| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote: This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for hacking in single player online I would take legal action. Fixed. Nobody got banned for cheats and nobody got banned for offline single-player. They got banned for hacking the achievement system. | ||
|
Wargizmo
Australia1237 Posts
It sounds like a very small amount of people have actually been banned for this, and those people can still play the game as guest so it's not like they've been banned from single player entirely. Blizzard's warden program probably just scans everyone's SC for modifications and isn't even programmed to make a distinction between whether someone is cheating in multi-player, cheating for achievements or just harmlessly messing around. Given the EULA people are pretty stupid to be hacking their SC while online anyway. | ||
|
DiracMonopole
United States1555 Posts
Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?) | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
| ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote: This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action. You would take Blizzard to court for 60$ even though you cheated and completely deserve it.. They are using hacks which is against EULA and they are getting achievements (lolwhothefuckcares) and cheating, I would love to know your train of thought. Hacks fucking ruin games. pre ban wave there were so many hackers. On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote: God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA. Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?) Agreed and apparently pretty fucking stupid | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote: God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA. Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?) Nah not people. Person. | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote: God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA. Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?) I know right? It's literally one of the most basic and legally uncontroversial aspects of the EULA. | ||
|
Zestypasta
United States61 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:06 Seide wrote: They would rule in my favor obviously because it contradicts other civil rights laws that are already in place. Banning people from an online service for modyfing game binaries, to circumvent a system put in place for a reason and to devalue other customers achievements and accomplishments is a bit more legitimate than making you a slave. No? Half said, "I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. " You said, " Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept"" so you obviously didn't get his point. I was restating it, not my view on whether or not it was legal. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
steamrice
435 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote: This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action. They logged into b.net with a hack. Go ahead and take legal action when the game offers guest mode where achievements are disabled and logging in is not required and you should be able to mess around in it. People keep saying Single Player in SC2, but they keep forgetting that before that happens you are logging into an online service with your own account id you created. It's not offline unless you log in as guest which doesn't asks you to log in at all but these people paid for the hack/trainer which essentially does everything Blizz provided in cheat codes typed into chatbox so they can get achievements while online. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system. lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro. Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters. I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually any kind of game manipulation? so you obviously didn't get his point. I was restating it, not my view on whether or not it was legal. I appreciate your efforts, but don't bother with that guy T_T. | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
But like I said, I am not sure if what I said is true. I am still a bit confused so it was the only thing that dame to mind. I could very well be wrong and I will accept it. | ||
|
Patton1942
United States66 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:58 CyberPitz wrote: 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. Oh I get the gist Blizzards argument, I'm just wondering WHY single player achievements are so bloody important that they are worth banning people over. It just strikes me as being rather silly. Okay, I might give you that MP achievements might have more value. Nobody will argue that ladder rankings aren't important. SP achieves give you profile pictures. that's it. It doesn't effect your laddering and or rank 1 little bit. I went back and was replaying my old campaign to get some achievements that I missed (I wanted that profile picture) but after playing and replaying the mission a few times (the ghost mission) I hadn't gotten my achievements so I went to support and learned about the offline, no achieve bit. I was upset at first but then asked myself. "Self, why is this important to you? Why do you care about this?" and all I could come with as an answer was, "Oh yeah, Its not. and I don't." | ||
|
JustPlay
United States211 Posts
(1) A lot of people enjoy competing for achievement rankings. (2) They don't like people making money off of cheating in their game. (MMOGlider) (3) It's very easy to detect the private hack that people paid for and Blizzard attempts* to take a zero tolerance policy on cheating. If you want to really complain about their policy toward cheating look no farther than diablo2. You can't even play that game legitimately now unless you buy 3 cdkey sets because there is a 20 game per hour limit. You pass the limit and you get banned. The problem? You can do around 50-60 games per hour while leveling legitimately. *Although they fail horribly at it, see WoW arena being plagued with GCD reduction hack for multiple seasons now and blahblahblah. Edit: Astuce, the EULA is not a legally binding contract so the things you brought up aren't relevant. In this case Blizzard is well within their rights because of some horrible US laws, but even with decent laws it's likely that Blizzard's actions would be legally justified. | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
| ||
|
astuce
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote: lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro. I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually anything, because Starcraft 2 is technically entirely online? I appreciate your efforts, but don't bother with that guy T_T. Well there's no legitimate reason to be modifying memory for any purpose. So while it's a good point that Blizzard having too much control could be a bad thing, it's not like they are crossing any unreasonable line here. | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote: OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you. Quoted so he can't ignore it. I don't want him to derail his own thread again by only arguing with someone else's grammar errors. | ||
|
cabarkapa
United States1011 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote: lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro. No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually anything, because Starcraft 2 is technically entirely online? Yes, it is already in their EULA that they can ban you for anything, but they won't because it would kill their image as a company to ban people for no reason. This case is different because there is a reason, and that is cheating to obtain an unfair advantage over other users on battle.net. If you really cared about their EULA that badly in the first place, you shouldn't have supported Blizzard by buying the game, or possibly educated yourself about your purchase in order to protect your "consumer interest" | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote: Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue. I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as Unconscionability and impracticability. On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote: Show nested quote + I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system. lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro. No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok.... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 502TKL  316Liquid`VortiX  144BRAT_OK   32IndyStarCraft  22DivinesiaTV  17mouzHeroMarine 13trigger 3SteadfastSC 1Bisu Dota 2 1088Mini 486Larva  464Light  311Soma 284firebathero 160Snow 146ggaemo 132Rush 99Dewaltoss 66[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby6535 B2W.Neo1246 FrodaN685 Fuzer 339ceh9336 Lowko293 hiko255 crisheroes210 ToD113 QueenE97 Mew2King76 nookyyy  61Trikslyr26 RushiSC17 |
|
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
