police bnet and is destroying the old bnet 1.0 platform that we had for 18 years. It is a sad month and I do not think they will revert back to old bnet standards. 18 years of gaming history, gone for less than nothing...

 

[Homor]

Interesting. If you hate (recent) Blizzard patches, surely you would go back to 1.24 without the new natives and wide screen support.
Because if you think 1.28 or 1.30 is fine, then 1.35 or whatever patch is required to make reforged what it was meant to be.

That being said, I do understand that using 1.30 until shit is fixed is a good option.

There's also the complication of playing Warcraft 3 on a low-spec machine, which was perfectly fine and possible all the way up until Reforged came out. Now classic users need to download 30gbs of data that my computer just doesn't have to spare. People like me who've been playing WC3 just fine for years have now had their game rendered totally unplayable.

 

[Chaosy]

Fair I guess.
Still, you'll have to upgrade eventually ;P

 

[Homor]

Fair I guess.
Still, you'll have to upgrade eventually ;P

Quite honestly, from everything I've seen of Blizzard's "new" version of the game, I think once I find a stable substitute I might never purposefully never "upgrade".

 

[Wark]

The bottom line is that the EULA does not matter in the slightest.
If people want to go against it, then go against it and ignore it.

What does matter:
what's going to happen to this game itself? Are we destroying our community by over-inflating this?

Tower defense, RTS, RPG, turn-based genre concepts etc. cannot be copyrighted. By definition, it's a style.
So what if Blizzard has ownership over a character you make in a mod's story? Are you not creative enough to tweak it, or to change it for future use?
I'm just going to name my next zombie survival map "Pony Venture Ups" or something stupid like that, and change the character names.
For 3D and 2D modelers, whose to say this can't be part of your profile?
Let's be honest, you'll probably be making much better stuff in the future if you're serious about the profession.

Let's try to turn this around. We've been doing it for this long, right?

 

[DracoL1ch]

Interesting. If you hate (recent) Blizzard patches, surely you would go back to 1.24 without the new natives and wide screen support.
Because if you think 1.28 or 1.30 is fine, then 1.35 or whatever patch is required to make reforged what it was meant to be.

That being said, I do understand that using 1.30 until shit is fixed is a good option.

pshh, we have libs to support widescreen at 1.26

The bottom line is that the EULA does not matter in the slightest.
If people want to go against it, then go against it and ignore it.

What does matter:
what's going to happen to this game itself? Are we destroying our community by over-inflating this?

sure, being mad it's our fault, just like blizzard's fault is to release half-baked product for it's full price

 

[Wark]

sure, being mad it's our fault, just like blizzard's fault is to release half-baked product for it's full price

Well, that's the other side of the coin.
It's also why I put everything on hold once the Reforged changes started happening, and didn't preorder.
Those who don't have previous versions of the editor will have to wait until the patches come out. I'd put more pressure on when they come out.

On that note, if anyone wants version 1.28 of the world editor, hit me up. Just keep it on a USB backup and a separate folder,
and try not to use exploits in your triggers and such.
I never liked the 24 player limit from 1.29 onwards anyways. The only issue will be changing Player 13 to Neutral Passive or Neutral Hostile for post 1.29 support, which can be done with an initialization trigger.

 

[MaoLi]

The bottom line is that the EULA does not matter in the slightest.

Who says this? You?

Here's what I say:
Is the eula unenforceable? Possibly.
Is it completely devoid of any legal effect against the user/modder whatsoever? Likely not.

If it's harmless as you say, why don't they change the wording (for example reverting to the old one)?

I think you (and me both) have some limited understanding of the legal repercussions of this contract, but Activision-Blizzard has an army of professional lawyers who sat down and wrote this. They know the IP protection law better than you or me. They chose this wording for a reason, is what I think. If it really were useless for the company, the lawyers wouldn't have been paid and the eula would have stayed the same.

 

[Wark]

They chose this wording for a reason, is what I think. If it really were useless for the company, the lawyers wouldn't have been paid and the eula would have stayed the same.

It is what I say, and for good reasoning.
It's definitely harmless if you can circumvent it. I have confidence in people's creativity to do so, and potential to grow past it.
I'd laugh up a storm if Blizzard tries to make a mint off something coined "Pony Venture Ups" if it became popular.

My main point is what we're doing to our community.
This game's community still has the power over what happens to it.
If people stop playing, no lawyer or company can ever bring that back, and we might as well move on.

Besides. Even if Blizzard takes ownership over one of our mods, we, the people who actually play it, all know who really made it.

 

[MaoLi]

It is what I say, and for good reasoning.
It's definitely harmless if you can circumvent it. I have confidence in people's creativity to do so, and potential to grow past it.

with all due respect, there's no good reasoning to be found in your answer. It may be possible to circumvent the eula (when not to completely breach it) without consequences, but it's not certain nor to be taken for granted. Your faith should be directed to something more grounded in reality than some abstract and unclear "creativity". We're talking law here.

I'd laugh up a storm if Blizzard tries to make a mint off something coined "Pony Venture Ups" if it became popular.

Me too

My main point is what we're doing to our community

That's false. I argue it's more what THEY are doing to this community, with all the idiotic "new features", of which the eula changes are just one minority.