Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How to quit EQ

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 1, 2005 6:27:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

It's been about 5 or 6 years I've been playing EverQuest. My life has just
moved on and I don't have time to play. Sure I can go in and kill a few
things but I don't have time for grouping or questing. For the past year or
so I just log in and download updates, maybe kill a couple of things then
log out. I have all 9 expansions. And several characters in their 50s.
Lol Jboots on 8 characters on 2 servers. And a ring of ancients on 3 or 4
more. A Quillamain Pegasus cloak on a clerk lol. Several other rare items
for higher level quest.

All those years spent doing things for fun with friends now I and my friends
have moved on with our lives and there's no time for EverQuest. What do I
do with this account? Just deleting it and erasing years seems almost like
killing my guys, lol. I've wanted to quit several times but that seems such
a waste to destroy the characters with all their experience and items. Is
selling your account still illegal with Sony? I don't feel like getting
reimbursed for the 9 expansions is doing anything wrong, and if I make a
little extra I look at it as a good business deal. I'm probably going to
get flamed for evening hinting such a idea by this newsgroup but I'm curious
what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
move on?

Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
give someone that wants to resume where I left of?

More about : quit

May 2, 2005 12:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <117a7s5k4ofm2ea@corp.supernews.com>, Fuzzy@net.Com says...
>
> It's been about 5 or 6 years I've been playing EverQuest. My life has just
> moved on and I don't have time to play. Sure I can go in and kill a few
> things but I don't have time for grouping or questing. For the past year or
> so I just log in and download updates, maybe kill a couple of things then
> log out. I have all 9 expansions. And several characters in their 50s.
> Lol Jboots on 8 characters on 2 servers. And a ring of ancients on 3 or 4
> more. A Quillamain Pegasus cloak on a clerk lol. Several other rare items
> for higher level quest.
>
> All those years spent doing things for fun with friends now I and my friends
> have moved on with our lives and there's no time for EverQuest. What do I
> do with this account? Just deleting it and erasing years seems almost like
> killing my guys, lol. I've wanted to quit several times but that seems such
> a waste to destroy the characters with all their experience and items. Is
> selling your account still illegal with Sony? I don't feel like getting
> reimbursed for the 9 expansions is doing anything wrong, and if I make a
> little extra I look at it as a good business deal. I'm probably going to
> get flamed for evening hinting such a idea by this newsgroup but I'm curious
> what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
> move on?
>
> Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
> Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
> give someone that wants to resume where I left of?


Most people just cancel the account and move on. If they change their
mind one day they can reactivate, and the characters will still be
there. Not sure why it has to be choice between deleting and selling,
because it isn't.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Fuzzy wrote:
> what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
> move on?

Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons. What
they generally do is give away anything and everything they can, keep
the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the account. That
way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel they can/want to
come back, their characters are still there, although a little less
clothed than they once were.

> Be nice please, do I just delete everything?

Why delete it? No reason to really.

> Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
> give someone that wants to resume where I left of?

Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even specifically
states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked 'accept' on the
EULA, you agreed to it.

Tracey
Related resources
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:01:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:27:20 -0400, "Fuzzy" <Fuzzy@net.Com> wrote:

>Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
>give someone that wants to resume where I left of?

Considering it's a violation of the contract you signed every time you
logged in, yes, it is asking too much. (Someday the "Station Exchange"
thing might apply to EQ1 and allow you to do it, though)

As it is, your reimbursement is the fun you had playing. (And, if you
didn't have fun, you wouldn't have played so long...)

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:59:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:27:20 -0400 in
<117a7s5k4ofm2ea@corp.supernews.com>, "Fuzzy" <Fuzzy@net.Com> graced
the world with this thought:

>
>It's been about 5 or 6 years I've been playing EverQuest. My life has just
>moved on and I don't have time to play. Sure I can go in and kill a few
>things but I don't have time for grouping or questing. For the past year or
>so I just log in and download updates, maybe kill a couple of things then
>log out. I have all 9 expansions. And several characters in their 50s.
>Lol Jboots on 8 characters on 2 servers. And a ring of ancients on 3 or 4
>more. A Quillamain Pegasus cloak on a clerk lol. Several other rare items
>for higher level quest.
>
>All those years spent doing things for fun with friends now I and my friends
>have moved on with our lives and there's no time for EverQuest. What do I
>do with this account? Just deleting it and erasing years seems almost like
>killing my guys, lol. I've wanted to quit several times but that seems such
>a waste to destroy the characters with all their experience and items. Is
>selling your account still illegal with Sony? I don't feel like getting
>reimbursed for the 9 expansions is doing anything wrong, and if I make a
>little extra I look at it as a good business deal. I'm probably going to
>get flamed for evening hinting such a idea by this newsgroup but I'm curious
>what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
>move on?
>
>Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
>give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>
Why delete everything? Just end your subscription. If you decide to
come back at a later time, or get one of those free offers that pops
up from time to time, you can sign in and everyone will be there for
you to choose from...
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in news:42753F0A.8070300@aol.com:

>
>
> Fuzzy wrote:
>> what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they
>> decide to move on?
>
> Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons.
> What they generally do is give away anything and everything they can,
> keep the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the
> account. That way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel
> they can/want to come back, their characters are still there, although
> a little less clothed than they once were.
>
>> Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>
> Why delete it? No reason to really.
>
>> Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and
>> disks I give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>
> Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even specifically
> states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked 'accept' on
> the EULA, you agreed to it.
>

Wait a few months, and you'll probably be able to sell the account using
the SOE exchange server...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
May 2, 2005 8:49:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <42753F0A.8070300@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
>
>
> Fuzzy wrote:
> > what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
> > move on?
>
> Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons. What
> they generally do is give away anything and everything they can, keep
> the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the account. That
> way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel they can/want to
> come back, their characters are still there, although a little less
> clothed than they once were.
>
> > Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>
> Why delete it? No reason to really.
>
> > Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
> > give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>
> Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even specifically
> states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked 'accept' on the
> EULA, you agreed to it.

Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
against it after all.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:49:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:49:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <42753F0A.8070300@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>> Fuzzy wrote:
>> > what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
>> > move on?
>>
>> Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons. What
>> they generally do is give away anything and everything they can, keep
>> the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the account. That
>> way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel they can/want to
>> come back, their characters are still there, although a little less
>> clothed than they once were.
>>
>> > Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>>
>> Why delete it? No reason to really.
>>
>> > Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
>> > give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>>
>> Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even specifically
>> states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked 'accept' on the
>> EULA, you agreed to it.
>
>Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
>against it after all.

Only applies to EQ2, and only if you go through them. They're still
against, say, IGE. :p 

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:04:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

> Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
> against it after all.

You know, you guys are so pessimistic. :p 

I understand that it looks like SOE is changing their stance on this
issue. (I say 'looks like' because it's not live YET. Do I doubt that
it will become live? No, not really. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if
they *didn't* make it live. But that's neither here nor there.) But,
*at this time*, Station Exchange is only set to go live on EQ2, not
on EQ. *At this time*, SOE does not support nor condone nor facilitate
transferring whole accounts to another person. *At this time* it's
still against the EULA to do that.

If a law is set to change on 1 January, the action will still be illegal
or legal, as the case may be, on 30 December. As of now, it's against
the EULA to transfer accounts. Whether it will remain against the EULA
is only a matter of speculation at this point.

Tracey
May 2, 2005 10:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <42766BAC.7060608@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
>
>
> 42 wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
> > against it after all.
>
> You know, you guys are so pessimistic. :p 

Not really. But optimism that game integrity will prevail in the face of
SOE greed is like searching for fresh fruit in the sewer.

> I understand that it looks like SOE is changing their stance on this
> issue. (I say 'looks like' because it's not live YET. Do I doubt that
> it will become live? No, not really. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if
> they *didn't* make it live.

Doesn't matter if they dont go through with it. That they've even
started down the road demonstrates they have no vision nor interest in
preserving the integrity of the game if they can make a buck.

> But that's neither here nor there.) But,
> *at this time*, Station Exchange is only set to go live on EQ2, not
> on EQ. *At this time*, SOE does not support nor condone nor facilitate
> transferring whole accounts to another person. *At this time* it's
> still against the EULA to do that.

At this time SOE no longer beleives that such activities are wrong, or
cheating. The EULA's no longer reflect what SOE beleives. This will be
corrected soon enough... after all they have to figure out how to word
it so that its only cheating and morally wrong if you sell your plat
without using the station exchange service... ;) 

> If a law is set to change on 1 January, the action will still be illegal
> or legal, as the case may be, on 30 December. As of now, it's against
> the EULA to transfer accounts. Whether it will remain against the EULA
> is only a matter of speculation at this point.

Its hair splitting.

Once upon a time, SOE/(and Verant before it) claimed that that selling
items and characters was against their vision of how the game was to be
played, against the rules of the game, and a violation of the end user
license agreement to which you were bound in order to continue playing
the game.

Sure they never really emphatically enforced it, but the party line was
always "selling stuff is bad, mmmmkay!" That's no longer true. The fact
that it hasn't propogated to all titles, or all servers, or even gone
live at all is completely irrelevant. SOE can no longer claim they have
any philosophical objection to the practice.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:D nvc71hh3o99e42hj3b42ka7qp22argl2s@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:49:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <42753F0A.8070300@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuzzy wrote:
>>> > what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they
>>> > decide to move on?
>>>
>>> Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons.
>>> What they generally do is give away anything and everything they
>>> can, keep the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the
>>> account. That way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel
>>> they can/want to come back, their characters are still there,
>>> although a little less clothed than they once were.
>>>
>>> > Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>>>
>>> Why delete it? No reason to really.
>>>
>>> > Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and
>>> > disks I give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even
>>> specifically states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked
>>> 'accept' on the EULA, you agreed to it.
>>
>>Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
>>against it after all.
>
> Only applies to EQ2, and only if you go through them. They're still
> against, say, IGE. :p 
>

Um, yeah, but, it does say that they no longer have any phillosophical
objection to the idea of transfering items/plat/character for real world
cash.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:34:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 2 May 2005 19:34:43 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>> Only applies to EQ2, and only if you go through them. They're still
>> against, say, IGE. :p 
>>
>
>Um, yeah, but, it does say that they no longer have any phillosophical
>objection to the idea of transfering items/plat/character for real world
>cash.

It says they don't have any philosophical objection to other people
doing it without going through them. It's not saying they don't have
any objection to it being done without their approval...which would
mean brokered by third party sites instead of them.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:54:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:D nvc71hh3o99e42hj3b42ka7qp22argl2s@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:49:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <42753F0A.8070300@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuzzy wrote:
>>> > what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they
>>> > decide to move on?
>>>
>>> Quite a few in our guild have left EQ for EQ2 or for other reasons.
>>> What they generally do is give away anything and everything they
>>> can, keep the no drop on the character and just quit paying for the
>>> account. That way, if they ever do get to the point where they feel
>>> they can/want to come back, their characters are still there,
>>> although a little less clothed than they once were.
>>>
>>> > Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>>>
>>> Why delete it? No reason to really.
>>>
>>> > Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and
>>> > disks I give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is asking too much. SOE does not support and even
>>> specifically states that you can't do it. And every time you clicked
>>> 'accept' on the EULA, you agreed to it.
>>
>>Perhaps you missed the Station Exchange. Turns out SOE isn't really
>>against it after all.
>
> Only applies to EQ2, and only if you go through them. They're still
> against, say, IGE. :p 
>

Offically, they may still be against it. For all intents and purposes,
however, they have effectively renounced their longtime stance that it is
harmful to the integrity of the game, and will likely continue to do little
about it. As such I'm certain a great many players will follow suit out of
greed, convenience or both, dealing with IGE and their ilk where they may
not have felt comfortable doing so in the past.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
May 3, 2005 12:19:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor scribbled:

> Offically, they may still be against it. For all intents and purposes,
> however, they have effectively renounced their longtime stance that
> it is harmful to the integrity of the game,

Actually they've said it's like PvP (or "strict" roleplaying) and
deserves to be on a seperate server. I don't see anything
wrong with that. Try looking at it the same way they did
PvP -- it's "bad" for the game (and against the rules) on the
vast majority of servers. But perfectly fine on another
where everyone signs up for it. Works for me...

