Jonanananas

Those are the most outrageous quotes I've found...they keep repeating similar statements though.

This thread: [qfc]291-292-8-63573774[/qfc] from page 47 on is also quite interesting...They really don't care about the rl risk. quotes: "So hello there guys, you really have nothing to worry about as I'm sure your accounts are secure." "Again as I've said in my post above, an account only will get 'hacked' if you give them your password." "By following our security tips as in my post above you'll have nothing to worry about. " "Please trust that this does not risk your credit cards in real life at all." Some of that are simple lies(e.g. 2 and 4) and others are really oversimplifying the issue and giving general statements that aren't really true either(How many accounts are *really* secure? Maybe half? less?)

This pretty much. Can't believe Jagex are trying to defend their actions as 'it's not gambling' The thing is, they're talking about gambling in the legal sense...and apparently this, together with the fact that the items are all virtual, apparently is enough to make this not fall under gamblin laws(Which is stupid imo, because it clearly IS gambling and also abuses gambling addictions) That's true, it's pretty close though. The only thing that's missing is for the game to be played for 'money' or 'anything else of value', I don't think courts would see RuneScape Exp as too valuable. It meets all other elements to be a gambling service, even though it's a stretch While I am not a legal expert, there were cases when virtual items have been assigned a value, and I am convinced that you could indeed win a court case against Jagex - if you have a skilled lawyer. Unfortunately, Jagex can most likely hire far better ones, and I doubt someone will risk losing such a case and having to pay all the money just so you can prove Jagex was wrong...

This pretty much. Can't believe Jagex are trying to defend their actions as 'it's not gambling' The thing is, they're talking about gambling in the legal sense...and apparently this, together with the fact that the items are all virtual, apparently is enough to make this not fall under gamblin laws(Which is stupid imo, because it clearly IS gambling and also abuses gambling addictions)

If they were just honest about it and released it as limited microtransactions, I would be ok with this. Since I don't play competitively, it doesn't affect me, and while I don't like Pay2win schemes, if Jagex decides they want that, fine with me. This update however, is the biggest atrocity I've ever seen, due to multiple reasons: 1. They are putting everyone paying with a credit card at risk of losing real money when being hacked, and don't even CARE about it. 2. They're still claiming this isn't RWT, using shady definitions to evade the questions instead of just being honest to their players and saying: "Yeah, we changed our mind, we are introducing microtransactions" 3. They added a possibility to spend more money than the subscription fees without a warning beforehand so parents can remove their credit card details(In a way they're tricking their customers) 4. They're abusing gambling addictions to get money by offering tickets for the wheel instead of actual items 5. They're abusing children who do not realize they're spending real money or cannot grasp the value of the money they spend Especially the last two points REALLY piss me off, because that's not just greedy, that's downright despicable and a disgusting behaviour for humans.

Plus while not everyone may have liked it, it surely was not that awful movie that you would have to be "desperate" to take a role in it...

Except that's a lie. I can go on the web right now and see people willing to buy and sell 0.6$/mill. Everything that is desireable to people has an inherent value. It depends on what courts think of it. I *personally* agree with you....but it looks like courts don't. Or, at least not always. If you were sueing Jagex, you could potentially win, assuming you have equally skilled lawyers on both sides. Since this is very unclear though, and Jagex can afford good lawyers, they would be winning any court case on this. You keep on getting yourself deeper and deeper. Court cases, as shown, have proven virtual goods have real world value. If I were banned for selling RSGP (which I don't) then I could sue Jagex. But, as far as I'm aware, this is not absolutely clear...and I never said you wouldn't be right. I said you would probably not win a court case against them. I personally believe you should win though. Granted, I'm in no way a legal expert though.

This is Mod Mat K's reply to players voicing concerns about cc safety: "Sadly, people do get their accounts hijacked, but it's not hard to keep your account secure. As I said, head over to our wiki to find out how. As others have said on here, before you do leave your card details on a website, make sure you are fully appraised of internet safety methods. Mat. " [qfc]15-16-253-63660451[/qfc], page 6 Wow, seriously? Yeah, that's the way to treat your customers...."lolol you got hacked, you're so dumb, you deserve to lose all that money". Disgusting.

Except that's a lie. I can go on the web right now and see people willing to buy and sell 0.6$/mill. Everything that is desireable to people has an inherent value. It depends on what courts think of it. I *personally* agree with you....but it looks like courts don't. Or, at least not always. If you were sueing Jagex, you could potentially win, assuming you have equally skilled lawyers on both sides. Since this is very unclear though, and Jagex can afford good lawyers, they would be winning any court case on this.

While anyone on an MMO would likely agree with those terms the loophole is the fact that in literal terms as seen by law and such as long as you get something you have 'won' it does not matter the value. Then why don't all online gambling sites guarantee that you always "win" something? Perhaps even if you lose, you get some kind of virtual item, like a cabbage let's say? Then they could totally avoid the anti-gambling laws. Everyone's a winner*! *some moreso than others The real reason why it doesn't qualify as gambling in real world laws is because you can only get Runescape items, which have no real world value.

Wilderness nerf. You mean the one, where they brought the Wild back after 4 years? I was thinking of a removal after 1 week (or so) of releasing the update. Yeah, they've not really done that because of the criticism. In terms of a full reversal of a bigger update(more than patch notes) I can't think of anything.

Going into these two posts, according to Dutch law online gambling is illegal. Gambling for minors is also illegal. The law refers to gambling as games of chance, contests, etc. Basically any kind of chance game, so wheels of fortune would fit that description too. Jagex does not have a licence for this (I seriously doubt my government allowing that), and most of the game's players are minors. :thumbup: Another thing I'm wondering...which country's laws apply? British ones because Jagex is a british company? The laws of the country the servers is in(This is what I'd personally guess)? Or the country the player is in? If it was the last, then lol it would sure as be illegal in some countries. With the other two options it's not quite as clear...would have to know the laws to be able to judge that...

