EPTOP: I would just remove all of their achievements and give them a new achievement:
Hacker 0 Points (or -1)
"I hacked the game and got caught. Now everyone gets to see who I am."
[D] Blizzard Banning for Single Player Cheats - Page 14
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
WhiteLight
Canada55 Posts
OP: I would just remove all of their achievements and give them a new achievement: Hacker 0 Points (or -1) "I hacked the game and got caught. Now everyone gets to see who I am." | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
For fuzzy issues like this, it's more of an issue that people should know that what they're doing is bannable. After that, I don't see a problem with it. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:53 Spawkuring wrote:I fail to see how this compares to the examples you gave. The question is: Would Blizzard Entertainment have banned these players if they had modified the single-player campaign and it caused no harm to anyone (i.e. they couldn't use the trainers as a free ticket to achievement points)? Regardless of what the answer is now, the answer will eventually be "yes". The industry would kill for OnLive to make it big. Completely remove the physical code from the consumer's hands. That's why. They don't want people touching their "intellectual property", regardless of what benefit it may have. Not when you can sell a buggy game and use the promise of a "bug-free sequel" as a hook and sinker. The entire last decade of the video game industry has been the realization that consumer support for old video games (where Russians build a private Starcraft server) is bad for the bottom line. Publishers want control of everything. They'll shut down the servers when the new game comes out. They'll ban people for making "derivative works".Your examples are simply modding the game. No game company with half a brain is going to resort to banning people for mods because mods are excellent sources of revenue and advertisement for the company as well. And besides: We've watched Blizzard Entertainment use the ultimate example of free marketing (a professional South Korean video game scene) and essentially sabotage it because they're not getting a direct profit stream. These companies don't want people infringing on their code, regardless of what it is. Considering the last twelve months ha Keep in mind that all EULAs in the end are simply meant to protect the company's interests, and as long as they don't violate any actual law, then they are perfectly valid and are legally binding. The days when a company prohibits mods entirely is never going to come because games generally benefit from modding communities. I can guarantee that Blizzard made a shit ton of extra WC3 sales thanks to DotA for example. Blizzard on the other hand WILL ban people if they modify the game in a way that's intended to grant an unfair advantage in-game, namely map hacking or achievement hacking. And that goes back to my previous post, where it's not about whether or not people cheated to farm achievements (there really isn't an argument against a ban for that). It's about the precedent.Companies don't just make EULAs for the fun of it or because they can. All EULAs are made with the intention of maintaining a quality service and protecting the company. It's about protecting their profits. | ||
|
zhouzhou
Canada138 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
No, unconscionable is a legal term of art. It has an entirely different meaning from unreasonable in a legal context. Unconscionable is much worse than unreasonable. So your argument is NO UNREASONABLE ISN'T UNCONSCIONABLE BECAUSE UNCONSCIONABLE IS MUCH MUCH WORSE. Great argument. Generally, using examples help in those kind of arguments. Otherwise like, you're arguing an entirely subjective position (how much worse? MUCH MUCH WORSE) Awesome, more stupid assumptions. KEEP EM COMING! Also I'm curious, are you purposely misusing "your" and "you're" at every possible chance? Man im kinda laughing reading your previous comments in this thread. I love how once you run out of points you just start shouting D:. :I fail to see how this compares to the examples you gave. Your examples are simply modding the game. No game company with half a brain is going to resort to banning people for mods because mods are excellent sources of revenue and advertisement for the company as well. So you'd concede "We shouldn't really care about our legal rights as consumers, cuz I totally trust companies to always let us mod ther games and stuff, and there isn't any reason why they wouldn't, nor any precedents of them not doing so". amazin. and nah, I'm not strawmanning you, that requires intent, and you honestly just appear to be arguing that position. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote: Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user". But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies. And it's not for all purposes, it's all purposes Blizzard cares about. Go ahead, cheat offline to your hearts content, but don't mess with Battle.net. That's what Blizzard is trying to send. (not directed at you). If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent. If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined. If you are arguing that the punishment is unreasonable, then yes, you could, under what you define as unreasonable. But that doesn't matter, because the creator has the final say. He (Blizzard) defines what use is considered reasonable and unreasonable. If he believes your use is bad for his game, then he can terminate your access to it. It is a service that he extends to you. And it's within his rights as the distributer to do whatever he wants with it, since by signing, you said you will let him. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:05 Half wrote: So you'd concede "We shouldn't really care about our legal rights as consumers, cuz I totally trust companies to always let us mod ther games and stuff, and there isn't any reason why they wouldn't, nor any precedents of them not doing so". amazin. If Blizzard is actually violating our legal rights, then I'll complain. But so far nothing they have done implies violating a legal right. If you can prove to me that they are, then I'm all ears. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15662 Posts
People chose to modify MPQ files and/or game memory while logged in online. I'd say that qualifies as stupid enough to get banned. | ||
|
cabarkapa
United States1011 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:05 Half wrote: Man im kinda laughing reading your previous comments in this thread. I love how once you run out of points you just start shouting D:. Yeah it is quite funny seeing you ignore everything and it turns into this crap. Also you didn't answer my question, I am still curious to know. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: People can't see that allowing cheats invalidates achievements? I don't care at all about achievements, but there are a lot of people who care about them. When you let people cheat to get them, it ruins the sense of accomplishment. People chose to modify MPQ files and/or game memory while logged in online. I'd say that qualifies as stupid enough to get banned. But then you're saying smart cheaters shouldn't get banned. The ones that aren't caught. D: | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote: Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user". Mods/user patches etc are allowed at the dev's whim. This has been known for quite a while. There was a fuss at first but it's now accepted. Generally these things are in the dev's interest (hence their inbuilt support in so many games, from SC2s map editor to Civ 5's mod menu option..), but it's not unknown for devs to send out c&ds. Charging for your mod is a really good way to get one. This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter. Their EULA is legal. The same clause that let them ban those 5k people is the one they use to ban these people. | ||
