SteelSeries WoW mouse dangerous in no uncertain Terms (of Use)
by Michael Sacco 
Jan 24th 2009 at 8:00PM
We had an article here not too long ago about the SteelSeries WoW mouse, purportedly das ubermaus, replete with glowing fissures and lookin' all like a Templar helmet. We actually had kind of a hard time finding out just how the mouse performed -- it was advertised months before it came out, and it doesn't appear that many gamers actually got to use the mouse prior to pre-ordering it and did so based on Blizzard's official licensing of the WoW name on the product.
The few that did use it, those that played around with it at BlizzCon, actually reported to us that it felt cheap, flimsy, and about to break. That was a bit disconcerting to read, of course, and it wasn't actually an isolated incident--all of the emails we've received about it thus far have been negative reviews. Folks complained of broken buttons or strange key reassignments with the accompanying software.
Now, our sister site Engadget just released their own impressions on the device and they appear to like it, offering a large size, good weight, and robust software among their list of pros.
The inconsistency in reviews of the product thus far isn't what really bothers me, though. It's the fact that the mouse is a WoW-licensed product that performs functions that are against Blizzard's policies.
Vyndree (multiboxing pro and longtime follower of mine from when I first explained Blizzard's policies on multiboxing as Belfaire) sent us her own review, in which she expressed two things -- first, that the mouse didn't live up to the hype surrounding it, and, more gravely, that the mouse and its accompanying software make use of delayed, timed, or looping scripts. These types of scripts come up all the time in conversations about peripherals like the G15 keyboard, and the overwhelming response from Blizzard has always been that those features are against the EULA and Terms of Use. This is not up for debate.
And yet the features are advertised in the manual of a WoW-branded product without any kind of warning that those very features are against the rules of the game. It doesn't really make any sense.
I posted a thread on the WoW Customer Service Forum (old habits, folks) about it and the response was simply that you "shouldn't use those features" while playing WoW. This is the response I would've been required to make, of course. It's not a customer service issue. It's a PR and Licensing screwup. But saying you shouldn't use the features of a game-branded piece of merchandise in that game?
Well, of course you shouldn't. If you're familiar with the EULA or the Terms of Use then you know that. But for someone who doesn't actively read up on policies about esoteric stuff like hardware use, someone who just knows Blizzard means quality, Blizzard's name on a product is a gospel endorsement. That should be enough, and it's not with the SteelSeries mouse.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Hardware
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Satn Jan 24th 2009 8:12PM
Aww, someone is still naive
Like marketing/licencing or sales has any clue about the product they sell.
Do you also think the car salesmen that hawk you a used ford focus know anything about it beyond the color, manual/auto, and how much cash they will make from selling it to you?
BigBiker05 Jan 25th 2009 1:50AM
I thought everyone knew by now that Blizzard just blindly markets everything out after the gold selling ad on their forums the other day. In my opinion and honest advice, never buy anything that a company puts their name on that isn't the companies main product.
Donnell Jan 25th 2009 9:06AM
Your analogy would be more apropos if you were describing something like the Department of Transportation selling a car with a "kill children" feature.
It would be like MADD-licensed Vodka, or a PETA branded bacon. Or my own branded Vodka Bacon, for when you're more than ready for the end.
blab355 Jan 24th 2009 8:47PM
wow, thanks! i was planning on getting one, i guess i'll keep on looking (playing on a laptop is kinda hard).
i have one thing to say about the ToS thing: WTF BLIZZARD
Mey Jan 24th 2009 8:13PM
Well heck, they're selling gold on the official WoW forums so this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Next they'll be offering the Official Blizzard Hacker's Guide to WoW and then saying, "Well yes it's reason for existence is to show you how to hack WoW, and it's officially licensed and Blizzard does receive money on every sale. However, you're not actually supposed to use it to hack WoW."
Xoshe Jan 25th 2009 12:35PM
Except they've already stated that it was an error and that it was corrected.
Talon Jan 25th 2009 4:18PM
websites very often run into problems with ads that they don't approve of showing up on their site, they don't control the ads, they license a company, and they control the ads, the website has a smidge of control, but it's largely reactive.
Meynara Jan 26th 2009 5:53PM
However, they had to know that the gold sales were going to slip through. A number of people had predicted both gold sales and viruses from the banner ads on the official WoW forums when objecting to the ads in the first place. Both situations have happened to a great many legitimate gaming related websites via banner ads.
That they both continued the banner ads and didn't screen them properly even after the warnings is part and parcel of same kind of issues that would lead them to officially license a mouse that breaks the terms of service.
Wren Jan 24th 2009 8:13PM
Wow...just....wow
Smooth.
le sigh Jan 24th 2009 8:53PM
This is actually a good piece of reporting.
Two things need to happen next: the author should follow up hard core and his editor needs not only to back him up but nominate him for an investgative journalistic award.
I don't wish to see Blizzard bashed but when they bend their own rules for selfish gain, I love to see the media do their job!
