|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I guess that post was also where that little "arbitrary" argument popped up, but Blizzard lays down the rules that they will stand by as a company. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the game. Blizzard is looking to preserve fairness to all players in the sense of acquiring achievements, which means banning those cheating and are able to create an unfair advantage for themselves when it comes to those achievements.
& thisguy Show nested quote +Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined Show nested quote +1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4).
Except its not local play anymore. You are using trainers to mirror blizzards functionality for cheats. The difference is you are using trainers, since they allow you to get achievements whereas blizzards cheats do not. You are circumventing the system by modifying game files and cheating to get stuff you should have. You are saying this is right, and should not be banned.
How delusional are you? 1-10.
Many services do this. Steam. Xbox Live. You can mod your xbox to play pirated games. If you login to xbox live with that xbox, it's an insta-ban from live. No questions asked. You going to crusade against that as well?
|
I think Blizzard is trying to set a precedent, that will be important for Diablo 3, WoW, and other games. Basically, if you tamper with their game code, even for single-player stuff, you will be banned, so don't do it.
Personally, I like this hard-line stance against hackers.
|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4).
It's not 3, and 1-2 are not per se bad. 4 is subjective, and it seems pretty much everyone disagrees with you on it.
Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA/ToS, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time.
Also the thread title is extremely misleading and should be changed.
|
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? What is the harm that is caused in using trainers? Trainers and other exploits actually lead to healthy communities like speedruns.
If Blizzard felt that this was a threat to their game, then they have clearly constructed the game wrong. You shouldn't have to ban people that aren't contributing any malice to the community because of a weaknesses in the overall game design.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Seide wrote:
Except its not local play anymore. You are using trainers to mirror blizzards functionality for cheats. The difference is you are using trainers, since they allow you to get achievements whereas blizzards cheats do not. You are circumventing the system by modifying game files and cheating to get stuff you should have. You are saying this is right, and should not be banned. How delusional are you? 1-10.
Many services do this. Steam. Xbox Live. You can mod your xbox to play pirated games. If you login to xbox live with that xbox, its an insta ban from live. No questions asked.
This times 1000.
Using hacks and modifying game files or data WHILE ONLINE is asking to get banned. "I was just playing singleplayer" is a terrible excuse.
This is like cheating to get all the WoW achievements or to instant level your character to 80.
"How was I hurting anyone else - I was just playing alone and my achievement points don't hurt anyone."
I can't believe this took -anyone- by surprise.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Half wrote:
The law is semantics. Any argument concerning legality is an argument of semantics. I am claiming that the stipulation in the ToS preventing end user modification of the game are arbitrary and unreasonable. You demonstrated a potential casual reasoning blizzard might have for the banning, but that does not directly refute the fact that the legal stipulation is unreasonable on the behalf of the consumer.
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? What is the harm that is caused in using trainers? Trainers and other exploits actually lead to healthy communities like speedruns.
If Blizzard felt that this was a threat to their game, then they have clearly constructed the game wrong. You shouldn't have to ban people that aren't contributing any malice to the community because of a weaknesses in the overall game design.
Please read more of the thread. Trainers are bypassing Blizzard's block, and letting players get achievement points they wouldn't normally get. The authorized cheats let you cheat, but without the achievement points.
Trainers do not lead to health communities. Interest does. Speed runs happen because it can be exploitable. Not because third party software make it exploitable. You are cheating the system, Battle.net, by getting points you shouldn't get.
|
Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time.
Why? The EULA can say anything it wants. What matters is how it stands up to being legally challenged in court, which is far more relevant specifically applied to this scenario, especially considering many people on that site have threatened legal damages.
|
On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game?
SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore.
Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic.
|
using a 3rd party program to alter blizzards game is still illegal, now the only difference is that they can catch who does it.
|
People can already use cheats. Blizzard offered them.
People are using trainers(Third party program) so that Achievements aren't disabled when they cheat.
And people are surprised they got banned for using a third party program to cheat?
|
On October 12 2010 06:51 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time. Why? The EULA can say anything it wants. What matters is how it stands up to being legally challenged in court, which is far more relevant specifically applied to this scenario, especially considering many people on that site have threatened legal damages.
going to court over that would be laughable and people threatening for 'legal damages' just goes to show how ignorant they really are.
"i hacked in counterstrike and got VAC banned. hacks are against the EULA but im going to sue valve for banning my account"
facepalm
|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I guess that post was also where that little "arbitrary" argument popped up, but Blizzard lays down the rules that they will stand by as a company. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the game. Blizzard is looking to preserve fairness to all players in the sense of acquiring achievements, which means banning those cheating and are able to create an unfair advantage for themselves when it comes to those achievements.
& thisguy Show nested quote +Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined Show nested quote +1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4). It doesn't change the fact that its self contradictory. Please, resolve the confliction for me, if you can kthx. Show nested quote +
Please explain how my analogy is irrelevent. In the analogy, you join a group that provides a service (RC Racing) with the agreement that you will not in any way modify the product you use the service with. That is the same situation as with StarCraft 2 and Activision Blizzard. Blizzard provides a service (Battle.Net) with the agreement that you will not modify (use trainers with) the product (StarCraft 2) you use the service with.
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
The Competitors in an RC racing competition are not customers. Show nested quote +
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
No, because maphackers create a very clear and demonstrable interference of service. In addition, they manipulate network packets, in addition to purely local data.
Fine, if you want to split hairs, imagine that you need to pay $10 to join the RC Group.
If you really want to argue legality instead of arguing over arguments, here you have it:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
If you want to argue the legality of what Blizzard did any further, you're going to need to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules in your favour, you're wrong.
|
My only question is this, when did achievements become some holiest of holy that needed to be protected at any and all costs?
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Okay, I lied. I have 2 questions. My other question is this:
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise?
All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations.
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations.
You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be legally binding. I like the addition of the fuck, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic.
|
On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic
I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat.
|
On October 12 2010 06:53 Zerokaiser wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
If you want to argue the legality of what Blizzard did any further, you're going to need to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules in your favour, you're wrong.
Here's a link to the court ruling, by the way, if anyone cares to see his source:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf
In short, EULAs are legally binding and must be upheld if you agree to them, no matter how absurd they are.
Unless you get the Supreme Court to overturn it.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations.
"Don't modify our product or you can no longer use our service." Isn't even CLOSE to being an illegal stipulation. Are you kidding?
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Patton1942 wrote:
My only question is this, when did achievements become some holiest of holy that needed to be protected at any and all costs?
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Okay, I lied. I have 2 questions. My other question is this:
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
That's the entire point. People are modifying SC2 files WHILE CONNECTED to bnet. If they aren't connected to bnet, no harm, no foul, no ban. It's like playing in a server all by yourself in Counter-Strike while connected to Steam. You hack, you will get banned normally. Same idea.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
http://www.cheathappens.com/show_board2.asp?headID=101081&titleID=13225
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
