Interesting, incoming lawyer jokesBut on a more serious note I would agree that Blizzard may start using the things these developers come up with, I mean calender is nice and so are the other things blizz put in but let addon makers have some stuff they can keep for themselvesFirst :D
Sweet =OHmm... what did "$%^&*!" do again? I remember reading an article somewhere, but I can't remember where, or what it was about.
I think this is also focused on the aftermath of the ACE updaters, and users being shunted to curse, and having to pay to use a mod downloader/maintainer.I've not updated a mod since.
The conversations I've had with Blizzard employees seem to strongly indicate that this isn't the case. I haven't spoken to anybody who can make DECISIONS on this kind of thing, of course, but the people I have spoken to find the idea of paying for Blizzard-created addons to be...kind of hilarious.Who knows what will happen, of course, but I would take any discussion about Blizzard's future plansâ€”like alwaysâ€”with a grain of salt.
Everyone points the finger at Carbonite being the catalyst for the new policy. However, Connie is arguing that the policy was created so Blizzard can profit from integrating features from existing addons. If that's the case, why would Blizzard want to "monetize" an addon that drastically simplifies their game?In my opinion, Blizzard has felt like these addons are reducing the game to such an elementary level that players can no longer experience it like it was intended. Blizzard reacted by the new policy to attempt to stifle the addons' development.In any event, I'm surprised to see that the MDY case is being used as a legal wedge against developers.
From my view, what Blizzard did was make the rules explicit with the changes to their ToU/EULA, whereas before the rules were implicit. Which, I see nothing wrong with. What's Blizzards IP is Blizzard's IP, and we're simply licensed to use it in a manner deemed to be in accord with the ToU/EULA.On another note, MDY won't win at 9th Circuit. No chance in hell, with a claim like "We didn't sign the ToU!"; not to mention the DMCA.
If Blizzard makes third-party addons against the EULA, and then starts charging additional money for the exact same ones, I forsee massive quitting. I would rather play console games than succumb to a vampiric corporation.
Blizzard is already making money on third party add-ons. Instead of having to pay their own software engineers to come up with these things, they let other people do all the leg work and when something becomes popular enough they just incorporate it into their game. Effectively charging add-on creators by saving money on development of them. Blizz tried to block add-ons with previous software titles, and ended up with hacked up games like diablo which no one wanted to play anymore. Allowing add-ons gives blizz the power to monitor what people do with their software. This type of stuff would happen without add-on support, except it would be driven underground, like it used to be.
Nice interview, but alittle silly imo.Like some of the comments above, the idea of blizzard stopping the use of 'buyable' addon's so they can do it themselves is retarded. and I support Blizzard for actually putting a lid on the whole 'you can't sell addon's' crap because honestly....Your using someones else program and making money off it by editing and making some new code for it.If you think about it, it's the same as gold farming. Your taking their 'in-game' money and selling it for 'real money'it's total BS and it should be stopped. I really hope that Appeal doesn't go through with the ninth circuit.
The main impact these changes will have is that the addons whose development is supported by the sale of an enhanced version will most likely be either made open source or dropped altogether. Likely the effect won't be felt until two or three patches down the road, when the API has changed enough that unmaintained addons will be completely broken. People will learn to live without their addons, and life in Azeroth will continue.By itself, that's not such a big deal. The real issue is that this is a step in the wrong direction. There's a line somewhere between "No gold selling" and "Blizzard owns subscribers' souls" where people will start to reject the level of control exerted over their gameplay. For some people, Blizzard has just crossed that line. For most, myself included, that line is still pretty far away. But Blizzard should be careful, because if they overstep and lose subscribers' trust, they won't be able to get it back.Edit: I didn't mean that to sound quite so dramatic...anyway, for the record, I think Blizzard is smart enough to know where the line is. There's too much money at stake for them to make too risky a move.
It was always against the ToU to -sell- use for addons. That was just brought to the forefront. From reading the CS forums, addons that affect other players gameplay by spamming channels, ie, Carbonite, Questhelper, among others is a leading cause of that wonderful thing called "lag". So it appears to me that these changes were made to actually help improve the gameplay of the subscribers. At least it's not like FFXI where they ban addons and UI mods period. >.>
IMO the argument that they are attempting to monetize addons is a little silly... I really don't see anything "life changing" (or even "WoW Changing") about the new policies...Don't sell your addons.Don't ask for monies.Don't automate the game.Its really not that much to ask... WoW is Blizzards game, third party nobodies don't really have any legal (or even ethical) right to profit off of someone else' work. These rules have been in place for modders for ANY game since the beginning of time, it just takes companies time to put it forth in plain English for everyone to see.While I don't really support Blizz's court case against MDY (I don't support Sweden VS ThePirateBay either), as far as addons are concerned this is nothing new.
allow me to mock MDY, here's what happened:
Certainly legally speaking Blizzard has every right to do what they are doing. Ethically I am not so sure. Almost every important idea used in the game and to make the game is taken from the public domain. The intellectual property rightfully accrues to the game itself and not to the general right to make money from the game:I grow a plant and sell it to Joe to eat, but Joe decides not to eat it but sell it to Bob instead making a tidy profit in the process. Is this stealing form me? I could after all have sold the plant to Bob myself for the higher price.If I buy a book and then Pete writes a review for which he gets paid large amounts, was Pete not profiteering from my effort?Society is built by people who develop ideas in the public domain (see Newton standing on the shoulders of giants) and the coralling of this public space and dishing it out on a first come first serve basis (see Microsoft) is not substantively different from the conquistadors, who after all was acting under legal authority too.