|
On October 12 2010 08:23 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What?
Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this.
There's a difference between "making goods and services for a profit" and "deliberately constricting the market to suit your profit model".
|
On October 12 2010 08:02 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:53 Spawkuring wrote: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. 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". 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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Well the main issue with this post is that your entire argument rests on the slippery slope scenario that a developer will always want to ban a user if they modify game content for any reason, and that simply makes no sense.
Companies in general don't give a damn what you do with their product unless it somehow hurts the companies bottom line. Hacking is bannable because it scares customers away from a product, therefore companies like Blizzard try to prevent anything that can lead to hacking. However, they wouldn't ban it entirely because there is a lot of money to be made from a modding community. That's why we have things like the Galaxy Editor, a service that allows users to modify game content without having to hack. I just don't understand your doomsday scenario of a gaming industry that bans mods entirely because it makes no economical sense. Why completely prevent something that has been proven to increase profits?
|
Love how people are comparing modding to trainers, hacks, and other third party programs.
The fact is trainer is just a "nice name" for hack. It's still a third party program that modifies the game.
Using this on battle.net to get achievements is a no brainer here, people. Achievements getting hacked = lessens game integrity. No no. You don't do that to the Blizz.
I'm glad the retards who are using these hacks and playing innoncent got banned. Don't worry though, they're about to sue Blizzard for all their worth!
..
|
Why completely prevent something that has been proven to increase profits?
Because it may not always?
The core of your argument appears to be "Sure, blizzard could just ban us for no reason and make us pay again, but they wouldn't (because it isn't profitable)."
Regardless of probability, possibility is worrying enough.
|
On October 12 2010 08:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:23 Yaotzin wrote: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. What?
You seem to think they care if you mod their campaign. Given that you can only do this because they provided their dev tools to you, this is a touch unlikely. Devs like modders, they make their games more popular. They aren't going to start banning it anytime soon.
Show nested quote +It's about protecting their profits. Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this. There's a difference between "making goods and services for a profit" and "deliberately constricting the market to suit your profit model".
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
|
On October 12 2010 08:31 Half wrote:Because it may not always?
Yea that sounds like a poor business strategy.
"Hey guys, there's this feature that increases the profits by 80% of almost every company that used it."
"Nah, but there was this obscure company that used it and didn't profit. Let's not put the feature in."
"But sir, it has a 99% success rate for all the other companies that used it-"
"Nah, let's not do it."
|
On October 12 2010 08:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +
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.
Your talk of ignorance is comical. It seems all you spew is ignorance. There is NO precedence being set here. Blizzard didn't ban anyone for using trainers in single player. They banned people for using trainers while on battle.net. Get over this already.
Of course you can't rely on a gaming company to protect millions of users interests, beyond maybe privacy (but that's a whole new topic). Let's look at it another way. Blizzard has now shown anyone caught using trainers will be banned from battle.net. I, as a ladder player, like the fact that I hardly have to worry about that ever working on the ladder, because now, even if something is made, nobody will wanna test it for fear of being banned. So really, Blizzard did the competitive gaming community a favor by banning these people. (Though yes, an initial warning would have been courteous, but that's their own prerogative).
|
Well the main issue with this post is that your entire argument rests on the slippery slope scenario that a developer will always want to ban a user if they modify game content for any reason, and that simply makes no sense.
We've already settled that you merely license the software and in no way own it. Why stop there?
Companies in general don't give a damn what you do with their product unless it somehow hurts the companies bottom line. Hacking is bannable because it scares customers away from a product, therefore companies like Blizzard try to prevent anything that can lead to hacking. However, they wouldn't ban it entirely because there is a lot of money to be made from a modding community. That's why we have things like the Galaxy Editor, a service that allows users to modify game content without having to hack. I just don't understand your doomsday scenario of a gaming industry that bans mods entirely because it makes no economical sense. Why completely prevent something that has been proven to increase profits?
A wildly-popular free mod is a competing product. That free game can directly compete with your pay-to-purchase product and hurt your bottom line. User-made fixes can extend the shelf life of a video game in an industry that has become increasingly reliant on shoveling people to the next Call of Duty as quickly as possible.
|
[B]On October 12 2010 08:27 Half wrote:
No.
