Blizzard Shuts Down Popular Fan-run 'Pirate' Server For Classic WoW (arstechnica.com) 266
An anonymous reader writes: Blizzard is threatening legal action against the popular "pirate" servers for World of Warcraft. The Nostalrius servers have been operating for nearly a year, running version 1.12 of the original World of Warcraft as it existed in 2006. Admins say that 800K registered accounts and 150K active players were working through quest progressions reproduced to precisely match the game of a decade ago. Nostalrius' team says its French hosting provider has been issued a formal letter asking it to shut down the servers or face a potential copyright infringement lawsuit as hosting private servers is explicitly against Blizzard's Terms of Use. Blizzard says the rule "isn't an issue because of 'lost' subscription fees from players choosing these illegitimate servers over the real WoW servers -- it simply boils down to the fact that private servers are illegal, and that's that." Nostalrius' servers will be shut down on April 10, but the team says it "will still be publicly providing everything needed in order to setup your own 'Nostalrius' if you are willing to."
Illegal??? What law did they break, exactly? (Score:3)
Re:Illegal??? What law did they break, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 1st commandment of Capitalism: Thou shalt not piss off people with vastly more money than thyself...
Re: (Score:3)
1st Commandment of Capitalism Rebellion: If you or people you like have been screwed over by capitalism and have bugger all, pissing people off who have vastly more than you by taking steps to ensure they end up with less, is OK, as long as costs them far more than it costs you ie you might have to spend thousands but as long as it costs them billions, that's cool (consider it capital redistribution). So how much did the Panama papers person spend in order to cost others billions.
Re: (Score:2)
The only law they broke is to reduce the subscribers base for Blizzard online services. That's just cold, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Which really wouldn't make too much sense. Most of the subscribers of WoW have been there for years. They already played vanilla in many cases. There may be new people who just wanted to experience WoW as it used to be, but if they have the client, they bought the game or got the client somewhere. And they will probably want to move on to new content when they are done with vanilla. There's only so many Molten Core runs you can make, after all.
I'd think this would attract (a) people who did have a subs
Re: (Score:2)
It its the same logic used by Hollywood to attack piracy, really. It doesn't matter if those users would never have a Blizzard account; in their eyes, there's a chance they would.
Re: (Score:2)
Which really wouldn't make too much sense. Most of the subscribers of WoW have been there for years. They already played vanilla in many cases. There may be new people who just wanted to experience WoW as it used to be, but if they have the client, they bought the game or got the client somewhere. And they will probably want to move on to new content when they are done with vanilla. There's only so many Molten Core runs you can make, after all.
There's a further benefit as well -- it takes some of the rosiness off of those rose-tinted glasses that many oldtimers (myself included) use when talking about Vanilla. I've played on the Vanilla servers recently and it was kindof fun, but I realized quickly... the game really has improved since Vanilla. There are a lot of things that work a lot better, the combat is better paced, it gets boring walking slowly over lands with no actual content, and there is a lot of syntactic sugar that just makes the game
Re:Illegal??? What law did they break, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that Blizzard would say the server operators are inducing the users (the people playing the game: the clients) to commit copyright infringement.
The Blizzard case way back was fascinating, and they won in court. That was the case where Blizzard essentially claimed they have never, ever sold a game. Not a single copy. "Title was not transferred" is how they put it, because the EULA was magically invoked and retroactively made the sale not have happened.
You probably didn't follow the preceding sentence, because IT'S FUCKING INSANE so go read up. But anyway, from there, it goes like this:
If a user connects to a non-Blizzard server, then the user is violating the EULA. If the user is violating the EULA, then they aren't authorized to possess a copy. If they aren't authorized to possess a copy, then they violated copyright when they installed the software.
MPAA never did anything so evil. Please, people, don't ever pay Blizzard for anything, and if you ever meet an employee of that company, kick them in shin. There are thousands of other game makers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they also modify the client to connect to these servers? If so, then there's your copyright infringement there. If not, then reverse engineering a service seems legit. I can certainly understand why Activision-Blizzard lawyers would get all frothy at the thought of this, but it seems like there's precedent for this sort of thing.