Is this RWT? Definitely Is this gambling? Definitely Is this gambling in the legal sense? That depends on whether the courts give virtual items(which may or may not be your property - this isn't quite sure either) a value. If there is a value in them, then it would be gambling in the legal sense, as far as I can see (No law student or anything though). It seems like they're walking fine line...but you probably wouldn't win a case against them.

"As you're not buying a particular item but a chance to" "It's not gambling though, as you cannot lose" Wat?

Jagex arent providing any items though. They are giving access to a part of the game called "squeel of fortune". Really don't want to defend Jagex on this issue but they are not directly offering items for irl money any more than p2p gives access to more features for money. It's a game that's *guaranteed* to give items though. They are doing RWT - but they can do that all they want, there is no reason they can't as long as they abide by the laws.

Apparently it doesn't count as gambling in a real life sense because you cannot win anything of real world value.... What if someone wins a lucky divine spirit shield and sells the account for real life money then? That's a real world value, IMO. I guess it doesn't count because it's against the rules? Idk, but even with Jagex being really thick this time, I can't really believe they wouldn't check if this is well within the law or not.

Apparently it doesn't count as gambling in a real life sense because you cannot win anything of real world value....

Ummm....at Runefest, Jagex said they wouldn't be introducing an in-game casino because it would be a "legal nightmare" due to gambling laws... Excuse me, but isn't this gambling? A lot more than an in-game casino even would be, considering that GP only have real world value if you break the rules....whereas here there's no doubt about the real world value...?

If it's automatically moving the mouse to a specific coordinate though? Not so sure about that...

Took the words right out of my mouth. And Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely stunning. The movie was fantastic! Wasn't really able to enjoy it, though I can't quite put my finger on why exactly. I somehow wasn't really able to immerse myself in the storye (despite reading the books and loving them). I would still recommend watching it though.

11-15 with everything minimal(except screen size) Previously got 30-40 with everything max.

Well, in a way, yes. That's how the wilderness works. It's all about never knowing where the next attack might come from, if someone might betray you, etc. The thrill of ruthlessness. It's not my type of thing, and looks like it isn't yours either, but is it so bad? If the wilderness only has players in there who are happy with the way things work, instead of being forced to go there to do some activity they can't do anywhere else, what does it matter? They won't be bothering you. Each to their own I say, as long as they're not bothering others. Trust me, I've been killed often enough on World 60, on all wilderness levels. But it's rather the rare exception, even if an annoying one. Apart from that, there is few to make people go there, even if there were no PKers - and, you should keep in mind that the wilderness is, after all, designed to be a pvp area. And your arguments are exactly why I've said the wilderness shouldn't feature unique content. You can either make PK free worlds and have the normal worlds offer the big incentives (There are some issues with that though, such as a lot of work going into maintaining those worlds, plus some design issues). Or, as would probably be the easier way, just don't have unique content in the wilderness, so anyone who doesn't like PvP doesn't have to go there, but at the same time offer big incentives for those who *are* willing to go. Never say never... (Isn't that the point here?) If they put stuff in both Pvp and non-Pvp, -> now. That's how it is now. If coal was only available in the wilderness, people would mine coal in the wilderness. But they don't. If you put something both places, people won't go to the wilderness one. Unless you make it really really really really really rare outside of the wilderness and/or with like a 70 hour respawn, people will just ignore the wilderness one(s) for obtainment purposes and use the other one(s). There needs to be some element of pure exclusivity that draws people there, or people simply won't go. For instance, if there was a boss monster out there that required like 15 people wearing top end gear to kill that dropped something extraordinarily rare, some people would go out there to kill it, and other people would go out there to kill them. Or like, multi-log trees or something. A store that sold really good exclusive stuff. Stores that bought what would otherwise be useless junk for ridiculous prices. Or a store that stocked something super awesome only available once per 5 wilderness agility laps. Stuff that makes it worth going out there. People will go out there if properly incentivised. As they used to when there was incentive out there. Putting stuff somewhere else takes away this incentive. If you want the rare thing they put out there, go get it. If you aren't willing to risk going out to get it, then don't. Just don't come whining that you couldn't get the rare thing because it was too dangerous to get. If you don't want to have the risk, you shouldn't get the reward. Ultra high risk needs an ultra high reward. The ultra high rewards should also have a corresponding ultra high risk. I don't think it needs pure exclusivity. Simply higher, worthwhile rewards are enough. You are right if you say that if you put something in both places, that people won't go - if it's not worth it. If the wilderness resource is the one that yields more profit, of course people will go there. It's enough of an incentive. Having a bunch of exclusive stuff would surely work better as an incentive. But then you have the problem that you're forcing players into pvp who don't really want that. This might not be a problem for you personally, if you don't have any qualms about PvP, but it is for others.

Because they like being half deaf in a decade? :unsure:

I read xkcd and Questionable content...haven't seen anything else that suits me so far.

Watched it yesterday...a bit underwhelmed tbh. It's kind of weird, I can't exactly put my finger on it, can't say what they did wrong, but I wasn't really able to enjoy this. The shaky handcamera thing was a bit annoying at times, but not too bothersome and while I did note some logic flaws in the story, they didn't really bother me either. I wasn't really able to bond with the characters though. No idea why, but I wasn't able to really feel with them. Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson did a good job, but that didn't seem to help either. Never happened to me before in this way. To those thinking about watching it: I would definitely go for it, I think this is more of a personal issue with it...plus I can say it is a very faithful adaption of the book, it doesn't really suffer from the issues that movies based on books often have.