WoW UI AddOn Development Policy discussion thread

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by Derkyle The problem with this analogy is that McDonalds isn't getting a monthly subscription cost. If that was the case then I'm sure you wouldn't have to pay extra for the BigMac (unless of course you ordered a 50 foot Big Mac )

Actually... if you want to really chuckle with analogies, let's try this one...

A donation based program is PBS television... "you're welcome to sit down and watch the show anytime you like. However, once a month or so we're going to annoy the crap out of you begging for donations. If you donate enough, we'll even send you a copy of Benny Goodman's greatest hits."

A "for-pay" program like a DVD. You pay for it, you own it. "Hurrah!"

A "subscription based" program is like HBO... "we're good stuff but we're still going to promote ourselves to the point of making you want to vomit."

A "McDonalds" is far more like pay-per-view... "we're going to charge you way too much for way too little and if you want another one, you'll have to pay for that one too... so bite me... or bite it... or whatever"

EDIT: How'd I do?

[CatfishKnight]

Wouldn't Blizzard's new policy be like Microsoft telling all the supporting programs, Games, Applications that other Companys are making & selling to work with Microsoft Windows have to be FREE now??? Something is very wrong here. I don't think really Legally they can do it, as long as you don't advertise in the game. I was reading in one of the forums last week that Blizzard sued one of the ingame help mods authors, to level faster and he won. The court said as long as he didn't advertise in game, he had the right to make and design a help mod for the game to sell if it help others.


CatfishKnight

[Cairenn]

Guys, it's getting way too personal again. I'm about to go through the thread and clean it up again. I shouldn't have to be doing that. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Period. Stop yelling at each other as individuals.

If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, that's fine. But if you don't, then please leave it alone.

[Elloria]

Originally Posted by Cairenn Guys, it's getting way too personal again. I'm about to go through the thread and clean it up again. I shouldn't have to be doing that. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Period. Stop yelling at each other as individuals. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, that's fine. But if you don't, then please leave it alone.

how was that making a personal attack?

[Mikord]

As a slight aside from the rights debate, after reading a ton of posts on the topic, I find it incredible how so many can truly believe that it's perfectly fine to pay for development efforts on WoW every month in exchange for providing them entertainment and personal enjoyment, while at the same time somehow believing it's not kosher or immoral for the development efforts of something that optionally enhances their enjoyment further to also request a modicum of compensation for those efforts. It's truly mind boggling.

As I've said before, I've never had any intentions of selling an addon, but the level of hypocrisy being shown by so many in the community that think the development efforts of mod authors are worthless while those of Blizzard are not is astounding.

[Cairenn]

Originally Posted by Elloria how was that making a personal attack?

It wasn't. I didn't say it was. But doing nothing more than copying and pasting someone else's responses is not adding something constructive.

[Xruptor]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 Actually... if you want to really chuckle with analogies, let's try this one... A donation based program is PBS television... "you're welcome to sit down and watch the show anytime you like. However, once a month or so we're going to annoy the crap out of you begging for donations. If you donate enough, we'll even send you a copy of Benny Goodman's greatest hits." A "for-pay" program like a DVD. You pay for it, you own it. "Hurrah!" A "subscription based" program is like HBO... "we're good stuff but we're still going to promote ourselves to the point of making you want to vomit." A "McDonalds" is far more like pay-per-view... "we're going to charge you way too much for way too little and if you want another one, you'll have to pay for that one too... so bite me... or bite it... or whatever" EDIT: How'd I do?

LOL those were some good ones Do you come up with these or you find them on the web? BTW the HBO one is sooooo true. Not sure about the PBS one since I don't watch that channel myself.

[Eggi]

Originally Posted by Mikord As a slight aside from the rights debate, after reading a ton of posts on the topic, I find it incredible how so many can truly believe that it's perfectly fine to pay for development efforts on WoW every month in exchange for providing them entertainment and personal enjoyment, while at the same time somehow believing it's not kosher or immoral for the development efforts of something that optionally enhances their enjoyment further to also request a modicum of compensation for those efforts. It's truly mind boggling. As I've said before, I've never had any intentions of selling an addon, but the level of hypocrisy being shown by so many in the community that think the development efforts of mod authors are worthless while those of Blizzard are not is astounding.

It is extreme to see how people value the work of authors. You get the feeling that they think that addon authors are somehow like monkeys who can be replaced and no one recognizes the difference.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by Derkyle LOL those were some good ones Do you come up with these or you find them on the web? BTW the HBO one is sooooo true. Not sure about the PBS one since I don't watch that channel myself.

Yes... they are all spiel2001 originals... copyright 2009, all rights reserved.

If you would like to support the further development of entertaining analogs, please visit http://www.damnimgood.com

The professional version of "I have a creative mind" is available for the low low price of just 9.95 or you can subscribe the monthly update of "this is kinda funny" for just $1 a month.