Granted, whether or not your or I think it's legally okay to do this doesn't mean that suits won't be filed, and Activision has a hell of a lot more money to spend on lawyers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Settings qualify for copyright, too, as do characters under some circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - WoW doesn't work that way. All the content is on the client, distributed by Blizzard.
Re: (Score:2)
I poked around setting up a private server a few years ago for my own use, and everything such as NPC location, models, specific skills, dialog, quests, quest text, any quest-scripting, player skills, skill handling, monster spawn areas, boss location and scripting, etc was all server-side. The raw content - images, textures, models, etc may be all client-side but at least as of the time I was messing with it (which I'll admit was several years ago) the server was responsible for the glue keeping it all tog
Re: (Score:2)
I expect trademark law is a better basis. It's easier to violate trademarks, and they can retreat behind the requirement that trademarks be defended or you lose them (unlike copyrights).
But terms of service are, indeed, a contract, and enforceable under the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The servers don't run Blizzard software, they built their own.
And will the car manufacturers start pulling the s (Score:2, Offtopic)
And will the car manufacturers start pulling the same BS to lock out 3rd part repair shops?
Headline looked like a weather event. (Score:2, Funny)
On first read (as a non-player of the game) the headline looked like a severe weather event had caused the server to go down (leading to the thought that this might help the game's owners find it if the routes to it were somehow hidden, as with Tor).
Did anybody else have this effect?
It's yet another example of poorly-worded articles that assume the casual reader has deep background knowledge of the subject. I consider this to be an annoying property of Slashdot. It's not fatal.
But it would be nice if post
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't know that, I wouldn't blame you. If you did, well then you're just an idiot (or masquerading as one). Seriously why else would "Blizzard, Fan-run, server, and WoW" be in same headline?
Ohhhh, that Blizzard (Score:3, Funny)
Blizzard Shuts Down Popular Fan-run 'Pirate' Server For Classic WoW
I honestly thought it had been done in by freak weather conditions.
Because WHY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Players: "Why?"
Blizzard: "Because FUCK YOU that's why"
Blizzard : Still just the dessicated husk draped (Score:2)
over the skin-suit wearing Activision business Nazis. I didn't even know this was still a thing. I heard of pirate servers years ago and I thought they were all sued in to oblivion then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nost != pirate (Score:5, Informative)
Calling Nostalrius a pirate server is not accurate. Nostalrius is a reverse engineered server that works with the official Blizzard WoW 1.12 client. I've played on Nost for the past year, and the overwhelming majority of players I've played with paid for retail vanilla WoW subscriptions back in the day. Sure, I can't find my original discs and had to download a copy of the 1.12 client, but I still contend that I have both a legal and moral license to still use that client.
If Blizzard were to offer a vanilla subscription, I would gladly sign up. (Well, maybe before they C&D'd Nost.) However, since they don't offer such a subscription, running a private server should be allowed as an exemption to the DMCA. The EFF previously petitioned the Library of Congress [eff.org] to add an exemption to the DMCA to allow users to reverse engineer server-side controls once games have been abandoned. The Library of Congress granted the exemption for simple matters like server-side authentication methods, but it was limited to allowing local, single-player gaming to continue. It does not apply for MMORPGs that require server-side interaction. However, this ignores the possibility of using a paid-for client with a reverse-engineered server, something I feel should be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
The sims online was one of the first ones to shut down their server. I still have the original install discs but without a server i have no way to make use of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read through the original ToS, and I agree it's totally possib
Re:Nost != pirate (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the Terms of Service say that you can only use the client with Blizzard servers, they have no grounds for shutting down the Nost server. You don't have to sign any EULA to put up a server that speaks TCP and answers questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it had been "abandoned", there have been other cases of "abandoned" MMOs where people reverse engineered the server software and got a C&D letter before they even opened shop. Tabula Rasa was one such case, someone only as much as announced that he has an early alpha of a possible server and the same day a C&D exploded right in front of his nose.