Excellent post, I look forward to hearing more about this and any more inconsistancies that may arise.
Good work Michael.
Badger Jan 24th 2009 9:17PM
This was the post I originally started to write: "Why not? It's more money in Activizzard's collective pocket."
Then I noticed you said this: "I don't wish to see Blizzard bashed but when they bend their own rules for selfish gain, I love to see the media do their job!"
I agree 100%. Thanks for putting this into better words than I could.
Chris Jan 24th 2009 9:53PM
/sign
It would be nice to see a real follow-up to this, and I think that a former Blizzard employee would be well-placed to undertake this kind of role.
We live in a world of ever-lowering journalistic standards, and increasingly people are turning to the internet in general and blogs in particular to inform themselves.
It would be excellent to see a prominent WoW blog such as WoWInsider actually take the next step into proper investigative journalism when an interesting and relevant topic comes their way.
So, if there's a petition going for Michael Sacco to follow this one up, then consider my name signed.
EK Jan 26th 2009 2:30PM
/signed
G Jan 24th 2009 8:55PM
As an officially licensed product, they'll have an agreement in place with Blizzard right now. If this situation is covered in the agreement, then SteelSeries will be at risk of losing their license and the fee they paid. If it's not, then Blizzard's lawyers and marketing people were sleeping. I can't imagine Blizzard coming up with a product license agreement which doesn't at least include familiarity with each game's EULA, but so far it sounds like the latter and they will have a more-detailed agreement next time.
Tirrimas Jan 25th 2009 11:53AM
What's likely to happen, rather than a long-drawn out (and expensive) court case, is that Steel Series will be contacted by Blizz's legal department and forced to offer an update to the mouse's software to get rid of the "illegal" functionality. I'd almost be willing to bet the wheels are already turning on this one.
But blaming Blizz without including Steel Series is a bit wrong-headed. SS should have known better. They're no strangers to the gaming industry and should know that each game has its own peculiar rules.
Abrack Jan 25th 2009 4:20AM
I had one and needed to return it. Left button was sticking, mouse felt large and heavy to me, but software looked intersting.
Chrido Jan 24th 2009 9:20PM
Well... put this into perspective. You buy a Ferrari, or a Bugatti Veyron. They are 'capable' of very very high speeds, yet driving at those speeds are in the vast majority of cases illegal. Against the Terms of use of your country's highways, if you will.
Same goes with the mouse. It's just a very nice mouse packaged up with fancy WoWness. It's a premium novelty that you can use for other purposes aside from WoW, in the same way that you can take your car to a track day to max it out.
As long as you know what you can and can't do for any given purpose, I see no real problem.
nuclearfalsity Jan 24th 2009 9:26PM
"As long as you know what you can and can't do for any given purpose, I see no real problem."
I believe this is the real issue. Many people may use the features thinking that "it's Blizzard endorsed, and this thing can do it, so it must be okay."
Even though it's against the EULA, it won't be a far stretch for people to think it must be okay because it says "WoW" on the mouse. And why should they? It's a Blizzard screw up.
Badger Jan 24th 2009 9:36PM
This was very well said, Chrido.
However, there is still the problem of the packaging / marketing being very misleading to a consumer.
Laws regarding the transportation system (e.g. speed limits, lane divisions, etc.) are fairly common knowledge. In contrast, the average player probably won't read the (extremely) fine print of Blizzard's ToS, and consequently, the knowledge is limited to a handful of particular conscientious gamers.
If the Ferrari were sold in a world where traffic laws were confined to pamphlets that very few people ever read, then the situation would be very different. Ferrari drivers likely would believe that, just because their car could travel at Ludicrous Speed, they could do so without legal repercussions. They would learn otherwise the first time that a beefed-up Police Interceptor brought them to a screeching halt and ticketed the driver hundreds of dollars.
In much the same way, a gamer receiving this mouse as a gift or purchasing the mouse based on reviews and recommendations would likely believe, upon seeing the "WoW" logo emblazoned on its packaging, that all of its functions could be used to the fullest extent within the game. It's unlikely to assume that they will think, "Hmmm, I'd better check that really elaborate ReadMe.txt file *before* I install this," prior to installing and using the mouse.
Make sense?
I think that Blizzard knows full well that most of their players probably don't read the fine print of the ToS to determine what they can and cant' do within the game or with their hardware. The ToS is primarily included as a "CYA" measure on the company's behalf (no doubt on the recommendation of their high-powered lawyers).
Clevins Jan 24th 2009 9:43PM
Bad analogy. If the state that set the speed limits sold you the Ferrari and endorsed the car.... but that's not what happens.
it's hypocritical of Blizzard to attach their name to a product whose features violate their own TOU. This just sounds like someone in the licensing section didn't understand the product that they were licensing. Sloppy, but that's about it.
It will never happen, but I would love to see a court case on someone being banned for using this. Just from the legal perspective... corporate license for a branded product that violates that corporation's TOU... which wins? No one will do this since getting banned isn't enough reason to spend the time and money but on an intellectual level I'm curious.