[Slakah]

Originally Posted by Mikord As a slight aside from the rights debate, after reading a ton of posts on the topic, I find it incredible how so many can truly believe that it's perfectly fine to pay for development efforts on WoW every month in exchange for providing them entertainment and personal enjoyment, while at the same time somehow believing it's not kosher or immoral for the development efforts of something that optionally enhances their enjoyment further to also request a modicum of compensation for those efforts. It's truly mind boggling. but the level of hypocrisy being shown by so many in the community that think the development efforts of mod authors are worthless while those of Blizzard are not is astounding.

Personally if I were to create a game which had an addon system, I would hope that I would be allowed to "block" any addons which didn't follow my rules whatever they may be.

On a slightly different note I find the whole "free market for addons" argument to be fairly funny, because surely in this "free market" Blizzard should be able to block any addon they choose, and if you don't like it then make/go to another MMO which will accept your "pay for" addon. Anyway, I'm sure this has nothing to with anything, so I'll shut up now :P.

[seebs]

It's not that I don't think addon authors should be getting donations. I've sent a little money to addon authors, and will likely send more once I have my own finances straightened out.

It's that I'm okay with Blizzard saying "this is not a commercial market". I think the reality is that, if Carbonite hadn't gone with in-game ads, we'd never have seen this. Maybe once the dust settles, they'll back off.

My guess: They don't want someone who is making a living at addons suing them for breaking the addon API, which thus breaks the living-made-at-addons. That's a real concern for them, and one I can sympathize with.

If they allow addons to, say, accept donations (which they do) and mention that they are supported or have an About box that says something like that, as long as they don't solicit in-game, I'm okay with this -- and I'm actively in favor of seeing obfuscated code banned from addons.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by seebs My guess: They don't want someone who is making a living at addons suing them for breaking the addon API, which thus breaks the living-made-at-addons. That's a real concern for them, and one I can sympathize with.

This, quite frankly, is the most salient argument I've heard yet and I tip my hat (not that I'm actually wearing one) to you for it.

However, I do wonder how that point stretches across to the modding community at large. Keep in mind (and maybe this is one of the points most of the people who are trying to melt my face off don't get) that modding is not something unique to WoW. It's not even unique to gaming in general. Modding is a way of life for many people and I have more than one professional friend who makes a living modding.

The issue of modding extends fully into a whole range of mediums. I'll snag Photoshop as the most obvious example.

This is where Bliz has my Scottish temper wound up, my kilt in a knot if you like, because the position they are taking here is very dangerous for an entire industry if it is not challenged. Sometimes pushback has merit.

[Eidolarr]

What exactly constitutes an "addon"?

Essentially anything written in Lua (excepting things relying on libraries like Lanes, LuaSocket, etc) can be integrated into an addon. I was planning to write a general Lua backend for an addon, which I could then port to Warhammer or even a Lua interpreter with a simple frontend.

If my work can be plugged in as an addon, am I vulnerable to attack? What if I never agree to the ToU/ToS?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 This, quite frankly, is the most salient argument I've heard yet and I tip my hat (not that I'm actually wearing one) to you for it.

It came to me while comparing this to their RMT ban. Why a ban? Because if you CAN trade gold for dollars, then gold has a dollar value, and loss of gold is a loss of dollars...

However, I do wonder how that point stretches across to the modding community at large.

I don't think it necessarily does.

My spouse is not as technically inclined as I am. If addons are to be used, I have to be the one to set them up. So, being intrinsically rule-based, I wrote Blizzard support to ask whether I could do this. Of course, they said yes. Their policy is that you can never use someone else's account. Their practice is that many common and reasonable cases are of course allowed.

They've drawn a line to try to make sure that the prohibited behavior is prohibited. Their strategy for dealing with the rest is likely to simply not take action...

Keep in mind (and maybe this is one of the points most of the people who are trying to melt my face off don't get) that modding is not something unique to WoW. It's not even unique to gaming in general. Modding is a way of life for many people and I have more than one professional friend who makes a living modding.

A case could be made that my day job (I work on Wind River Linux) consists almost entirely of modding.

The issue of modding extends fully into a whole range of mediums. I'll snag Photoshop as the most obvious example. This is where Bliz has my Scottish temper wound up, my kilt in a knot if you like, because the position they are taking here is very dangerous for an entire industry if it is not challenged. Sometimes pushback has merit.

I think in this case, the slippery slope fallacy really is. The real-world case is that none of the things they're making statements about have any use except as things which run on or interact with their servers. This doesn't apply to things like, say, photoshop plugins. For that matter, Adobe wants a third-party market in photoshop plugins!

Blizzard's interest is in keeping the mod community lively and healthy, but not commercialized. I think they're probably within their rights, roughly, to do so. I'm not seeing anything any more egregious than the rest of their TOS, all of which seem to exist basically to keep their business model as simple and straightforward as they can make it.