This is not about revenue.
This is about control. We dictate what you can do with our software, even if it became obsolete to you, even if you can't
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about control, it's about keeping options open. That abandoned MMO might seem worthless right now, but what if the company wants to relaunch it in future, or if another company offers to purchase the copyright so they can launch their own, or if there might one day be a studio willing to make a movie based on it?
Re: (Score:2)
> WoW is not abandoned though.
Every version of WoW except the latest one is abandoned. Certainly vanilla, BC, LK, Cata, and MoP are abandoned. The current version is nothing like any of those.
Re: (Score:2)
The company is not providing a server, nor the bandwidth, nor the maintenance of the server, nor customer support for the clients.
This has nothing to do with piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Blizzard does not care about private servers for an old game. They care about the 800k users which are not paying to play on their network.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true. Blizzard very much hates PvPGN, which emulates battle.net for a number of their very old titles.
Blizzard is like any other spoiled modern corporation. They feel they are entitled to change the terms of the agreements they make, darth vader style, and dont feel even the tiniest bit bad about it. But, should end users try any such thing, or try to weaken their supreme overlord position, even on properties that simply cannot be monetized any longer, and they react like you just fucked their
Re: (Score:2)
But of course they do. Battle.net is still up and running and owned by Blizzard.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, but they're being short sighted here. If there are 800k users who still want to play the old version, Blizzard should bring back some servers to host the old-style game and rack in the subscription fees. In fact, if I owned stock in the company, I'd be at the next stockholder's meeting asking some pointed questions about why they're throwing this revenue stream away instead of taking advantage of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but at the same time Blizzard has a strong investment in their new AAA titles. I assume they dont expect all 800k users to switch to their new games, but they do expect a good fraction of them to do so. MMORPG players are as close as you'll get to a meth addict in the online world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is not that simple. You're comparing an open gaming network vs a paid one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This has nothing to do with piracy (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, if I owned stock in the company, I'd be at the next stockholder's meeting asking some pointed questions about why they're throwing this revenue stream away instead of taking advantage of it.
I'll save you a trip...
"Thank you for your question.
While there is an untapped revenue stream there; there are several associated costs to your proposal; and we are confident we can tap it without these costs.
Maintaining a few larger groups of players is simply more cost effective than maintaining support and systems for more but smaller communities. Before we would open a new property we would need to show that it was substantially different enough that it would attract players not already on our existing properties.
A classic WoW ruleset doesn't meet that criteria. Those players can be served by the existing WoW servers, and we are confident that if we shut down these criminal enterprises that many of the players will return to the existing official servers, requiring virtually no outlay of new resources."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now they have 800k people that will not play on their network and are angry at them (and will spread that). How is that better? Apparently, the fatal combination of greed and stupidity (and lawyers as a booster to make it worse) has taken root at Blizzard as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, i'm not arguing this was a smart move :D
Re: (Score:2)
Smart move on your part ;-)
I do agree on your take on their motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead they should consider firing up those old servers again. There's an obvious and large market for the outdated versions of their game. Should be easy profit for them, as they don't even have to reverse engineer the server software itself.
Re: (Score:2)
History proves that statement false; this isn't the first time they used an army of lawyers to crush private servers. Starcraft multiplayer wasn't even subscription based but they still nuked bnetd.
And users of bnetd were not using Battle.net. Same deal. Don't forget, Starcraft is still huge, specially on Asia where pro gaming Starcraft events are televised.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard says the rule "isn't an issue because of 'lost' subscription fees from players choosing these illegitimate servers over the real WoW servers"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that's the official reply line, but it its hard to believe. I haven't read the WoW EULA, but i'm pretty sure running a private server is no illegal either.
Breach of Terms of Service != illegal (Score:2)
So which laws are they breaking?
Re: (Score:2)
None whatsoever.
Their hosting service just probably cave in because of FUD
Re: (Score:3)
What contract?
Between what parties?
And how is breaking a contract illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
> What contract?
Correct, the server operators have no contract with Blizzard.