> and will likely continue to do little about it.

There's a giant leap of faith. This will actually give them
a very strong motivation to do something about it. Now
they can make money (and limit their CS issues) by
having people go through them. Like it or not, the
people selling plat/characters were providing a service
a section of the community wanted. That's undeniable.
Before SOE was in the situation of telling that portion
of the community it couldn't have what it wanted (and
most likely losing thier business because of it IF they
enforced it.) Now they can enforce it -- and just put
that community on servers of their own.

> As such I'm certain a great many players will follow suit out
> of greed, convenience or both, dealing with IGE and their
> ilk where they may not have felt comfortable doing so in the
> past.

You mean like where everyone started training to PK because
EQ approved PvP on some servers?

Last I looked the sky is NOT falling. Why not wait until it
does before losing it? (That's a general statement, not a
specific one BTW.)
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:5Xvde.46307$_t3.28502@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Rumbledor scribbled:
>
>> Offically, they may still be against it. For all intents and
>> purposes, however, they have effectively renounced their longtime
>> stance that it is harmful to the integrity of the game,
>
> Actually they've said it's like PvP (or "strict" roleplaying) and
> deserves to be on a seperate server. I don't see anything
> wrong with that. Try looking at it the same way they did
> PvP -- it's "bad" for the game (and against the rules) on the
> vast majority of servers. But perfectly fine on another
> where everyone signs up for it. Works for me...

That's a poor comparison. PvP has *never* been officially recognized as
a detriment to the game. Besides, PvP is a funtion of the game, not an
external market to give people a leg up in the game world.

>> and will likely continue to do little about it.
>
> There's a giant leap of faith. This will actually give them
> a very strong motivation to do something about it. Now
> they can make money (and limit their CS issues) by
> having people go through them. Like it or not, the
> people selling plat/characters were providing a service
> a section of the community wanted. That's undeniable.
> Before SOE was in the situation of telling that portion
> of the community it couldn't have what it wanted (and
> most likely losing thier business because of it IF they
> enforced it.) Now they can enforce it -- and just put
> that community on servers of their own.

Face it. If they could or cared to do much about it at a reasonable
cost, they would have long ago. That's not gonna change.

>> As such I'm certain a great many players will follow suit out
>> of greed, convenience or both, dealing with IGE and their
>> ilk where they may not have felt comfortable doing so in the
>> past.
>
> You mean like where everyone started training to PK because
> EQ approved PvP on some servers?

Again with the inappropriate comparisons. This has nothing to do with
game dynamics. It's all about outside influences being allowed to affect
the game in an adverse manner.

> Last I looked the sky is NOT falling. Why not wait until it
> does before losing it? (That's a general statement, not a
> specific one BTW.)

No one's lost anything here. The sky is certainly *not* falling.
However, SoE has undeniably set the stage for increased game item sales
activity.

* They've never been able to do much about it in the past.
* They've now made it crystal clear that they no longer disagree with
real world sales of in-game items/coin on neither a philosophical nor
ethical basis.

One doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon to do the math on this one.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
May 3, 2005 1:30:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <5Xvde.46307$_t3.28502@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
bgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> Rumbledor scribbled:
>
> > Offically, they may still be against it. For all intents and purposes,
> > however, they have effectively renounced their longtime stance that
> > it is harmful to the integrity of the game,
>
> Actually they've said it's like PvP (or "strict" roleplaying) and
> deserves to be on a seperate server. I don't see anything
> wrong with that.

Its quite different... see below.

> Try looking at it the same way they did
> PvP -- it's "bad" for the game (and against the rules) on the
> vast majority of servers. But perfectly fine on another
> where everyone signs up for it. Works for me...

Yes, we all understand the concept of alternate rules servers. A group
of people with similiar interests in a particular play style all get
together on one server.

The farm-loots-for-cash crowd however is different...see below.

> > and will likely continue to do little about it.
>
> There's a giant leap of faith. This will actually give them
> a very strong motivation to do something about it.

You must mean by "$tation exchange" enabling *all* the servers?

> Now
> they can make money (and limit their CS issues) by
> having people go through them.

Nope, not remotely. By having non station exchange servers they are
still going to have the IGE 'black market', and the customer service
requests saying "my sword is missing from my inventory..." will persist.

Unless they '$tation exchange' enable all the servers. (*AND* broker
deals for less than IGE et al the CS issues will not go away)

> Like it or not, the
> people selling plat/characters were providing a service
> a section of the community wanted. That's undeniable.

That section of the community is already spread out over the existing
server pool. They aren't going to all march into an isolated server to
farm plat for cash together. They have no reason to.

Most people who patronize those IGE autions do so infrequently... they
aren't going to leave all their friends and guild to switch servers just
to get a quick pair of boots of flowing slime and a drogmor. The
frequent fliers are the sellers and brokers. And those guys will go
where the customers are... and the customers will be everywhere, not
just on isolated servers.

> Before SOE was in the situation of telling that portion
> of the community it couldn't have what it wanted (and
> most likely losing thier business because of it IF they
> enforced it.)

People who quit games because they can't cheat aren't players you want
playing. They damage the community and integrity of the game. Having one
more person on the paintball field paying 10c per shot isn't worth
having if he won't die when he's hit, and won't calibrate his gun to the
required maximum speed.

Sure you can make a special rules field where nobody dies when they get
hit, where you can make your guns as powerful as you want, but guess
what... not even the cheaters want to play on those. Cheating is only
fun if not everybody is doing it.