|
DiracMonopole
United States1555 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:10 Chairman Ray wrote: That's kinda unfair. If Blizzard was against single player cheats, they should send out warns. A lot of people have no clue single player cheats are harmful to the game so they do it. They should be informed before action is taken. Its not cheats that they were banned for. Its hacks. Blizzard provided single player cheats. The people who were banned went out and searched for hacks that would let them cheat but not disable achievements Anyone who went out, downloaded (and paid) for a trainer knew full well what they were doing. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Mods/user patches etc are allowed at the dev's whim. This has been known for quite a while. There was a fuss at first but it's now accepted. Generally these things are in the dev's interest (hence their inbuilt support in so many games, from SC2s map editor to Civ 5's mod menu option..), but it's not unknown for devs to send out c&ds. Charging for your mod is a really good one to get one. That's copyright violation. A developer can stop the distribution of a mod on the grounds of copyright. Once again, completely irrelevant. Show me one precedent of a developer revoking an individual license to there games due to a violation of the TOS in the form of making a mod. -------------------- But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies. thx for rehashing 12 pages in the thread. We're past that remember? We're arguing over the legality of the end user license. If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent. No, they would be brought to normal, state court. The supreme court is if you want to challenge the above system itself. If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined. rofl. Did you just seriously argue contracts are only void if the violate the U.S. constitution? rofl ok this argument ends now kthx, please get a clue before we proceed. You literally don't understand...anything. ------------------ Yeah it is quite funny seeing you ignore everything and it turns into this crap. Also you didn't answer my question, I am still curious to know. What question? rofl. What have I ignored? More baseless accusations and spam from the guy who hasn't had a coherent post in this entire thread, appreciate it :3. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:02 MichaelJLowell wrote: The question is: Would Blizzard Entertainment have banned these players if they had modified the single-player campaign and it caused no harm to anyone (i.e. they couldn't use the trainers as a free ticket to achievement points)? Regardless of what the answer is now, the answer will eventually be "yes". Yeah, they care if you mod their campaign using their dev tools they released to you. Suuuuuure. Take your illogical crusade somewhere else. It's about protecting their profits. Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this. | ||
|
Schickysc
Canada380 Posts
If the game is too complicated for you, or you just wanna screw around, use custom games, the provided cheats, or something of the like. No need for trainers, and blizzard has EVERY right to ban people that use trainers, on their FREE TO USE service, called battle.net. If you didn't wanna be caught, play offline. People that were banned, logged into battle.net, and used the trainers. Durr? I don't care if you think that's violating our rights as gamers, you're violating the ToS, which takes precedence, because you agreed to it before you can play it. You can't use the argument of "Oh I didn't know I was gonna be banned for using trainers". Ignorance isn't an excuse in the law, why should it be now? You can't kill someone and say "Well I didn't know it was illegal". Common sense, use it. | ||
|
Apocalypse_Now
Uruguay2 Posts
Now if we are speaking of appropiate conduct in any company ... in that case you are extremely innocent. No offense but you should get out and look around, see how the world works, it will help you a lot. I didnt mean to offend you at all but im just trying to help. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:20 Half wrote: That's copyright violation. A developer can stop the distribution of a mod on the grounds of copyright. Once again, completely irrelevant. Show me one precedent of a developer revoking an individual license to there games due to a violation of the TOS in the form of making a mod. Many mods don't infringe copyright at all. You don't know much about modding I'm taking it? There's a reason no one ever dares charge for their mod, and it ain't cos they're nice. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On October 12 2010 08:11 vica wrote: But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies. And it's not for all purposes, it's all purposes Blizzard cares about. Go ahead, cheat offline to your hearts content, but don't mess with Battle.net. That's what Blizzard is trying to send. (not directed at you). If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent. If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined. If you are arguing that the punishment is unreasonable, then yes, you could, under what you define as unreasonable. But that doesn't matter, because the creator has the final say. He (Blizzard) defines what use is considered reasonable and unreasonable. If he believes your use is bad for his game, then he can terminate your access to it. It is a service that he extends to you. And it's within his rights as the distributer to do whatever he wants with it, since by signing, you said you will let him. I didn't say anything about whether or not I agreed with the interpretation. I'm arguing whether or not people think this is a valid precedent to set. It is insane to say "Well the Ninth Circuit said EULAs are legal oh well lol", especially when there's still a valid chance the Supreme Court takes up the issue and rules against it, especially when there's no valid benefit to the user for businesses to have complete control of their product. Their EULA is legal. The same clause that let them ban those 5k people is the one they use to ban these people. The sentiment in this thread is that "It's written in a EULA, therefore it's legal." That's not how it works. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Many mods don't infringe copyright at all. You don't know much about modding I'm taking it? There's a reason no one ever dares charge for their mod, and it ain't cos they're nice. So much talk from ignorance. The very definition of mod implies copyright infringement. The only way it wouldn't be infringement is if you didn't use any elemenets of the original game, any of the code, ui, art assets, engines, etc. In other words, not a mod. There is no possible way to make a mod of copyright software and be free from copyright infringement. Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this. The point of this statement was that you can't rely on them to protect your own interests. | ||
| ||