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
|
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
Sorry I payed 60$ for b-net. What kind of sheep mentality do you have? Pay 60$ for something then argue they were so generous for giving it to you for free? What the fuck bro?
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Yes they can, because I'm using there proprietary engine and software, which they also own.
I, as a ladder player, like the fact that I hardly have to worry about that ever working on the ladder, because now, even if something is made, nobody will wanna test it for fear of being banned. So really, Blizzard did the competitive gaming community a favor by banning these people.
You realize that most maphacks now no longer interact with SC2 right, and are completely undetectable by Warden right, besides there mem hex, which can be changed by any user worth there salt.
|
On October 12 2010 08:31 Half wrote:The core of your argument appears to be "Sure, blizzard could just ban us for no reason and make us pay again, but they wouldn't (because it isn't profitable)." Regardless of probability, possibility is worrying enough.
It's not worth worrying about. Keep in mind that it's not just Blizzard, but every company in the world can basically do whatever they want with you provided it doesn't violate human rights.
A restaurant can randomly kick you out if they want. A company can randomly increase the price of their products from $1 to $1000 if they want. Any software distributor can randomly terminate your license at any time.
Why don't any of these companies do these things? Because it's not profitable. Being profitable often means pleasing your customers at the same time. If Blizzard wants to rip customers off by charging $500 for SC2, then they have every right to do so. Of course, they would also lose a lot of fans by doing so, so they don't do it.
|
On October 12 2010 08:33 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:On October 12 2010 08:23 Yaotzin wrote: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. What? You seem to think they care if you mod their campaign. Given that you can only do this because they provided their dev tools to you, this is a touch unlikely. Devs like modders, they make their games more popular. They aren't going to start banning it anytime soon.
You act as though no game has ever been modded without the help of developer tools.
Show nested quote +It's about protecting their profits. Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this. There's a difference between "making goods and services for a profit" and "deliberately constricting the market to suit your profit model".
Good thing they aren't doing that, then.[/quote]
- Starcraft II limits the player to one name per account. This allows Blizzard to charge for "name changes" and also requires multi-user households to pay extra in order to access the full range of options.
- You are required to attach your CD-Key to an account. This restricts the mobility of the account and with the account permanently tied to your own e-mail, it becomes logistically difficult to transfer the account.
Would you like me to keep going?
|
Look, if you want to fight EULAs, this is not the right situation to do it. In many peoples eyes these people were hacking and cheating by changing game files to obtain something they would of have otherwise with the same amount of effort.
If this was something like Blizzard put a bug into the game, that allowed people to use their built in cheat codes to get the same thing, and they banned people, then yes that is completely wrong and people should take a stand against it, because it is setting the wrong precedent. The precedent of "we made a mistake, you abused it and we banned you". In this situation it is not the precedent being set.
This is the sitatuation here: Instead of using the built in cheats that do not give you achievements, game files were modified in the same way as a map hack would modify game files. These gamefiles added functionality not inteded to the game, allowing people to use the same kinds of cheats that blizzard put in the game, but you would get achievements.
While yes, some people think "achievements who cares right" and its only "single player"? You play on battle.net. If you wanted to just cheat your way through single player you could, there are built in cheats. Instead these people decided to use trailers because of achievements.
So do you want to set a precedent of allowing obvious cheating, no matter how minor it is to continue? Show that because the people who care about achievements are a smaller subset that you do not care about them?
Blizzard wants to show a no tolerance policy to cheating.
For those who want to "mod" the game, blizzard has provided you with a powerful map editor to do so if you like. It has also provded you with cheat codes if you like. Instead they chose to cheat the system, and got handed a temp ban for it.
I mean you are using a 3rd party program to achieve what others have to work much harder for.
Its not like they are innocent people trying to mod the game to make the campaign more interesting. Or trying to mod the game in some way to create a new game.