> Now they can enforce it -- and just put
> that community on servers of their own.

Pure fantasy, by and large those players aren't going to budge. Unless
soe stationexchange enables the server they are on, they won't be using
station exchange to facilitate their transactions.

IGE's market will be the playerbase on those non station exchange
servers who want stuff (and yes, they'll still want stuff!!)... if
anything their activities will increase because the ethical dilemma that
soe thinks selling items is wrong has been greatly weakened.

> > As such I'm certain a great many players will follow suit out
> > of greed, convenience or both, dealing with IGE and their
> > ilk where they may not have felt comfortable doing so in the
> > past.
>
> You mean like where everyone started training to PK because
> EQ approved PvP on some servers?

Ok... here it is... if you haven't already guess it:

The fundamental difference between the average special rules crowd like
pvpers and the cash-for-loots crowd:

PvPers want to play together all in one place, and want everyone they
see to be pvp.

People who want to make money farming stuff to sell for cash DON'T.

Further: Given that they -can- sell on the 'black market' on the non
station exchange servers, there is no reason for them to all voluntarily
pile up on isolated servers.

Bottom line: if a player on a non station exchange server wants the
necro epic, someone will be there to sell the droppable bits to them, if
they want a high level cleric box, someone will be there to sell it to
them. Its not going to matter which server it is. Its pure naivete to
think that everyone who ever wants to buy/sell an item is going to
permanently switch servers.

> Last I looked the sky is NOT falling. Why not wait until it
> does before losing it? (That's a general statement, not a
> specific one BTW.)

Its hard to see whats going on in the sky with your head buried in the
sand ;)  (That's a general statement too.)
May 3, 2005 4:11:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <hodd71d6ruo66m2a8h9obqmm16o9vit6om@4ax.com>,
darktiger@somewhere.net says...
> On 2 May 2005 19:34:43 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Only applies to EQ2, and only if you go through them. They're still
> >> against, say, IGE. :p 
> >>
> >
> >Um, yeah, but, it does say that they no longer have any phillosophical
> >objection to the idea of transfering items/plat/character for real world
> >cash.
>
> It says they don't have any philosophical objection to other people
> doing it without going through them. It's not saying they don't have
> any objection to it being done without their approval...which would
> mean brokered by third party sites instead of them.

So then you agree they no longer have a *philisophical objection* to
people buying and selling items and accounts.

The only point of concern for them is that it be them that gets the
commission. Great! We agree.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:13:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:27:20 -0400, "Fuzzy" <Fuzzy@net.Com> wrote:

>
>It's been about 5 or 6 years I've been playing EverQuest. My life has just
>moved on and I don't have time to play. Sure I can go in and kill a few
>things but I don't have time for grouping or questing. For the past year or
>so I just log in and download updates, maybe kill a couple of things then
>log out. I have all 9 expansions. And several characters in their 50s.
>Lol Jboots on 8 characters on 2 servers. And a ring of ancients on 3 or 4
>more. A Quillamain Pegasus cloak on a clerk lol. Several other rare items
>for higher level quest.
>
>All those years spent doing things for fun with friends now I and my friends
>have moved on with our lives and there's no time for EverQuest. What do I
>do with this account? Just deleting it and erasing years seems almost like
>killing my guys, lol. I've wanted to quit several times but that seems such
>a waste to destroy the characters with all their experience and items. Is
>selling your account still illegal with Sony? I don't feel like getting
>reimbursed for the 9 expansions is doing anything wrong, and if I make a
>little extra I look at it as a good business deal. I'm probably going to
>get flamed for evening hinting such a idea by this newsgroup but I'm curious
>what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
>move on?
>
>Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
>give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>

I gave away all my plat (which was a fair chunk, I had been saving for
a while) to a few friends. Left my chars in place, on the offchance I
might someday reactivate. Gave away a little gear, but most of it
wasn't great stuff. Logged on my very first char and walked him back
to my starting point (Kelethin) with a friend. Looked around,
realized the magic was gone, and logged.

Seemed like a good way to leave.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:11:32 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>> It says they don't have any philosophical objection to other people
>> doing it without going through them. It's not saying they don't have
>> any objection to it being done without their approval...which would
>> mean brokered by third party sites instead of them.
>
>So then you agree they no longer have a *philisophical objection* to
>people buying and selling items and accounts.

....I realize I said that in the quote wrong. "It says they don't have
any philosophical objection to people doing it when they go through
them".

Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
something to point to that they can more easily show financial damages
should they try to sue IGE.

They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:13:39 GMT, murdocj <murdocj@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:27:20 -0400, "Fuzzy" <Fuzzy@net.Com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's been about 5 or 6 years I've been playing EverQuest. My life has just
>>moved on and I don't have time to play. Sure I can go in and kill a few
>>things but I don't have time for grouping or questing. For the past year or
>>so I just log in and download updates, maybe kill a couple of things then
>>log out. I have all 9 expansions. And several characters in their 50s.
>>Lol Jboots on 8 characters on 2 servers. And a ring of ancients on 3 or 4
>>more. A Quillamain Pegasus cloak on a clerk lol. Several other rare items
>>for higher level quest.
>>
>>All those years spent doing things for fun with friends now I and my friends
>>have moved on with our lives and there's no time for EverQuest. What do I
>>do with this account? Just deleting it and erasing years seems almost like
>>killing my guys, lol. I've wanted to quit several times but that seems such
>>a waste to destroy the characters with all their experience and items. Is
>>selling your account still illegal with Sony? I don't feel like getting
>>reimbursed for the 9 expansions is doing anything wrong, and if I make a
>>little extra I look at it as a good business deal. I'm probably going to
>>get flamed for evening hinting such a idea by this newsgroup but I'm curious
>>what everybody does with their accounts and characters when they decide to
>>move on?
>>
>>Be nice please, do I just delete everything?
>>Or is it asking too much to be reimbursed for the expansions and disks I
>>give someone that wants to resume where I left of?
>>
>
>I gave away all my plat (which was a fair chunk, I had been saving for
>a while) to a few friends. Left my chars in place, on the offchance I
>might someday reactivate. Gave away a little gear, but most of it
>wasn't great stuff. Logged on my very first char and walked him back
>to my starting point (Kelethin) with a friend. Looked around,
>realized the magic was gone, and logged.
>
>Seemed like a good way to leave.