Honestly... I think if it were just people like you, and not Carbonite, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because I don't think Blizzard really cared. At the same time, I hope they give some thought to how things like nUI and QuestHelper can be sustained.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Eidolarr What exactly constitutes an "addon"? Essentially anything written in Lua (excepting things relying on libraries like Lanes, LuaSocket, etc) can be integrated into an addon. I was planning to write a general Lua backend for an addon, which I could then port to Warhammer or even a Lua interpreter with a simple frontend. If my work can be plugged in as an addon, am I vulnerable to attack? What if I never agree to the ToU/ToS?

It seems to me that only the addon, not the other code which could in the abstract be added to an addon, is affected. MHO.

[Sythalin]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 I would agree with everything you wrote except this... you aren't REQUIRED to pay for it. It's your choice. You aren't REQUIRED to pay for a Big Mac, but if you want to eat one, you'll have to pay for it or risk going to jail for stealing it. Again, your choice.

You're right, except you missed the point. If I don't pay for it, can I use it? No? Then yes, I am required to pay for it. I'm not saying that anyone is forcing someone to use an addon, but to require someone to pay for access to said addon is what I'm against. I think you're assuming I mean payment specifically, when I'm in fact against the entire concept as a whole.

Once again, this makes more sense in my head. Just can't find the right words for it.

[Eidolarr]

Originally Posted by seebs It seems to me that only the addon, not the other code which could in the abstract be added to an addon, is affected. MHO.

So what if I write a general backend and someone else writes a general frontend and they can plug up into an addon? What if I'm selling some super-optimized data structure suite for Lua that can be plugged into addons (because addons, obviously, are Lua)? People can buy my work and plug it into their addon - does that mean I'm liable?

[Yhor]

I only hope it doesn't get to the point of reaching into other areas of programming by setting a legal precedence. It has the potential to harm a lot more than just WoW addons and/or authors, I'm just surprised more of you who are programmers by occupation don't see the potential for harm in your industry as a whole. I believe this is what may have set Cogwheel off, he has always (iirc) been an advocate of authors rights.

I do apologize for my earlier posts in this forum, where I did not articulate in a fitting manner with the company of you fine folks.


The Blizzard forums I won't apologize for, it's a circus out there.

[spiel2001]

Again, I would say we're generally in agreement. I do want to counterpoint one thing though...

Originally Posted by seebs I think in this case, the slippery slope fallacy really is. The real-world case is that none of the things they're making statements about have any use except as things which run on or interact with their servers. This doesn't apply to things like, say, photoshop plugins. For that matter, Adobe wants a third-party market in photoshop plugins!

The problem in that argument, at least to me, is that it does establish a precedent. What if, tomorrow, Adobe decided they didn't want a third-party market because they decided they were going to market those ideas (the ones not patented anyway) themselves?

Once the marketplace accepts that Blizzard has the "right" to tell addon authors what they can and cannot do, then any and all producers of public APIs have by association the "right" to tell people what the can and can't do with the copyrights they own that use those APIs and suddenly, and API ceases to be what an API is.

If Bliz does not want people to use their API for commercial use, then I have no problem with them removing the API. Otherwise, they have no claim over what people do with the API. If they have a claim over what people do with their API, then every company that produces any product has a claim over what anyone does with their API and we're in a bad place suddenly.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Eidolarr So what if I write a general backend and someone else writes a general frontend and they can plug up into an addon? What if I'm selling some super-optimized data structure suite for Lua that can be plugged into addons (because addons, obviously, are Lua)? People can buy my work and plug it into their addon - does that mean I'm liable?

I don't see how.

Of course, this leads to some sneaky cases that will rapidly devolve into chaos.

Imagine that I give away, for free, an addon which displays data obtained algorithmically from a large hunk of arbitrary values.

And then my friend Jim sells a Lua file which contains a series of apparently-arbitrary values. This file is just a huge Lua data structure. It has no obvious strings in it, or anything.

AND YET!

If that Lua file HAPPENS to get included as a data structure by my addon, it causes my addon's data display to behave just like a database of WoW quests with links, advice, and so on...

... I think the reality is that the courts are not morons, and will conclude that Jim and I are clearly working together to try to bypass these ToS, and will whack us.

For a more interesting example, look at my LibGetopt addon. It's clearly a WoW Addon.

Now, imagine that I took the guts of it (the part which parses a string), and turned it into a standalone lua library, which I sold for $5. I don't think Blizzard would have any case against me, because I wouldn't be selling an addon, or related services, or anything like that. But if someone then put a wrapper around that library and tried to make it an addon, I think that person might be in trouble.

Basically, copyright law and related law are full of rulings that establish that intent does matter. So the mere fact that my behavior may be functionally equivalent in some way to the behavior of someone who's breaking the rules doesn't mean I'm breaking the rules, and similarly, the mere fact that my behavior could be functionally equivalent to the behavior of someone who's not breaking the rules doesn't mean I'm not breaking the rules.

In reality? Common sense applies. I doubt we'll ever see a lawsuit over this.