can i sell GW if i don't like it? [MERGED]

This game is boring to me still. I have only played for 2 hours so I dont know WTF is going on LOL. Like how do I build my char and stuff? The skills confuse me because im used to buying them or just getting them once you earn the requirements... Like in ROSE online or Diablo 2. I made a warrior/elemental hes only lvl 3 =( Might remake a ranger,...

Yep the email and the user name are easily changed if you have the original. I took over my friends account. He didn't sell it, he just didn't like the game. Very easy and simple to do.

um... I was led to believe that once i bought my game, I could log in from anywhere... that my account would be accesable from any computer. Is this not true? And if this is the case, then why can't you hand the password and cd over to him?

I do hope that I can access this game from anywhere since I hope to be able to play the same game from several locations.

you don't buy software....you purchase a license to use it...that's what the EULA is....people just don't ever read anything.


to the person that started this thread....if you were too stupid to try the free demo then you shouldn't bitch about losing 50 bucks....go sell it on ebay...it's illegal but you'll never get in trouble.

so this is your first RPG game ever? it works exactly the same way all other RPGs work...you fight, fighting gives you exp, exp gives you levels, levels give you attribute points....what don't you get?

I'm assuming he means with the skills, cos games like COH and WOW only let you obtain skills when you reach a certain level requirement. Personally I like GW as it is in that respect, cos it makes the levelling less of a grind.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary - The foremost authority on current english.

Forum - 1, a place of meeting for public discussion. 2 a periodical etc, giving an oppurtunity for discussion. 3 a court or tribunal. 4 hist, a public square or market place place in an ancient Roman city used for judicial and other business.

Ok, those last 2 i put in for fun but they are in the dictionary, but the first 2 options say it all about forums.

This bit reminds me of Yoda's saying when talking to Obi Wan I think,

Something like, Hate brings to suffering, suffering brings to the Dark side, etc etc.

ANyway, it was funny in my head. lol

I would say "no" I didn't. Once you buy the game you can't take it back without going to the company directly and still lose money on shipping etc, even after all the hours you would have to fight with them to get them to take it back. Any agreements that take place AFTER you buy the product should not be binding, as you have already kept your part of the deal (paying for the product), and it is unfair for the producers to add additional conditions to the product's use after you have fulfilled your part of the bargan.

Further, mearly clicking "yes" is not the same thing as signing an agreement. Hell, I could have had a 7 year old nephew press the button who is not even capable of agreeing to a contract, but could sure install a game. Maybe he even saw it lying there and decided to install it on his own. Heck, what if I have a professional install the game for me? They are not going to make me click the agreement, they would do it for me as part of the install. The company can have NO IDEA of what is going on in an individuals houshold to tell if the right person agreed and if they did so under the right conditions. Which is a separate argument from the duress argument above.

Also, contracts are not binding if you are intoxicated and unable to think rationally. How do they know I wasn't dead drunk at the time I pressed "Ok". They are not binding if they are incomprehensible. And they shoudln't be binding if it take special legal scholarship to understand all the details, since nobody hires, or could be expected to hire, a lawyer to go over the EULAs for every piece of software you purchase.


They own the COPYRIGHT to the software. Only they have a right to produce it, except for backup copies. They do NOT own any particular instance of the software I buy. I can scratch it, burn it, use it as a frisbee one I buy it. It is mine. It's not like I rented a video tape.

Example: Michael Jackson owns all the Beatles songs in the copyright sense.
But any Beatles albums you may have are still yours to sell, keep, or give away, and Michael can't say word one.

Nor should the beatles themselves have been able to, if they stuck a little slip of paper into each album covers (before they were opened), saying that by opening the package and playing the record you agree that you will name your first born son after one of the band members.

Simply making a sign saying somebody must do something doesn't make it so.


So I simply make an agreement to give somebody my copy of guildwars, and in a totally separate and unrelated matter I make a noterized bet with somebody that if they ever happen to come into ownership of the game guildwars they will give me 10, 20, 30 or however many dollars. All this does is add a stupid hoop to go through.