One other point: when I left, I had a 66 enchanter. A friend of mine
remarked that he knew folks who would happily pay good money for that
character. I didn't even consider it, because the thought that
someone else would represent *me*, that someone else's actions would
be taken for *my* actions, is not tolerable to me. Regardless of what
SOE says or what's permitted in any contract I "signed', I don't want
some slob taking over my account and messing around with my name, my
reputation, my in-game character.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:23:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>Seemed like a good way to leave.

Well I just cancelled my COH sub. After I did it I posted something on
the official forums to say goodbye to all the people I grouped with and
what mmog to catch me on now.

Previously I've stated my last night on and arranged for one last go
but you are often just going through the motions that night and its
rather sad seeing a friend log off knowing he won't be back.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:40:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:kode71pebh4o99gp7ld15f4cvrijj9i7th@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:11:32 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> It says they don't have any philosophical objection to other people
>>> doing it without going through them. It's not saying they don't have
>>> any objection to it being done without their approval...which would
>>> mean brokered by third party sites instead of them.
>>
>>So then you agree they no longer have a *philisophical objection* to
>>people buying and selling items and accounts.
>
> ...I realize I said that in the quote wrong. "It says they don't have
> any philosophical objection to people doing it when they go through
> them".
>
> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
> something to point to that they can more easily show financial damages
> should they try to sue IGE.
>
> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>

OTOH, IGE now has something they can point at that could potentially
support a claim they made regarding financial damages...

Personally, I don't expect to see either party take it to court anytime
soon, both sides have too much to lose depending on which way the
decision goes.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 3 May 2005 13:40:18 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>OTOH, IGE now has something they can point at that could potentially
>support a claim they made regarding financial damages...

IGE still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The IP is still SOE's and
they're still brokering sale of it against SOE's express wishes.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
May 3, 2005 7:01:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger wrote:


> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
> something to point to that they can more easily show financial
damages
> should they try to sue IGE.


And yet, if they were to do that, it would starkly demonstrate their
rank hypocrisy and outright greed to all their subscibers who were
paying attention, which would probably result in more damage done to
their franchise than IGE ever could do.

Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant in this discussion.

C
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:07:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 3 May 2005 15:01:33 -0700, "Charles" <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dark Tyger wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
>> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
>> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
>> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
>> something to point to that they can more easily show financial
>damages
>> should they try to sue IGE.
>
>
>And yet, if they were to do that, it would starkly demonstrate their
>rank hypocrisy and outright greed to all their subscibers who were
>paying attention, which would probably result in more damage done to
>their franchise than IGE ever could do.

It would? Suing a company that's been abusing their IP for years and
also known to facilitate scamming of their customers would
"demonstrate their rank hypocrisy and outright greed"? Suing a
competitor using THIER IP WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION to run a MULTI
MILLION DOLLAR BUISNESS? Fine, I guess you'd have no objection if you
owned a store to me setting up a stall out front to conduct sales of
my own (Selling the same product as you) without asking you... After
all, it would "starkly demonstrate their rank hypocrisy and outright
greed" to all your customers if you took legal action against me for
doing what you're doing.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 15:07:41 -0700, Dark Tyger
<darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

>Fine, I guess you'd have no objection if you
>owned a store to me setting up a stall out front to conduct sales of
>my own (Selling the same product as you) without asking you..

In fact, an even closer example: Me setting up a stall INSIDE your
store, buying out your stock of certain high-demand products, then
selling them to your customers myself for twice what I paid you...

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:31:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:kode71pebh4o99gp7ld15f4cvrijj9i7th@4ax.com:

>
> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>

I disagree. They have *always* held the position that these sales are
detrimental to the game. As such, they have *always* prohibited them.

I don't have specific links or quotes, but I do know that until recently,
nothing I have ever read from them has ever indicated otherwise.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:2s3f71dt22s7ls41f9gtvl5opi4pvubl98@4ax.com:

> On 3 May 2005 13:40:18 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>OTOH, IGE now has something they can point at that could potentially
>>support a claim they made regarding financial damages...
>
> IGE still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The IP is still SOE's and
> they're still brokering sale of it against SOE's express wishes.
>

I have heard all your arguments in the past DT, and I don't entirely agree
with them, so I'll just leave it at that. Until such time as there is an
actual court case, it is all pure speculation.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:17:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 3 May 2005 16:17:01 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
>news:2s3f71dt22s7ls41f9gtvl5opi4pvubl98@4ax.com:
>
>> On 3 May 2005 13:40:18 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>OTOH, IGE now has something they can point at that could potentially
>>>support a claim they made regarding financial damages...
>>
>> IGE still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The IP is still SOE's and
>> they're still brokering sale of it against SOE's express wishes.
>>
>
>I have heard all your arguments in the past DT, and I don't entirely agree
>with them, so I'll just leave it at that. Until such time as there is an
>actual court case, it is all pure speculation.

I don't see where the speculation is. It's a part of their creative
work, thus it's their IP. I don't understand what part of this VERY
simple concept is so hard to grasp...

