Controversial MMO developer Evony sends in lawyers to attack blogger
rllmukforum.com
rllmukforum.com
Seriously, how is this any different, they just use a different tactic. Except that a guy is allegedly being sued, despite it being a claim on some unknown forum by a guy who I can't even find the blog of. IMO it's all made up because this moron has taken a hating to a game instead of ignoring it and letting it go the way of a million other webgames.
You may probably have a good (or even a decent) connection to the net, but I have a painful 3G connection that lately have been dishing out a performance worse than my old US Robotics 33.6 Modem.
Playing browser based games nearly mandate that you have both a good and stable connection. Stable being a often forgotten keyword. Connection spikes can kill you easier than the challenges you face, even very small spikes can bother you severely.
However, desktop based game tend to be very network-cheap. Civilization can be easily played on a 56k dialup connection, without much hassle. But the latest batch of MMOs are very network demanding, which is the main reason I won't even bother to try them for a good while, even the desktop ones. Devs seem to be only cattering to the very small percent of the gamers that happen to have good connections.
I seriously can't see how you can disagree with this. Having to not downloading something lowers the threshold to give it a try. That's so obvious to me I can't explain it any more clearly than that, sorry.
To me, it passes the smell test. Why go to such elaborate lengths to create pages of fake legalese, imitating a real lawyer firm? If it's fake, why would The Guardian report they've received a legal threat at the same time? Is it so surprising a company that has been alleged to take part in unscrupulous tactics suddenly decides to move onto sending legal threats to those who make accusations?
However the whole deal makes no sense, in the UK IIRC you have to be served in person and it has to go through the local justice area and again IIRC London has about 28. I imagine, the Australian system being based on the UK legal system, the courts would never even hear such a claim, especially from a US based company! It's actually a frivolous lawsuit, they purposely sued him in the wrong jurisdiction as a scare tactic.
Edit: The reason I feel it is false is not only because it's a US based company suing a UK citizen in Australia. But it's a defamation suit going through the Supreme Court, which in commonwealth countries is reserved for the most sever crimes (the high court is the appeals court). This means the case basically has to have a jury, defamation rarely has a jury.
The whole thing is false, my suspicion on the author is severely reduced (especially seeing where he's worked) but no legal firm in Australia would take on a frivolous case when both the prosecuting and defendant parties are both not based in the country.
I also find their monetization model fails to understand the value most people place on the dollar. $30 = 300 game cents, and with that you'd find most items needed are in the 50 game cent($5) to 200 game cent ($20) range. Fine for those willing to pay it, but I think they're failing to recognize the true potential of the game at those exchange rates.So in the end, I refer to it as the carny model of payments. It's about hooking a few new (and gullible) customers.