> Between what parties?
Correct. The only contract is between the clients and Blizzard. *That* TOS prohibits Clients from Accessing non-Blizzard servers.
> And how is breaking a contract illegal?
ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ahh, but their EULA doesn't supersede my SPLA, which is clearly printed on the side of my computer.
It boils down to this.
By allowing your software to install on my computer, you, the software provider, agree to the following terms and conditions.
Your EULA is null and void.
Your software is fit to be used for any purpose I choose and if it fucks up my server, you will be held fiscally responsible.
The copy of "your software" installed on my machine now belongs to me. I can do anything I want with it and you h
Re: (Score:2)
>ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
Eeeeppp wrong. And you were doing so well up until then.
Contract law is a relatively modern invention - there are plenty of laws that predate it by millennia, and there are entire legal systems that never had contract law or anything that even vaguely resembles it.
Now you may argue that you meant "modern western free-world" law - but you would still be wrong, firstly quite a lot of the laws in the free world are also present in those other legal systems, and many of them
Re: (Score:2)
ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
Not even remotely. And breaking a contract is still not illegal. That is why these things end up in civil courts with both sides of the contract arguing, rather than the police showing up and throwing someone in prison.
Bnetd, part deux? (Score:2)
Time to move it to somewhere Blizzard can't sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Cowards (Score:2)
"It simply boils down to private servers being illegal" is a lie and a cowardly cop-out. No, private servers are not "illegal". They may be forbidden by Blizzard, but there is no law that says Blizzard cannot allow or tolerate them.
Re: (Score:2)
They are when it's impossible to run a pirate server without utilising a lot of material to which Blizzard owns the copyright. Even if the software is entirely rewritten, it cannot function without the level maps.
Re:Expected different (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't doing that. It's just emulating what a Blizzard server would do, and an official Blizzard client interprets the results. There's no Blizzard copyrighted material on the server, and the clients that do all this are distributed by Blizzard themselves. This is more DMCA crap, and I guess they figured out how to expand their reach to France. Mirroring a service is still legal in most of the world, after all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is more DMCA crap, and I guess they figured out how to expand their reach to France.
For the Americans, remember it was the Clintons that signed DMCA into law.
Re:Expected different (Score:5, Informative)
For the people like yourself, the person who wrote the bill was a Republican Howard Coble and it had unanimous support from all Senate Republicans
Re:Expected different (Score:4, Informative)
Co-sponsored by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Plenty of blame to go around.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
For the Americans, remember it was the Clintons that signed DMCA into law.
So vote Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it had been a republican in office, they'd have done the same. The DMCA was a required law to meet obligations under a WIPO treaty, and as copyright law was a subject of approximately zero public awareness at the time (and barely more than that now) neither side had any reason to resist the influence of the entertainment industry - a sector both politically influential and generous with campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:3)
Was it only Bill Clinton who signed it. I don't see any statement that the First Lady had any responsibility in executive functions.
As anyone who is married knows your SO doesn't always sees eye to eye with you.
Judging Hillary Clinton for what her husband does isn't really fair.
Re: (Score:2)
It's never just "harmonizing". It is always "harmonizing + a little/lot more", so other countries then need to "harmonize" to your laws, but they also do the "harmonize + more", then you have to do it.
It's always sold as "just making it an even playing field", but it always actually is tilting the table more and more towards large corporations relying on copyright for their existence.
Re:Expected different (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Clinton sucks
Doubtful, or Bill wouldn't have had all those girlfriends.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no Blizzard copyrighted material on the server,
Yes there is. The data is copied from the clients (which is why it's possible to create such servers in the first place), but the server does need a copy of them. Things like mob locations, walls, vendors, banks, etc. all need to be known to the server. That means using Blizzard data, unless you want to replicate the entire WoW map from scratch (and that would violate copyright, anyways).