If for example these were people trying to modify game binaries to make the game more like BW but in 3D and playable on their own servers and they got banned, then this discussion would be somewhat more fitting, and still Blizzard has a right to protect their intelectual property. Instead you are going to have a hard time finding support as you are asking people to oppose the ban of blatant cheating.
|
On October 12 2010 08:34 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
Sorry I payed 60$ for b-net. What kind of sheep mentality do you have? Pay 60$ for something then argue they were so generous for giving it to you for free? What the fuck bro? Show nested quote +
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Yes they can, because I'm using there proprietary engine and software, which they also own.
No, you paid 60$ for the single player campaign, that only requires you to activate the game onto their servers once, at which point you can play off of their servers, and hack the crap out of it all you want, without them knowing. You also get competitive online capabilities, free of charge, with agreement to their EULA.
|
On October 12 2010 08:40 Schickysc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:34 Half wrote:
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
Sorry I payed 60$ for b-net. What kind of sheep mentality do you have? Pay 60$ for something then argue they were so generous for giving it to you for free? What the fuck bro?
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Yes they can, because I'm using there proprietary engine and software, which they also own. No, you paid 60$ for the single player campaign, that only requires you to activate the game onto their servers once, at which point you can play off of their servers, and hack the crap out of it all you want, without them knowing. You also get competitive online capabilities, free of charge, with agreement to their EULA.
No, I payed 60$ for the singleplayer and multiplayer by the virtue of the fact that I would not have bought it had it not had multiplayer.
You're really good as swallowing PR bullshit though.
Legally I payed 60$ for a license, and nothing more. It could be a license to a folder of screenshots. Does that mean I, as the consumer, should be thankful I received more then a folder of screenshots? Fuck no. What kind of tool thinks that way?
|
On October 12 2010 08:34 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +Well the main issue with this post is that your entire argument rests on the slippery slope scenario that a developer will always want to ban a user if they modify game content for any reason, and that simply makes no sense. We've already settled that you merely license the software and in no way own it. Why stop there? Show nested quote +Companies in general don't give a damn what you do with their product unless it somehow hurts the companies bottom line. Hacking is bannable because it scares customers away from a product, therefore companies like Blizzard try to prevent anything that can lead to hacking. However, they wouldn't ban it entirely because there is a lot of money to be made from a modding community. That's why we have things like the Galaxy Editor, a service that allows users to modify game content without having to hack. I just don't understand your doomsday scenario of a gaming industry that bans mods entirely because it makes no economical sense. Why completely prevent something that has been proven to increase profits? A wildly-popular free mod is a competing product. That free game can directly compete with your pay-to-purchase product and hurt your bottom line. User-made fixes can extend the shelf life of a video game in an industry that has become increasingly reliant on shoveling people to the next Call of Duty as quickly as possible.
And none of this is illegal in any way. If the company is really going to take that stance of banning mods for being competition, then they can do it. But at the same time, they more than likely won't acquire any major growth. Blizzard has taken a mostly hands off approach with modding, only stepping in if it can be considered hacking, and so far Blizzard has experienced massive growth. Blizzard's business model relies on games that last many years, so again it's in their best interest to protect modding.
|
On October 12 2010 08:40 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:40 Schickysc wrote:On October 12 2010 08:34 Half wrote:
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
Sorry I payed 60$ for b-net. What kind of sheep mentality do you have? Pay 60$ for something then argue they were so generous for giving it to you for free? What the fuck bro?
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Yes they can, because I'm using there proprietary engine and software, which they also own. No, you paid 60$ for the single player campaign, that only requires you to activate the game onto their servers once, at which point you can play off of their servers, and hack the crap out of it all you want, without them knowing. You also get competitive online capabilities, free of charge, with agreement to their EULA. No, I payed 60$ for the singleplayer and multiplayer by the virtue of the fact that I would not have bought it had it not had multiplayer. You're really good as swallowing PR bullshit though.
No, I understand how marketing and wording can protect a company from retards like you. You do not PAY for their online service. The only way someone can complain, cry, and argue like you are, is if they bought the game to just play online, hacked, and got banned. They deserve to be banned. People who bought the game just for multiplayer, play legitimately, and never get banned, are not complaining about the EULA and blizzards "deviousness".
"Legally I payed 60$ for a license, and nothing more. It could be a license to a folder of screenshots. Does that mean I, as the consumer, should be thankful I received more then a folder of screenshots? Fuck no. What kind of tool thinks that way?"
