Who cares if you can event count at all — definitely not the sun or the moon.
It’s hard to think of a country where it’s day right now, though. Some Pacific isles, perhaps…
(UPD)
Right, now longer morning in Australia, for example, I guess…
1 Like
The repercussions of that unpopular move are still felt in the game greatly. The last thing they need right now is something that unpopular occurring.
1 Like
That’s not because you are forced legally. In various countries some of the TOSes of games are plain illegal themselves; e.g. the lawyers of corporations constantly try to force on their terms that “they have no responsibility at all about anything after you sign this small print”; that’s not respected in the European Union because that way you could be the literal Mafia and get away with it and I’m pretty sure American law has its limits too on those ludicrous “sign here and we can do everything” (they can’t do murder at least even in America I guess).
That’s because in HS you are paying for services anyway; I don’t think I ever got “cards” when I have cards in this game (albeit I’ve never paid them anything but imagine I did); I got a service that shows cards.
Sidenote: because there are also technologies like the ones used by NFTs that can enforce uniqueness of virtual cards one could theoretically make a game that literally sells cards to people,
however HS absolutely does not do that so without checking legality at all: it’s just a service that shows (virtual)cards.
1 Like
True. However, the point is that allowing for that episode to happen in the first place was indicative of how little they cared, at least the former ‘ActiBlizz’ leadership — and the new one had to make amends for it.
Funny, the old one was apparently so bad in that regard that even a generic ‘Gaslight Gatekeeper’ kind of new boss, from whom you wouldn’t have expected something extraordinary due to a completely unimpressive, at least to my knowledge, track record, turned out to be a major improvement and for once managed to do something beneficial to the business, as well as decent to abandoned customers.
That’s not just corporations and their lawyers, by the way. Some rogue states are actively pushing their illegal ‘laws’ even where they wouldn’t have any jurisdiction by any legal standards, e.g. FATCA, so-called ‘sanctions’ of various kinds etc, so there’s no surprise lesser actors of a corporate kind behave in the same way — namely trying to project their hillbilly ‘law’ even where it’s not applicable.
Ha! You seem to have too much faith in the ‘law’ of that clumsy bureaucratic… structure.
If you mean something like antitrust/antimonopoly initiatives undertaken by individual politicians and officials, for example, they have been of little consequence in the long run — in the end, that ‘EU’ have generally caved in to their liege and its Big Tech as they were supposed to.
In practice, you could, just like that Big Tech is doing with all that GDPR and supposed privacy stuff. There are other examples, but they are outside the scope of this topic, I suppose, so I won’t go too much into in now.
I wouldn’t be so sure, if by ‘America’ you mean US in particular (not South America, for example). If you have literal torture factories to ‘protect human rights’, all legally enshrined via the parliament etc somehow, persecute 100% journalists for doing their job in the name of some amendment about free speech and so on, and none of it raises any legal issues, then what you propose would be a piece of cake (of course, instead of ‘murder’ you could just say something like ‘abortion’ and call it a day, but that’s a somewhat different matter).
Such technologies are highly controversial, let’s put it that way, and I’m not sure this kind of product would be approved in many jurisdictions. Besides, there’s more to why the ‘crypto’ stuff was created in the first place (probably not for your ‘average Joe’), what is tolerated by the ‘powers that be’ and what is not, but, once again, this is probably completely outside the scope of this topic.
They already made card games with NFT-like technologies btw (I looked it up right after I was writing that reply). It’s not VERY important in terms of legal status, because people may respect it anyway because it’s cryptographically strong.
1 Like
Or consider it a scam, it depends. 
But that’s not even the point. Potential customers might or might respect it, but if you’re making something
— they might be coming for you, and that’s the end of the story — yours and your product’s.
1 Like
First of all, legality and morality do not have to be on the same page just generally speaking; recall that it was once illegal to be Jewish at a certain point in Germany’s history. This isn’t NEARLY that same level, at ALL, but it still is a stark reminder that laws do not necessarily correlate to ethics. Do not make the mistake that something being illegal means it’s inherently wrong.
Secondly, something being “illegal” only means someone COULD be punished for it. It’s “illegal” to jaywalk in practically every geographical location that has paved roads; how many times have you seen people getting arrested for it, and convicted for it?
Thirdly, even if it IS illegal AND someone tries to step up to it… do the people trying to sue/pursue/etc. the “bad guys” even HAVE the resources necessary to fight this, legally through the court(s)? Time, effort, money, legal representation? AND you’re talking international stuff here (eu vs usa) so it’s even WORSE. There’s a reason why C&D’s and DMCA takedowns and whatnot are so effective, and it’s not because they’re magic legal bullets. It’s because they’re often leveraged against small potato nobody’s that cannot fight the charges to the full (or sometimes any) legal extent.
Just like how ToS and EULA and CoC are not magic legal bullets. But, good luck trying to fight MICROSOFT-BLIZZARD on that front as little ol’ yourself. EU laws be damned.