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they (Blizzard) actually benefit more from being good sports and allowing this service to continue? Perhaps even by sponsoring them or condoning them officially - there are probably many who wouldn't spend the money to try WoW because they think it isn't their thing, but who might get hooked this way. And I don't think they loose customers - people who are this dedicated would probably also invest in the official game. I'm not a player myself, but it seems like common sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The game that existed in vanilla WoW is long gone and doesn't resemble the product they peddle. Someone who tries these pirate servers then gets a WoW account will likely give Blizzard one month's subscription. The market for these servers is not new WoW players. It's veterans that have become disillusioned by where the game has gone and yearn for the 'good old days' of vanilla WoW.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they figured out how to expand their reach to France.
Probably wasn't a stretch for them since the European realms' server hardware has always been in France.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the spirit of the law is to protect creators of content from loosing money. From the summary:
Blizzard says the rule "isn't an issue because of 'lost' subscription fees ...
it simply boils down to the fact that private servers are illegal
So what they are saying is, it doesn't effect us but stop doing anyway, its illegal. Note illegal != wrong. How can it be wrong if it is not hurting anyone.
Re: Expected different (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the spirit of the law was to provide a limited period of exclusivity in order to entice people to create, with the ultimate goal being to enrich the public domain. We all know how well that's working out...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That might have been the original spirit of the law. That is most certainly not the spirit of the DMCA. The intent is to ensure that digital products are kept artificially scarce, so that the rights-holders (not the content creators) can extract continual revenue streams from them.
Especially in the case of computer software, the goal is to pay cheap programmers in foreign countries pennies to make software which America then owns and can demand that those same countries pay big bucks to use.
This is the sp
Re: Expected different (Score:2)
What I find odd is that the many private classic-wow emulating servers clearly proves a market for them exists. 800k accounts is tiny next to official WoW numbers which still more than an order of magnitude higher but they are a potential customer base and many existing players would likely join them but for loyalty to blizzard. So why not make money ? Blizzard could add a revenue stream by partnering with these guys and it would cost them nothing (not even legal fees). Or have one server running classic wh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Case law has spoken.
Here's a good one. [wikipedia.org] People tried to work around copyright law by saying things like "we don't provide infringing content, we just provide a data-sharing service" and got slapped down. Also, people said "this is fair use because we are just sharing our copies with our friends, not selling them." and got slapped down.
Here is a surprising familiar [diabloii.net] example, from 6 years ago, when blizzard won this same case for this same reason.
Here is an earlier instance [wikipedia.org] of the same thing, but this time em
Re: Expected different (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I can tell - there was no copyright violation by the servers. The users agreed to a T.O.S. that prohibits them to connect to the server however. So I suspect the actual legal argument here is something akin to "provided the means to circumvent" ala DMCA - which really shouldn't have ever been illegal.
Re:Expected different (Score:4, Interesting)
I poked around with running a private server for funsies at one point years ago mostly for my own use, and virtually everything is controlled by the server. NPCs' locations, models, and dialogs, any scripting involving NPCs, monster spawn locations and attacks/spells/etc, Quests, quest text, any scripting that goes along with the quests, things like levelups and level caps, skill-handling... the server pretty much makes it the game. Without that you're just running around a dead, empty world. There were quite a few database sets of quests too - from full blizz-like (advertised as such) that attempted to recreate the official experience as closely as possible to various remixes and tweaks (mostly involving massively overpowering everything).
And even for things in the client, even if Blizzard distributes it for free, it's still their client. I'm pretty sure you have to accept the EULA before you even log in. It'll be an interesting court case all the same.
Re: Expected different (Score:2, Funny)
I just edited the EULA to say Blizzard owes me a pizza before I accepted it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit unclear - but assuming you're right, from the article it seems clear the quest data was recreated to match vanilla, a lot of that would have to be done from scratch - but if so, that would actually be valid copyright infringement. The text of the quests are clearly copyrightable, so are characters and some of the names are likely trademarked.
This may well be more about trademark protection than anything else though - if you allow somebody to offer a product substantially similar to yours, with a
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as intellectual property. This violates nothing, not even copyright law- when they sue private servers, they use the EULA and the DMCA.