You apparently? Who doesn't look into what their buying before they purchase? Durr.
|
On October 12 2010 08:45 Schickysc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:40 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 08:40 Schickysc wrote:On October 12 2010 08:34 Half wrote:
Good thing they aren't doing that, then. They provide bnet for free, you follow the rules. Really good deal imo.
Sorry I payed 60$ for b-net. What kind of sheep mentality do you have? Pay 60$ for something then argue they were so generous for giving it to you for free? What the fuck bro?
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Yes they can, because I'm using there proprietary engine and software, which they also own. No, you paid 60$ for the single player campaign, that only requires you to activate the game onto their servers once, at which point you can play off of their servers, and hack the crap out of it all you want, without them knowing. You also get competitive online capabilities, free of charge, with agreement to their EULA. No, I payed 60$ for the singleplayer and multiplayer by the virtue of the fact that I would not have bought it had it not had multiplayer. You're really good as swallowing PR bullshit though. No, I understand how marketing and wording can protect a company from retards like you. You do not PAY for their online service. The only way someone can complain, cry, and argue like you are, is if they bought the game to just play online, hacked, and got banned. They deserve to be banned. People who bought the game just for multiplayer, play legitimately, and never get banned, are not complaining about the EULA and blizzards "deviousness".
You're saying I should be thankful that blizzard is maximizing there profits.
ololwow.
Consumers should never be thankful of publically owned corporations. They exist because there is demand. If blizzard could sell us SC2 without multiplayer and earn just as much money, they would. But they wouldn't. So they didn't. The idea that we should be thankful for a company that is intelligently maximizing profits is absurdly subservient and uncapitalistic.
In fact the basic tenants of capitalism and market economy are based on that the consumer is never thankful of companies. There relationship is purely one of Commensalism, mutual need.
You apparently? Who doesn't look into what their buying before they purchase? Durr.
Actually it says right on the purchase that its only a license, to use the media item known as "Starcraft 2", a collection of assets which may or may not function cohesively as a game.
Sorry but if you're thankful for companies for giving you your moneys worth out out of your product, then you're an absolute shill.
|
On October 12 2010 08:42 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:34 MichaelJLowell wrote:Well the main issue with this post is that your entire argument rests on the slippery slope scenario that a developer will always want to ban a user if they modify game content for any reason, and that simply makes no sense. We've already settled that you merely license the software and in no way own it. Why stop there? Companies in general don't give a damn what you do with their product unless it somehow hurts the companies bottom line. Hacking is bannable because it scares customers away from a product, therefore companies like Blizzard try to prevent anything that can lead to hacking. However, they wouldn't ban it entirely because there is a lot of money to be made from a modding community. That's why we have things like the Galaxy Editor, a service that allows users to modify game content without having to hack. I just don't understand your doomsday scenario of a gaming industry that bans mods entirely because it makes no economical sense. Why completely prevent something that has been proven to increase profits? A wildly-popular free mod is a competing product. That free game can directly compete with your pay-to-purchase product and hurt your bottom line. User-made fixes can extend the shelf life of a video game in an industry that has become increasingly reliant on shoveling people to the next Call of Duty as quickly as possible. And none of this is illegal in any way. If the company is really going to take that stance of banning mods for being competition, then they can do it. But at the same time, they more than likely won't acquire any major growth. Blizzard has taken a mostly hands off approach with modding, only stepping in if it can be considered hacking, and so far Blizzard has experienced massive growth. Blizzard's business model relies on games that last many years, so again it's in their best interest to protect modding.
And that's why Blizzard's next step is to monetize Battle.net. Don't think Blizzard isn't kicking itself that it didn't make a dime from the exploits of Defense of the Ancients. And as I mentioned earlier, the company's already demonstrating that if they can't extract a profit stream from one part of their gaming experience (South Korean Starcraft), they're fairly content on killing the shebang.
|
This has got to be the most boring and superfluous last 10 pages at TL. Both sides have placed their arguments for and against the bans, and have repeated them for at least 10 pages. There's not really much more to be said here. I'm surprised this thread is still open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
