Item Stack Resale Exploit

[Erasimus]

So say you have earned 2.5 Billion over the last year through crafting, GTN, and playing. You get swept up in the crime wave and proceed to exploit 2 million credits. And the devs not only remove the 2 million and other gains, but all of your 2.5 Billion, and that's okay? All I see is more people quiting as a result which causes a real loss of revenue in both subs and cartel purchases. The devs have already perma banned themselves out of a $100K+ profit a year. Again the punishment is way too harsh, but as we all know, Bioware is incompetent at doing anything other than extremes.

 

The punishment is absolutely ok in my book. A perma-ban would be even better. For those who cheat, it is a lifestyle. In real life or in games.

[Ghost_Spectre]

The punishment is absolutely ok in my book. A perma-ban would be even better. For those who cheat, it is a lifestyle. In real life or in games.

 

I completely agree with you. However, in today's politically correct care bear environment, those types of actions are frowned at. Those who received perma-bans either participated in prior exploits forcing them to act or what they did in this exploit was so egregious forced to perma-ban said offender. Either way, slaps on the wrists are probably the most results than the account kill option.

[Makillda]

It worked for 4 years though.

 

Not sure if serious...

[Ghisallo]

Exactly. I think this is unfair.

 

Here is the issue and laws irl have the same trend (though that pesky thing called the Constitution keeps them in check). Very often penalties get jacked up after society/the authorities have said a particular type of conduct is unacceptable BUT people continue to do it. Over the last year there have been more than a couple exploit scandals and BW is clearly tired of it.

 

Now we can argue that it was ridiculous that this exploit even existed and that it was known and allowed to persist for 6 weeks of course but we don't say the bad guy doesn't get arrested for burglary because a home owner was silly and left his door unlocked.

 

In the end though people are making a major error. Let's say I did not call you out for a false equivalency and said "yes we should be able to compare the regulation of players in a video game to the regulation of society irl. This game is a dictatorship. The Producer takes advice from his " inner" circle but in the end this game is not a democracy, what is fair is not determined by codified laws or democratic principles of fairness, it is at the sole discretion of the Producer.

 

Unlike most rl dictatorships though, there are no strict border controls that keep its citizens from fleeing what they may see as a Tyranny. Here the unsubscribe button is only a few clicks away.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Ghisallo

[branmakmuffin]

Actually it can be, especially when rl $$ is involved. Virtual goods do have a rl $$. There's a fair amount of legal precedent in that

Source? Selling creds to cred sellers is not a crime, it's simply against the rules. Breaking the terms of a licensing agreement is not a crime (unless it's a copyright violation).

Edited December 14, 2015 by branmakmuffin

[Ghisallo]

Actually it can be, especially when rl $$ is involved. Virtual goods do have a rl $$. There's a fair amount of legal precedent in that

 

Well first the only precedent for a suit like this is a case in China, this game is not launched in China and if you think any Judge in NA or the EU is going to accept a PRC case as precedent setting you are delusional.

 

As for here in the west you MIGHT be able to make that argument IF the game allowed for the trade, among players, of virtual items and virtual $$ for real world $$. This is actually the main reason that Video Game companies almost universally bar this as it limits the control they have over the game. If they permitted it then when, through their code, they reduced the power of an item, eliminated a type of currency or even simply introduced new gear that lowered the value of the old they could find themselves subject to a suit for reducing the "value" of the players "investment."

 

Now do some games have a "black market" for such things? Indeed they do BUT the value of goods on that black market are "illegal" according to the "laws" of the Game Developer and loosing value on an "illegal" investments is not actionable.

[lokimogor]

Well first the only precedent for a suit like this is a case in China, this game is not launched in China and if you think any Judge in NA or the EU is going to accept a PRC case as precedent setting you are delusional.

 

As for here in the west you MIGHT be able to make that argument IF the game allowed for the trade, among players, of virtual items and virtual $$ for real world $$. This is actually the main reason that Video Game companies almost universally bar this as it limits the control they have over the game. If they permitted it then when, through their code, they reduced the power of an item, eliminated a type of currency or even simply introduced new gear that lowered the value of the old they could find themselves subject to a suit for reducing the "value" of the players "investment."

 

Now do some games have a "black market" for such things? Indeed they do BUT the value of goods on that black market are "illegal" according to the "laws" of the Game Developer and loosing value on an "illegal" investments is not actionable.

 

Not accurate in the least, first example is Second Life which settled with players of that game out of court. Then there's another suit which is on-going, which indicates that courts consider there to be legal ground for the suit otherwise it would have dismissed.