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:18:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns964B6B0EF1ABRumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16:

> Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
> news:kode71pebh4o99gp7ld15f4cvrijj9i7th@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
>> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>>
>
> I disagree. They have *always* held the position that these sales are
> detrimental to the game. As such, they have *always* prohibited them.
>
> I don't have specific links or quotes, but I do know that until
> recently, nothing I have ever read from them has ever indicated
> otherwise.
>

Agreed 100%. Up until Station Exchange, SoEs stance was always that it
was detrimental to the game, and thus completely prohibited. That stance
has now changed.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
May 3, 2005 9:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <kode71pebh4o99gp7ld15f4cvrijj9i7th@4ax.com>,
darktiger@somewhere.net says...
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:11:32 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> It says they don't have any philosophical objection to other people
> >> doing it without going through them. It's not saying they don't have
> >> any objection to it being done without their approval...which would
> >> mean brokered by third party sites instead of them.
> >
> >So then you agree they no longer have a *philisophical objection* to
> >people buying and selling items and accounts.
>
> ...I realize I said that in the quote wrong. "It says they don't have
> any philosophical objection to people doing it when they go through
> them".
>
> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
> something to point to that they can more easily show financial damages
> should they try to sue IGE.

/shrug

If IGE is dealing outside of a station exchange enabled server then they
can claim SOE isn't even in the same market.

Unless of course SOE station enables all their servers... but I won't be
around for that eventuality.

And even if SOE does station enable all servers and IGE competes
directly with them by brokering for less I'm still unconvinced that SOE
is automatically granted a monopoly on the brokerage business simply as
a result of the EULA.

You may be right, but I'm highly skeptical.

>
> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.

Consider slavery. Either you are philisophically against slavery,
beleiving no human should own another, for the good of mankind, or you
aren't. Its not a philisophical objection if it matters whether or not
you are the slave. A slave who objects to being a slave and wishes he
was the master *doesn't* have a philisophical objection to slavery. He
just doesn't like his particular lot in life. There's no such thing as
being "philisophically opposed to being a slave, but philisophically ok
with being the master." Its just hypocrisy.



What your describing would be like claiming
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:49:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
>> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>
>Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
>money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
>principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.

The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
taking that away from them.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:49:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
> >> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
> >
> >Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
> >money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
> >principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.
>
> The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
> taking that away from them.

"IP" is completely irrelevant to the entire concept of item/character sales.
If I have a Sword of Intellectual Properties, and I sell it for real world
cash to someone else, it is *still* a Sword of Intellectual Properties,
*still* on Sony's servers, and any "IP" claim to be made was not put at
risk whatsoever.

Sony must argue exactly that, by the way, or be faced with the
counter-argument of "dillution" for everytime someone clicks the destroy
button. =P
May 3, 2005 10:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <5mgf7199v6gehvrlp4mdnfbm9p8jtai3a8@4ax.com>,
darktiger@somewhere.net says...
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
> >> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
> >
> >Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
> >money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
> >principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.
>
> The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
> taking that away from them.

If that makes you happy sure. Either way they don't have a philisophical
objection to people buying and selling gear for real money anymore. And
once upon a time they claimed it was detrimental to the game. They have
-never- previously claimed they prohibited it because they weren't
getting a cut.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:44:11 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <5mgf7199v6gehvrlp4mdnfbm9p8jtai3a8@4ax.com>,
>darktiger@somewhere.net says...
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
>> >> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>> >
>> >Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
>> >money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
>> >principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.
>>
>> The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
>> taking that away from them.
>
>If that makes you happy sure. Either way they don't have a philisophical
>objection to people buying and selling gear for real money anymore. And
>once upon a time they claimed it was detrimental to the game. They have
>-never- previously claimed they prohibited it because they weren't
>getting a cut.

Possible it's more they realized it was beyond their control as it
was, and this is an attempt to keep damage controlled.

--
Dark Tyger

Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:19:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:5mgf7199v6gehvrlp4mdnfbm9p8jtai3a8@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had a
>>> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>>
>>Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
>>money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
>>principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.
>
> The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
> taking that away from them.
>

Which is not what we have been saying. What we have been saying is that
SoE is no longer philosophically opposed to the exchange of
items/characters/plat for real world cash.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:21:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:5jgf71d2hcc659vjvf3kgfeg6asimi01hs@4ax.com:

> On 3 May 2005 16:17:01 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
>>news:2s3f71dt22s7ls41f9gtvl5opi4pvubl98@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 3 May 2005 13:40:18 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>>> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>OTOH, IGE now has something they can point at that could potentially
>>>>support a claim they made regarding financial damages...
>>>
>>> IGE still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The IP is still SOE's and
>>> they're still brokering sale of it against SOE's express wishes.
>>>
>>
>>I have heard all your arguments in the past DT, and I don't entirely
>>agree with them, so I'll just leave it at that. Until such time as
>>there is an actual court case, it is all pure speculation.
>
> I don't see where the speculation is. It's a part of their creative
> work, thus it's their IP. I don't understand what part of this VERY
> simple concept is so hard to grasp...
>

Yes, I know you don't...

This whole argument has been run over and over and over and over here in
this newsgroup, I do not intend on participating in it again. No I am
not admitting defeat, I am admitting that neither of us is able to
convince the other.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Charles" <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1115155798.262872.216840
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Dark Tyger wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their IP.
>> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's entirely
>> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
>> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
>> something to point to that they can more easily show financial
> damages
>> should they try to sue IGE.
>
>
> And yet, if they were to do that, it would starkly demonstrate their
> rank hypocrisy and outright greed to all their subscibers who were
> paying attention, which would probably result in more damage done to
> their franchise than IGE ever could do.
>

Heh. I've got news for you. They've already demonstrated that and in the
process alienated many of us who were, in fact, paying attention.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Annie Benson Lennaman <teapray@real.people.only.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:42786872.7FE38228@real.people.only.yahoo.com:

>
>
> murdocj wrote:
>

>snip<

My departure from Everquest came about the same way. After having played
since beta 4, I thought I would do something grand like make a sweep of the
zones I leveled up in as a newbie or something, but the game had become so
tedious I couldn't even stomach logging in anymore so I just cancelled all
of my accounts and left it at that.
I think for me the magic was gone when the GoD expansion caused me to
realize SoE's heart is in counting wads of cash and not in giving its
customers a quality product.