People might be able to bust prostitutes on the streets for accepting money for sex, but their is no way to stop a woman who just happens to be loose with rich men who showers her with presents. Another pointless law.

What are you trying to prove here? I have already admitted that there is a dangerous trend to taking these onesided "agreements" seriously in law. However, this does not mean that such decisions are not bad rullings which should be rejected on teh basis of fairness in negotiations, and, more importantly, the fact that a law can be enforced does not mean that that law is MORALLY justified.

I mean would you defend child labor if it happened to be legal again? If so, then your view of morality changes with the breeze. It is just whatever happens to be accepted by the courts at the moment.

Face it. Laws can be morally wrong. I won't trot out the tired old examples of racists law. Just use your imagination, I am sure you can think of many, both in this country and others.

Missing the point. The EULA should not be the thing protecting my privacy here. Taking information from ones computer should be treated just like illegal wiretapping. And if MS did it to millions of customers they would be guilty of millions of counts of this crime. This is based on the constitutional principle that people have expectations of privacy in certain areas of their lives, and that violating these rights is criminal.

The EULA however is an after-the-fact agreement making it invalid. It is also an agreement people can enter into with no witnesses and therefore no proof of frame of mind, and therefore invalid. It is also an agreement that is thust upon a buyer AFTER a purchase, where returns are often onerous if not impossible, making it invalid (agreement under duress). It is also an agreement that can be made by minors who have no ability to enter into a contract in the first place (you don't have to be over 18 or emancipated to buy a piece of software unless it is specifically adult software).

Further, I think the fact that so few people read these things is an argument itself. The companies know these contracts are not being read, and therefore they know that most of their customers are not entering into an informed agreement.

Tell me, if one of these EULA's said somewhere at the bottom that by clicking yes and playing this game the company has a right to, any time they please, take 0-100% of your property away for their own use, would you say that somebody should lose their house, car, livelihood, clothes, food, any medical supplies or equipment because they, like millions of other customers did not wade through yet another point-and-click "agreement"?

If so, then that means that all I have to do is get one wealthy person to install one piece of software with a rediculous agreement in the text, and I am set for life. Heck I could probably even arrange to do this at a convention where it is being video tapes and monitored. "Here, see how easy our software is to install and use. There is a fresh machine over there."

The current point and click agreements are no less rediculous in principle, they are just less extreme in their consequences.

And the list of objections can go on and on.

Absolutely yes I would say this, so long as I didn't distribute the changes.

If I buy a book I can write in it. I can cross out words I don't like (if I were that type of person) so that I feel more comfortable with my children reading it (if I had any). That is changing copyrighted information. If I by a magazine I can scan in a picture and play with it using photoshop for my own amusement, so long as I don't distribute the changes or the picture itself, and the picture is copyrighted. The fact that somebody owns a copyright simply means that I can not profit from duplicating their work, either through direct copies or minor modifications. And, indeed, if things are modified enough I can profit from it. It is called "fair use", which is, unfortunately, another principle of consumer rights that is shrinking in scope.

And IF it is the case that sometimes the law does not recognize this, then that is confirmation of my point that copyright and patent law has gotten out of hand, largely because rich corporations that stand to profit by such laws have more influence over government officials than the purchasers of these products who stand only to lose. Finally, such laws retard progress and competition and hurt everybody in the long run.

Laws change. Maybe people will become more rational about these things, or maybe our government will someday become less influenced by the power and wealth of a few though campaign finacing laws, so that the voices of the many and the most seriously effected can be heard.

But one thing is for sure. The law is not a moral justification for itself. If you are making the moral claim that I "SHOULD" do or not do something, then you need to say more than "There is a law..." or "Court cases have been going this way..."

If you are using "should" in a non-moral sense, then we need to discuss pragmatics, and how likely one is to be caught or punished, how likely the case is to go to court, how likely one is to be convicted, whether or not the punishments are cruel and unusual for such a minor infraction of the law and could be turned over on appeal, especially with such a "crime" that is almost always victimless. I am more interested in the moral question however. But neither type of "should" looks very positive for companies that use these twisted "contracts", and then try to hold their marks (er I mean customers) to them.


Poppinjay