 

The exact legal status of virtual property is dependent on the court. But anything that has a value put on it, has legal ramifications. Regardless of Bioware's desire for it be non-sold for cash. There is an existing market that sells credits for real $$ that means that the credits have a real $$ value and are actionable in US courts.

 

It most assuredly does when a player sells in game currency for irl $$ currency. This starts to come into fraud terrority. Regardless of it's legal status, Bioware is laying a hammer down on it and dealing with the folks in a fairly harsh manner

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Except, it doesn't work...

 

The "tough on crime" thing really, really doesn't work. It "feels" good, but it actually is ineffective.

 

Says you? Got anything to actually back up that statement? I believe Eric more or less stated the numbers of people using this is down on previous exploits but that could be all talk but do you actually have anything to the contrary?

 

Noting of course this exploit isn't a crime.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

So I don't have to keep paying for my sub, and I get to keep my sub benefits?

 

This "fictional world" you keep referring to has a real connection to the real world. It is called money, the real kind, the sort that pays for food, shelter, and office rent for BW.

 

But sure, burn it all down, who cares, it is only all their jobs and their career, what difference does it make if the game closes tomorrow, right?

 

Take two steps back and consider that for a min.

 

It pays for you to play a game, you can even play for free if you want ( I will be for awhile ).

 

It doesn't entitle you to cheat, if you lose everything from cheating ... too bad shouldn't have cheated.

 

I mean if we were talking someone who could be proven to have someone inadvertently cheated to a very minor scale and maybe not even realised they had done it then sure possibly an over reaction but so far everyone whinging over punishment has admitted they knew what they were doing.

[TX_Angel]

Says you? Got anything to actually back up that statement?

 

Yes, the entire real world...

 

If you require a detailed outline of proof to be posted here, you'll be disappointed, but if you bothered to research real life crime and punishment, you'd discover that increasing the punishment doesn't actually change much in terms of overall crime rates.

 

Crime goes down because people have something to lose, because people aren't hungry, out of hope, and have a feeling of community and a reason to belong (among many other reasons).

 

You could make jaywalking a capital crime, it wouldn't actually remove it as something people do nearly as much as you think it might.

 

If you're really interested, do some research on the "tough on crime" 80's and 90's, on the three strikes rules, and you'll find out useless they really were.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Based on what some people are posting here, Bioware should permaban anyone who so much as touched anything that was part of the exploit. Traded, bought, sold, anything.

 

I think you would be rather shocked how many players would vanish if they did that. The exploit existed long enough that enough stuff entered the economy tainted, you might end up banning a quarter of the player base.

 

Do you think the game would survive that? Do you think a "normal player" would want to play a game where innocent people were banned?

 

No one is saying that at all, leave your hyperbole at the door.

[TX_Angel]

It doesn't entitle you to cheat, if you lose everything from cheating ... too bad shouldn't have cheated.

 

Using that logic, if you come over to my house and we play poker, and I find out that you're cheating, I can have all your life savings, right?

 

You cheated, you lost, I get everything.

 

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Yes, it does, and that is how dumb your idea in the game really is.

[ZiggyTank]

Yes, oh yes. Tell me more how bioware treated you unfairly for exploiting. Hungggggf.

 

http://i.imgur.com/ittHCE0.jpg

[MeNaCe-NZ]

There have been multiple posts here saying that the exploited items purchased should be removed as well, even among the innocent.

 

Multiple posts have also come from people who claim just that has happened.

 

My point is that Bioware has to be careful not to catch the innocent in the dragnet. Of course some people need to be banned, anyone who made a billion credits and sold them to credit sellers of course should be outright banned.

 

But there are multiple calls here for ANYONE who exploited, ANYTHING at all, to be banned, and some people are calling for the removal of stuff from anyone who even touched the exploited stuff, regardless if they knew or not. That is way too much.

 

You'll also note those multiple posts say the innocent party in the case should have their credits/items returned in exchange for the removal of the cheated item thus not putting them out at all.

 

I'm failing to see these posts where people want to see innocent people who merely sold things on the GTN punished that you are implying exist. Do they exist?

[TX_Angel]

No one is saying that at all, leave your hyperbole at the door.

 

Read the thread, yes they are...

[Makillda]

Using that logic, if you come over to my house and we play poker, and I find out that you're cheating, I can have all your life savings, right?

 

You cheated, you lost, I get everything.

 

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Yes, it does, and that is how dumb your idea in the game really is.

You really need to get a grip. Your analogies are awful and your hyperbole is off the charts.

 

And, yes, I have a very good idea of how stupid your post sounds.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Yes, the entire real world...

