blizzard

  • WoW addiction therapy guild!

    Hours Categories Game talk
    Comments 18 Comments

    An addiction therapist is forming a WoW guild so that he can reach the addicted where they live: on raids.

    He has called on Blizzard Entertainment, the company that makes World of Warcraft, to waive or discount the costs associated with joining the game so that therapists can more easily communicate with at-risk players in their preferred environment.

    “We will be launching this project by the end of the year. I think it’s already clear that psychiatrists will have to stay within the parameters of the game. They certainly wouldn’t be wandering around the game in white coats and would have to use the same characters available to other players,” said Dr Graham.

    “Of course one problem we’re going to have to overcome is that while a psychiatrist may excel in what they do in the real world, they’re probably not going to be very good at playing World of Warcraft.

    “We may have to work at that if we are going to get through to those who play this game for hours at end.”

    via Addiction therapists signing up to World of Warcraft – Telegraph.

    Gosh, I hope they don’t get addicted.

  • Blizzard scores win against WoWGlider

    Hours Categories Game talk
    Comments 24 Comments

    Virtually Blind has the scoop, but in short, Blizzard won on all the major points: the court didn’t go for the copyright argument, saying they were bound by precedent and not a policymaking body; and that making this kind of software looks like tortious interference (meaning, interfering with the contract between Blizzard and users). Further analysis at TerraNova.

  • More on installing = making a copy

    Hours Categories Game talk
    Comments 9 Comments

    Just continuing to follow the story, and it felt interesting enough to merit its own post rather than just an addition to the comment thread.

    Blizzard Responds to Amicus Brief in MDY Bot Suit | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

    Although it has not put the issue in quite such stark terms, Public Knowledge is essentially seeking a ruling that says that the sale of consumer software is, in most circumstances, a sale, pretty much regardless of what the agreement that comes with the software says. If the court agrees in spite of MAI and its progeny (and the ruling survives certain appeal) then U.S. copyright law would protect, among other things, making copies of purchased software in RAM in order to use the software — no matter what the “license agreement” says. Resolving this issue in favor of Public Knowledge would call into question provisions in EULAs governing nearly every virtual world and multiuser online game, as well as EULAs for other software.