Grapevine

[Coraggio @CoraggioHabbo]

As novas regras do Habbo sobre sorteios levantam uma preocupação importante: até onde vai o poder da empresa de controlar as atividades de seus jogadores, especialmente fora do jogo?

É compreensível que o Habbo estabeleça regras para impedir apostas, jogos de azar e outras práticas prejudiciais dentro de sua plataforma. Entretanto, a proibição de sorteios gratuitos e a possibilidade de interpretar essas regras de maneira abrangente merecem ser questionadas.

Por exemplo: se um jogador decidir realizar, exclusivamente no Twitter, um sorteio gratuito de um NFT que pertence a ele, sem utilizar qualquer recurso do Habbo, seria razoável que a empresa pudesse puni-lo ou até mesmo banir sua conta?

O Código de Defesa do Consumidor estabelece limites ao poder contratual das empresas. O artigo 51, inciso IV, considera nulas as cláusulas que coloquem o consumidor em desvantagem exagerada ou sejam incompatíveis com a boa-fé e a equidade. Já o artigo 47 determina que as cláusulas contratuais devem ser interpretadas de maneira mais favorável ao consumidor.

Isso significa que os Termos de Serviço não conferem ao Habbo poderes ilimitados, tampouco estão acima da legislação brasileira.

Além disso, o artigo 187 do Código Civil estabelece que o exercício abusivo de um direito também constitui ato ilícito. Portanto, mesmo quando uma empresa possui poderes contratuais para aplicar sanções, esses poderes devem ser exercidos dentro de limites razoáveis e legítimos.

O Habbo tem o direito de estabelecer regras para sua plataforma, mas isso não significa que possa controlar indiscriminadamente o que seus consumidores fazem em suas redes sociais ou com bens digitais de sua propriedade.

É fundamental que a empresa esclareça expressamente o alcance dessas novas regras, especialmente se pretende aplicá-las a atividades realizadas fora do jogo.

Proteger a comunidade é legítimo. Transformar regras de moderação em instrumentos de controle sobre a vida digital dos jogadores é algo que precisa ser questionado.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@jarkko_kouva I have no hope left for the game.

[Controllable. on Habbo @ControllableHab]

I understand Habbo’s need to update its Terms of Service, but there should be a clear distinction between gambling and harmless, free-to-play games that have been part of the community for years.

Just mind boggling.

[🍣 𝕄𝔸𝔻𝔻𝕀𝕀𝕀𝕀 🍜 @madzn_]

This. @Habbo

[Reblog @ReblogHB]

I think it’s time for us, Habbo users, to stop seeing ourselves merely as players and start recognizing what we truly are: CUSTOMERS of a company.

We invest our time, our money, and years of our lives into a product that seems to show less and less respect for the very people who keep it alive. While we continue to fuel the game’s economy and make the company richer, our concerns are ignored, absurd decisions are made, and whenever backlash arises, we’re given some flimsy excuse to justify the situation and sweep yet another problem under the rug.

We need to understand that we’re not asking for favors. We’re demanding respect. Behind every avatar is a customer who chooses to spend their money on this game and deserves to be treated with a basic level of consideration.

These practices will never change unless the company starts feeling the consequences of its actions. Complaining while continuing to spend exactly as we always have, as understandable as our attachment to the game may be, ultimately allows things to carry on as they are.

Habbo needs to understand that we’re not just numbers, avatars, or players who can be subjected to whatever decisions the company feels like making. We’re customers. And dissatisfied customers don’t have to limit themselves to complaining: they can withdraw their support, their money, and their trust.

If we want real change, we need to stop normalizing the unacceptable and start acting in a way that reflects what we’re demanding. Because as long as the company has nothing to lose from its own disregard for its customers, we’ll be the ones who keep losing.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@AHP_HH06 @HabboTea @jarkko_kouva @sirjonasxx @sirjonasxx where are you when it’s time

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@AHP_HH06 @HabboTea @jarkko_kouva @sirjonasxx The main point is: with gambling and illegal games, you have something to lose. I’m talking about recreational donations made by players where no one loses anything, and everyone has a chance to win something. Period.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@Habbo Implementing this rule turns the game into a dead chat room with no future. Ironically, the game itself sells loot boxes where users waste money, unlike player-made games where participation costs nothing. Management must revert this before destroying what makes the game fun.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@Habbo Ambiguous rules processed by AI moderation will cause irreplaceable damage, banning accounts over friendly, harmless banzai matches where no one loses money. These mini-games built today's player base.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@Habbo It’s a logical thing: if you don’t put any money into a game created by a player, and you win based on chance, luck, or skill, you're not doing a damn thing wrong.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@Habbo Subjective rules on chance-based games must be reconsidered. When players donate, it supports recreational gameplay—not gambling or addiction.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@jarkko_kouva Whatever you discuss or bring to the table about what the game really is, management can quickly change the definition of fun and struggle with compliance laws.
Thank you.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@jarkko_kouva It’s a logical thing: if you don’t put any money into a game created by a player, and you win based on chance, luck, or skill, you're not doing a damn thing wrong.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@jarkko_kouva Implementing this rule turns the game into a dead chat room with no future. Ironically, the game itself sells loot boxes where users waste money, unlike player-made games where participation costs nothing. Management must revert this before destroying what makes the game fun.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@jarkko_kouva Subjective rules on chance-based games must be reconsidered. When players donate, it supports recreational gameplay—not gambling or addiction. Ambiguous rules processed by AI moderation will cause irreplaceable damage, banning accounts over friendly.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@cebolla_one @Habbo Los desarrolladores amenazan lo único que hace que el juego valga la pena. Los nuevos términos tratan casos como casinos igual que a juegos respaldados por donaciones. Debemos luchar contra esto y toda ayuda es bienvenida.

[Grapevine @A3aestr]

@zyroshadow @Niebliax Los desarrolladores amenazan lo único que hace que el juego valga la pena. Los nuevos términos tratan casos como casinos igual que a juegos respaldados por donaciones. Debemos luchar contra esto y toda ayuda es bienvenida.