I think its been 6 or so months since I last logged in and I haven't the
slightest urge to pay any more $ to SoE.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:n7tf711gh7jv9nionp76b7sj6hc03c511g@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:44:11 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5mgf7199v6gehvrlp4mdnfbm9p8jtai3a8@4ax.com>,
>>darktiger@somewhere.net says...
>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:49:39 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> They never had a philosophical objection to these sales. They had
a
>>> >> philosophical objection to people doing it WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>>> >
>>> >Then its not a *philisophical* objection. Its just a desire to make
>>> >money instead of someone else. Either your against the practice on
>>> >principle or you aren't. SOE isn't.
>>>
>>> The philosophy is their control over their IP and against others
taking
>>> that away from them.
>>
>>If that makes you happy sure. Either way they don't have a
philisophical
>>objection to people buying and selling gear for real money anymore. And
>>once upon a time they claimed it was detrimental to the game. They have
>>-never- previously claimed they prohibited it because they weren't
>>getting a cut.
>
> Possible it's more they realized it was beyond their control as it
> was, and this is an attempt to keep damage controlled.
>

No, this is an attempt to get in on the cash cow of exchange of
items/characters/plat for cash. They as much as said, we give up, we
can't stop it, so we will join it.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Charles Whitney" <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1115238658.789118.314050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Rumbledor wrote:
>> "Charles" <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1115155798.262872.216840
>> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Dark Tyger wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Anyway, the point is, this isn't giving up any control of their
> IP.
>> >> This is, in fact, extending their control even farther. It's
> entirely
>> >> possible that, by legitimizing these sales when sanctioned through
>> >> them, they have even more ammo to fire at IGE. In fact, they have
>> >> something to point to that they can more easily show financial
>> > damages
>> >> should they try to sue IGE.
>> >
>> >
>> > And yet, if they were to do that, it would starkly demonstrate
> their
>> > rank hypocrisy and outright greed to all their subscibers who were
>> > paying attention, which would probably result in more damage done
> to
>> > their franchise than IGE ever could do.
>> >
>>
>> Heh. I've got news for you. They've already demonstrated that and in
> the
>> process alienated many of us who were, in fact, paying attention.
>
> Not in the same extent that I'm talking about. Sure, I'll agree with
> you that the current action of setting up the Exchange after saying
> for years that it hurts the integrity of the game reeks of both
> hypocrisy and greed.
>
> However, if they were to finally go after IGE after they set up the
> Exchange, I view that on a level that dwarfs that hypocrisy and greed.
>
< snip >
>
> Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. I, on the other hand, would
> still like to think that SOE has a modicum of regard and respect for
> its customers.
>

I'm by no means a SoE basher. I never have been (well, there was that
nasty period I went through as a suffering Master Droid Engineer in SWG,
but we won't talk about that). I never subscribed to any of the wacky
conspiracy theories that would be floated about everything from their
vendetta against a particular class to their evil nature and
manipulation of the customer base. I generally detest that attitude in
the forums I frequent, as people tend to jump to it far too quickly and
easily. I always tried to give SoE the benefit of the doubt, and they
deserved it more times than not. I've always seen them as an
establishment that has my best interests (and thereby their own as well)
at heart.

That said, I do see their recent actions as short-sighted, blatantly and
grossly hypocritical and greed-driven and that any subsequent actions
against the IGE's of the world would just be more of the same.

Suffice it to say, I now view them in a whole different (read: negative)
light.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
May 5, 2005 4:05:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Charles Whitney" wrote

> However, if they were to finally go after IGE after they set up the
> Exchange, I view that on a level that dwarfs that hypocrisy and greed.

> There are plenty of potential reasons why SOE hasn't gone after IGE
> after all these years; mostly that enforcement wouldn't be effective.

That's a guess. I'd say a better guess is they haven't because they
didn't want to open the floodgates by losing a battle strictly over a
legally questionable aspect of the EULA. By establishing their own
'service' they eliminate a lot of the potential pitfalls in the EULA
by simply pointing out they're not denying any customer the right
to transfer ownership, etc -- those arguments become moot.

Whether you like the 'service' or not, or think it ruins the game
or whatever, one thing's pretty clear -- they'll be in a lot better
position after it's implemented to legally go after IGE/whoever.
May 5, 2005 7:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Rumbledor scribbled:

> That's a poor comparison. PvP has *never* been officially recognized
> as a detriment to the game. Besides, PvP is a funtion of the game,
> not an external market to give people a leg up in the game world.

You're missing the point -- as long as, like PvP, it's isolated to
another server, what's the problem? *Personally* I think PvP
is a major detriment to the game -- the lack of it (in any
meaningful way) is one reason I played EQ (and EQ2.) But
the fact EQ allowed it on isolated servers doesn't bother me
a bit.

> Face it. If they could or cared to do much about it at a reasonable
> cost, they would have long ago. That's not gonna change.

Face it: you're ignoring plenty of caselaw which leads one to
believe the EULA *can't* be enforced as is. You DO have
a right to sell items which belong to you. Whether you can
sell *only* your disks and not the account -- or can sell your
account (complete with characters, plat, items) -- is a major
sticking point for EULA enforcement. Simply because you
agreed to the EULA which says you can't doesn't mean Sony
can enforce it.

> SoE has undeniably set the stage for increased game item
> sales activity.

No, that's NOT undeniable. You're assuming they won't
go after sales outside of their own mechanism. I don't agree
with that assumption.

> * They've never been able to do much about it in the past.

Right, because they did NOT want to go to court and lose
a battle based on a potentially flawed EULA.

> * They've now made it crystal clear that they no longer disagree with
> real world sales of in-game items/coin on neither a philosophical nor
> ethical basis.