Certainly not in your mind, but in the real world, you know the one with judges, lawyers, etc., they'll gladly remove funds from you to make you suffer for being an IP denier.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright ? No. Patents: possibly, but if the car you recreate is more than 14 years old any patents would be expired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Blizzard TOS violations would mean you are not allowed to use Blizzard's services. It has no control over what other people connect their clients to.
I see an interesting legal challenge coming from this.
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the 1.12 WoW client refers to an editable, plaintext file (realmlist.wtf) to decide what server to connect to. Blizzard gave users the ability to choose which server to connect to, and now they are mad that users exercised that ability to connect to reverse-engineered servers.
Re: (Score:2)
If i was to reverse engineer Lotus 123 that existed back in 2001 while never seeing any lotus 123 code - does that allow me to put out my own Notus 123 version and not expect to be sued by everyone and their brother?
Er, maybe a bad example since the Lotus name was purchased by IBM and they have an army of lawyers so you'd really be putting yourself in the crosshairs.
And also, lots of people want to play vanilla WoW but would a 15 year-old spreadsheet be that popular?
Re: (Score:2)
> If it acts the same and looks the same? Somehow you all are delusional thinking you are legally allowed to do this.
Yes... like all the times Microsoft sued OpenOffice.org for looking and acting exactly like MS-Office (often an earlier version)... or that time they sued IceWM for looking almost exactly like Windows95 (hell it even had a win95 theme). Or when Broderbund sued kgoldrunner for recreating the classic 80's loderunner game exactly. Or the lawsuit from Nintendo against Supertux for a near ident
Re: (Score:2)
In case you were unclear- all those lawsuits I spoke about never happened, and were never attempted - because they can't be. Those were all perfectly legal software and not even a copyright monster like Microsoft (and this is Balmer's microsoft) thought they could get away with it. All that software exists, is regularly used and downloaded - and is perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
What... like the old pirate-radio stations that broadcast from ships ?
Forget the boat-that-rocked, this is the 21st century... here comes the boat-that-torrented (actually - don't most boats do that on a regular basis already ? ... or is that just the worst pun ever ?).
Re: (Score:2)
I was confused when I have read "more ham for your own company"
Re: (Score:2)
The point is exactly that those 800k were not playing on Blizzard servers.
That's all there is to it, really. They don't care about private servers for outdated games; they care about not having those users playing (and paying) on their network.
Re: (Score:2)
> The point is exactly that those 800k were not playing on Blizzard servers.
First, that's wrong. Many of them have accounts with Blizzard. Hell, if you care enough to run vanilla raids, you likely have more than one account. Even those with inactive accounts would likely activate them whenever Blizzard launches a new expansion.
Second, many of them are claiming they will unsub from WoW based on this, or not buy future expansions if they are not currently subscribed.
Third, most of these players, even th
Re: (Score:2)
WoW is an addiction.
If the players have nowhere else to go, they'll pay for a subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Blizz knows that the party has to end soon, I doubt this is any particular strategy to keep subscribers.
And I do truly believe that they are just that big of a bunch of assholes that they'd do this to simply make a point.
Of course, the private servers may well cause a problem for their relaunch of "Classic World of Warcraft: New Game+" or some other strategy that I am not familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I'd known about these servers. I would play WoW again if it was the 2006 vintage instead of the crap its become. To answer your criticism, if Blizzard wants to keep WoW going forever, roll back to 2006 vintage, and focus entirely on new and interest dungeons and gear. Also put the level cap back to 60 and keep it there. New and interesting PVE dungeons was the only thing that made WoW great. Making the game "easy" for casual players was another tragic mistake.
2006 vintage WoW would be right bef
Re: (Score:2)
It's a valid neologism that is very common in the information technology field. Learn to adapt.
I would argue that "setup" as a noun is a valid neologism, and that "setup" as a verb is simply sloppy and arose from a failure to understand basic grammar. If "setup" is a valid verb, then "goover", "cometo", "passon", and any such other bastardizations should also be considered valid. There's really no good reason to create a new, awkward, and entirely redundant class of verbs.