 

If you require a detailed outline of proof to be posted here, you'll be disappointed, but if you bothered to research real life crime and punishment, you'd discover that increasing the punishment doesn't actually change much in terms of overall crime rates.

 

Crime goes down because people have something to lose, because people aren't hungry, out of hope, and have a feeling of community and a reason to belong (among many other reasons).

 

You could make jaywalking a capital crime, it wouldn't actually remove it as something people do nearly as much as you think it might.

 

If you're really interested, do some research on the "tough on crime" 80's and 90's, on the three strikes rules, and you'll find out useless they really were.

 

Again not a crime, stop saying it's a crime.

Also not related to real life in the sense Bioware are judge, jury and executioner.

 

Unless of course I'm missing something I can take my 100's of millions of credits and go buy myself a real life house or do we only pick and choose when to relate it to real life when it suits "our argument"?

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Using that logic, if you come over to my house and we play poker, and I find out that you're cheating, I can have all your life savings, right?

 

You cheated, you lost, I get everything.

 

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Yes, it does, and that is how dumb your idea in the game really is.

 

Well you could try and take my life savings in that example I have a feeling you would fail though for numerous reasons.

 

Difference here is Bioware CAN take people's in game items ( again not affecting their real life ) and you CAN'T stop them.

[Makillda]

Read the thread, yes they are...

 

No, they aren't.

 

Burden of proof is on you. Use the quote button and show us.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Read the thread, yes they are...

 

No they really aren't - you're making things up now. Just saying "yes they are read the thread" doesn't support your argument at all, the burden of proof lies with you.

[TX_Angel]

You really need to get a grip. Your analogies are awful and your hyperbole is off the charts.

 

And, yes, I have a very good idea of how stupid your post sounds.

 

It sounds as stupid as the people posting here saying that everyone should be banned and lose everything, no matter the level of exploitation.

[TX_Angel]

No they really aren't - you're making things up now. Just saying "yes they are read the thread" doesn't support your argument at all, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

Then I can't help you, since you don't wish to bother to read... the proof is there in this thread if you bothered to read it, but if you choose not to, I can't make you.

 

Have a nice day...

[Ghisallo]

Not accurate in the least, first example is Second Life which settled with players of that game out of court. Then there's another suit which is on-going, which indicates that courts consider there to be legal ground for the suit otherwise it would have dismissed.

 

The exact legal status of virtual property is dependent on the court. But anything that has a value put on it, has legal ramifications. Regardless of Bioware's desire for it be non-sold for cash. There is an existing market that sells credits for real $$ that means that the credits have a real $$ value and are actionable in US courts.

 

It most assuredly does when a player sells in game currency for irl $$ currency. This starts to come into fraud terrority. Regardless of it's legal status, Bioware is laying a hammer down on it and dealing with the folks in a fairly harsh manner

 

Ahh you need to actually read what I wrote AND the facts of Bragg v Linden Labs, the second life case. Once you do that you have to recognize you can actually make REAL life money in Second Life. Many items have a real world value and this is explicitly permitted by Linden labs. Players can make items and then sell them, heck they can even sell weather. You can even make RL money via real estate speculation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/07/AR2010030703524.html

 

Now look at this case. It starts because he allegedly bought land not yet ready for auction for $300.00 US when its market value was to be set at $1,000 US... Real world money. By then closing his account he lost access to virtual assets that were valued, again in real life not virtual currency, at between $4-6000.00.

 

Now I would be interested to know what other case you are referring too BUT the second life case actually proves my point... Unless the items are actually permitted to be traded with real life currency, and thus you can demonstrate that you suffered a real world loss (I live a shirt distance from the Common Pleas Court that case was actually filed in so it made my local news...hence why I am familiar with it.)

 

You make a major legal error in doing the following...

 

Second life is run by a company Headquarters in the US and officially sanctions the sale of virtual goods for RL currencies. As such the player could assert a US court had jurisdiction and he could show that there was actually a "market", not " black market" value for the items as you would have in a prohibited credit sale here.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Deyjarl]

I said how other, much smaller games do it.

 

Yet you can't name a single one.

[Ghisallo]

Hah. Linux did this a few times. Some programmers crashed the system and hacked other people from it, getting money for showing them bugs of course the people need to report this bug after "using" it. But without using it, it is not proven that it is a bug.^^ Cause then you would not even know that it is there, the devs would not know it either.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Ahh but when these are done they typically make some sort of prior arrangement and the like. Name me a case where a hacker hacked a bank, transferred funds, and only when the FBI showed up returned the money they had left and what they bought with the rest and then got a reward and not jail time.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Ghisallo