Or they've learned they can't do anything to stop it and the best
thing for the game is to control it and keep it off the primary
servers...
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 8:47:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:q5ree.32333$716.19518@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Rumbledor scribbled:
>
>> That's a poor comparison. PvP has *never* been officially recognized
>> as a detriment to the game. Besides, PvP is a funtion of the game,
>> not an external market to give people a leg up in the game world.
>
> You're missing the point -- as long as, like PvP, it's isolated to
> another server, what's the problem? *Personally* I think PvP
> is a major detriment to the game -- the lack of it (in any
> meaningful way) is one reason I played EQ (and EQ2.) But
> the fact EQ allowed it on isolated servers doesn't bother me
> a bit.

Actually, it is you who are missing the point. PvP can be kept on other
servers. Sales of in-game items cannot. PvP is not a detriment to the
game. It is merely a matter of preference. Their establishment of
item/coin sales is an endorsement of the very practice itself, which
will only spur the growth of that same practice on other servers as
well. Many who refrained from doing it before out of principle now see
SoE themselves coming out and declaring that it is not a bad thing for
the game after all. Many who did it discreetly before will now feel even
more inclined to do so.

>> Face it. If they could or cared to do much about it at a reasonable
>> cost, they would have long ago. That's not gonna change.
>
> Face it: you're ignoring plenty of caselaw which leads one to
> believe the EULA *can't* be enforced as is. You DO have
> a right to sell items which belong to you. Whether you can
> sell *only* your disks and not the account -- or can sell your
> account (complete with characters, plat, items) -- is a major
> sticking point for EULA enforcement. Simply because you
> agreed to the EULA which says you can't doesn't mean Sony
> can enforce it.

Case law discussion are like teets on a boar at this point. They mean
nothing until SoE decides to pursue the option. I see no reason to think
they will suddenly decide to do so when they never have before.

>> SoE has undeniably set the stage for increased game item
>> sales activity.
>
> No, that's NOT undeniable. You're assuming they won't
> go after sales outside of their own mechanism. I don't agree
> with that assumption.

It *is* undeniable. They have endorsed the practice. They have now
officially reversed their long-time stance that sales of in-game items
are bad for the game. That's a green light to many people who declined
to do so in the past out of principle. After all, now they can view it
as something that must not be bad for the game after all.

>> * They've never been able to do much about it in the past.
>
> Right, because they did NOT want to go to court and lose
> a battle based on a potentially flawed EULA.

So, again, why would they try it now? Even if they changed the wording
in the EULA, it would only take them so far in a court of law. I've
never heard of an iron-clad EULA.

>> * They've now made it crystal clear that they no longer disagree with
>> real world sales of in-game items/coin on neither a philosophical nor
>> ethical basis.
>
> Or they've learned they can't do anything to stop it and the best
> thing for the game is to control it and keep it off the primary
> servers...

Same difference, except they can't keep it off the primary servers. Do
you really thing all those who want to buy items are going to flock to
the Exchange servers? Get real. They will need a market, and it will be
there as always.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
May 5, 2005 9:01:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <q5ree.32333$716.19518@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
bgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> Rumbledor scribbled:
>
> > That's a poor comparison. PvP has *never* been officially recognized
> > as a detriment to the game. Besides, PvP is a funtion of the game,
> > not an external market to give people a leg up in the game world.
>
> You're missing the point -- as long as, like PvP, it's isolated to
> another server, what's the problem?

The problem is that unlike PvPers who -want- to all lump together on a
special rules server, people who buy/sell items are and will continue to
be spread over all servers.

> *Personally* I think PvP
> is a major detriment to the game -- the lack of it (in any
> meaningful way) is one reason I played EQ (and EQ2.) But
> the fact EQ allowed it on isolated servers doesn't bother me
> a bit.

SOE has 0 credibility that it will remain isolated servers. Again,
unlike PvP, station exchage is a direct revenue stream.

> > Face it. If they could or cared to do much about it at a reasonable
> > cost, they would have long ago. That's not gonna change.
>
> Face it: you're ignoring plenty of caselaw which leads one to
> believe the EULA *can't* be enforced as is. You DO have
> a right to sell items which belong to you. Whether you can
> sell *only* your disks and not the account -- or can sell your
> account (complete with characters, plat, items) -- is a major
> sticking point for EULA enforcement. Simply because you
> agreed to the EULA which says you can't doesn't mean Sony
> can enforce it.

The *don't* need to enforce it in the courts. They reserve the right to
refuse service. Period. They can permanently ban you from playing the
game for breaking practically any rule of the game they deem fit to
think up.

To combat IGE they would simply have needed to aggressively ban accounts
buyers and sellers both. There is *NO* legal recourse to that. And once
word got out that SOE is aggressively banning you if they catch you the
activity would drop to a comparative underground trickle. The number of
buyers would drop substantially fewer would deem it worth the risk. And
sellers would be forced underground... as soon as any seller got high
profile enough to actually be making significant money then targetting
and banning his accounts would be fairly trivial.

No legal fees. No courts. No mention of the EULA. There is nothing to
sue about. You can't sue for being kicked out of the game.

> > SoE has undeniably set the stage for increased game item
> > sales activity.
>
> No, that's NOT undeniable. You're assuming they won't
> go after sales outside of their own mechanism. I don't agree
> with that assumption.

If they were going to do it, they'd have already done it. They only way
they'll go about it now is through competition... which means station
exchange is coming to a server near you... well... your server actually.
Either way that's increased game item activity. If -they- ignore IGE the
activity will still increase, becuase before honest players were
deterred by the 'its outright detrimental to the game' stance... now
they are supposed to be deterred by "its only ok if you pay us
stance'... and that's a MUCH weaker deterrent.

> > * They've never been able to do much about it in the past.
>
> Right, because they did NOT want to go to court and lose
> a battle based on a potentially flawed EULA.
>
> > * They've now made it crystal clear that they no longer disagree with
> > real world sales of in-game items/coin on neither a philosophical nor
> > ethical basis.
>
> Or they've learned they can't do anything to stop it and the best
> thing for the game is to control it and keep it off the primary
> servers...
>
>
>
!