And that segues into: Fourthly, even if you DO have the resources and time and whatnot to fight this, you don’t have any guarantee it’ll go in your favor. Companies like Nintendo bring suits ALL the time, and they win more than they lose. They have lost some, though, which means it’s never guaranteed. It’s not like we’re talking murder or some such; we’re talking vidyamagames, something the old codgers in most country governments don’t really know about personally, and only barely tolerate as a result. Hillary Clinton was once almost the USA president, and she HATES video games. She’s called for banning them before back when she was a senator. I think it was a result of that GTA “hot coffee mod” thing, iirc.
So to recap, it’s subjective which side is moral to begin with, it’s hard to get it taken seriously, there’s usually a LARGE discrepancy of power/resources on one side or the other of it, and you’re not guaranteed a favorable verdict even if you beat all of that, simply because the judge or jury might not like Angry Birds. Or it might be Monday. Everyone knows nothing good ever comes from Mondays.
1 Like
I think I’ll play Mercenaries for now since they killed Wild with the “not less than 1” garbage rule. I just couldn’t say no to buying Beyond the Dark Portal. I played Warcraft Orcs and Humans, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft.
That’s what Blizzard does best I guess. Whenever you think you’re done with a game they throw you a freebie.
It happened with World of Warcraft. When they upgrade the Eversong Woods for flying I’m going to be all over that expansion no matter how I feel about pathfinder(if I have to do pathfinder to fly in Silvermoon heads are going to roll though). lol
1 Like
Nothing wrong with it, if you ask me.
What’s your status in the mode?
1 Like
They can’t win against mathematics in the end; those virtual entities are genuinely cryptographically unique for most intends and purposes; even against quantum computing attacks (in case you heard that meme).
If people lose money on crypto scams from shady people it’s their fault. Those things have strong mathematics behind them that are UNRELATED TO MONEY.
1 Like
You know, I wrote a bit about those who typically ‘fallow di saiens’ (not only on these forums, btw) or self-annointed (sic) maths pundits, don’t wanna repeat it all yet again — just wanna point out that I’m generally not impressed by technobabble, especially by zealous laymen, and this kind of hype easily. Besides, let’s be realistic: on these forums, save for a couple of people, perhaps, your typical interlocutor hasn’t mastered even a tenth part of the theory required to discuss the subject seriously, but has an OPINION (as well as a seemingly irresistible urge to inform everyone about it), like, ‘Matematik stronk, me beliv, you stoopid!’ — and more or less the same principle pertains to society in general (particularly ‘progressive’ Western one, with ‘Modern Educayshun’ and all).
You cannot win with knowledge against stupidity and ignorance, just like you will not win a dispute against a literal dung pile.
But I suppose it’s high time to wrap up these musings: in short, let’s not confuse some theory for ‘nerds’ reading mathematical journals and a product, especially one to appeal to masses, these two are completely unrelated things.
There’s no such thing as a ‘meme’, you might have fallen victim to a hoax. As for quantum computing — well, that’s an old idea for turning taxpayer money into research money, back in my student days all those years ago we heard about that principle at related courses. I haven’t really followed the state-of-the-art progress in the subject, to be honest, and don’t fancy myself as an expert in it (that’s the prerogative of those forum guys — they are apparently experts in everything 
), however, lemme clarify one point: do you really wish to discuss it seriously or are you one of those people to whom both the Schrödinger and the Heisenberg picture look equally murky, and those equations are mumbo-jumbo?
What are you on about. The cryptography mathematics that prove the non-fungibility of such entities are very clear and the mathematics around quantum computing also well studied.
Those are areas of mathematics studied in all respected universities around the world and have hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on them.
Isn’t that clear?
Even in the best-case scenario , citing Dr Boom: ‘Science isn’t an exact science.’ — and that’s not even it: the notion of concepts like ‘memes’ (and others… e.g. ‘gender’, ‘horoscope’ etc) is a hoax, yes.
Studied, perhaps, but generally not by the most fervent proponents of ‘di saiens’ — that’s the point.
Alright, I’ll elaborate what’s so funny to me: if you’re serious and sincere, you’ve probably got no idea what you are talking about. In that case, be thankful for your ignorance, I guess, lest the realisation would shatter your rose-coloured spectacles through which you might be looking at this whole shebang.
To be fair, in most jurisdictions it’s a civil fine (ticket and a summons) and you don’t actually have to go to court unless you intend to contest.
That said, they do it on the college campus near my house frequently. They run enforcement days randomly to keep students in the crosswalks. It’s an urban campus and they have had multiple students injured (and some killed) in auto accidents related to jay walking.
All that to say, your point is still valid.
1 Like
Might want to check that dunning kruger, because I’m not saying anything controversial. Those are mainstream mathematics on cryptography you could google the Papers of in seconds if you were aware of the peer review process.
1 Like