|
On October 12 2010 08:49 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:42 Spawkuring wrote: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.
Does a company not have a right to protect their intelectual property? I mean people worked hard a lot of money was invested into this game.
Blizzard could of easily done what Valve did, and pretty much hire the CS team and buy them out. Instead they let DoTA run. You dont see blizzard going after LoL or HoN saying "this originally started on b.net, thus it is ours" either.
While going after an established scene is a bit harsh, as it seems they are doing with BW, it is a bit different there. Kespa and Gretect never had very good relations to begin with, and now its boiling over.
|
On October 12 2010 08:49 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:42 Spawkuring wrote: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.
And if Blizzard screws the pooch on it, then SC2 will fail and they'll lose out. Keep in mind that making money on mods is still a mostly unexplored market, which is why we're seeing all these things with Bnet and e-Sports. But keep in mind that none of it is illegal or violating contract laws or whatever. It's all about profit, and we as customers have the power to give them that profit. If Blizzard's exploits with Bnet fail, then Blizzard will be the biggest loser in it.
|
And if Blizzard screws the pooch on it, then SC2 will fail and they'll lose out. Keep in mind that making money on mods is still a mostly unexplored market, which is why we're seeing all these things with Bnet and e-Sports. But keep in mind that none of it is illegal or violating contract laws or whatever. It's all about profit, and we as customers have the power to give them that profit. If Blizzard's exploits with Bnet fail, then Blizzard will be the biggest loser in it.
Right, none of that is relevant to contract law, but this is, so its important that consumers realize there is a "ground floor" so to speak, in terms of there rights as consumers as far as digital consumption is concerned. You openly concede the possibility that blizzard can harm the consumer if it views that that is the most profitable course. Which is why its important that precedents are set on how far they can go. Revoking an individual license on local usage of a single player portion of a game for actions done in single player seems too far.
|
On October 12 2010 08:20 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Are you misusing your and you're on purpose? Looked like it and I was curious
I'm still bored though and this is an interesting topic so I'll state my opinion quoting your original post, I'll probably end up agreeing with you in some ways.
On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard’s stance is that since those single player games affect the achievements and score displayed in multiplayer, they can’t be standing for it. In response, CheatHappens point out that these elements “have no bearing on multiplayer standings, matches or games”. Personally, I always thought achievements were harmless. This is causing me to reconsider. The end result is that the several hundreds of people received account bans for cheating in Starcraft 2's single player component, without any prior warning that this would occur. In reality, this entails blizzard will ban for any modifications or programs that interfere with the game, regardless of the effect, and that they have complete administrative control over your Starcraft 2 account. It also implies that programs such as warden will be running, regardless of your format of play. Thoughts?
There should have been a warning, but the cheaters should have also realized that they were cheating in a Blizzard game, since Blizzard is well known at this point for banning the use of third party programs in their previous games, and the fact that they are doing it while connected to battle.net. It is a shame that some people who wanted to mess around in single player probably got banned, but there was the alternative with playing single player offline of battle.net, so they only have themselves to blame for that. I can't comment on the "custom" games you were talking about because you never really explained that well.
Blizzard feels that they are well justified in these bans because it creates an unfair advantage to getting achievements for those who cheated over those who normally play the game. I support the mentality to have achievements and ladder play as fair as possible to all who play the game on battle.net. I will say that the bans are a harsh penalty to enforce for those on single player for just a first offense, but those trying to manipulate the ladder should face any consequences they get.
I do not find the banning of these cheaters to be much of an issue, so that is where you add your next opinion on the matter.
Now you say that this shows that Blizzard has complete administrative control over your Starcraft 2 account. This is unfortunately true. It seems like since World of Warcraft, Blizzard has tried to take more control over peoples accounts. I think this goes back to their attempts at creating a fair play environment for everyone. But it does make them seem power hungry and controlling. Despite this, I think as long as you don't use third party cheats, the average consumer will not be affected by accepting Blizzard's EULA.
Now you might think it is very unreasonable that the consumer should have to blindly accept that Blizzard controls their account, and it is, but Blizzard has had this type of EULA for a few years now with World of Warcraft, and when Starcraft II was announced to be completely based around battle.net. If you knew you would have not liked the idea of doing this, then you should not have bought the game. Or maybe you had not known, or do not own the game right now and still bring up your concerns.
Basically, I only think those complaints should not be associated with the incident of banning those who were using cheats.
As for modding the game, I don't think that seems too restricted, just because Blizzard has tried to supply the consumers with a very extensive map creator to change many aspects of the game for people's enjoyment. But I say seems because Blizzard still tacks on their limits on custom games, which I feel shouldn't be there, and still tries to control every aspects of the user's online experience.
Overall, I don't like the way Blizzard has headed with Starcraft II and battle.net, and I don't support that by not purchasing the game. It might not make a difference in their sales but I don't want to be forced to use whatever system they implement for every aspect of the game. But this banning incident shouldn't be viewed as a negative decision by Blizzard because they are only doing it to provide the best multiplayer environment for their existing customers.
Also I won't go into the legality of their EULA, because I don't feel like they would ban someone unjustly, but also I really doubt that someone would go through the costs of actually trying to sue Blizzard. I still don't like the part in the EULA that says they can terminate your account for any reason, but I do not mind their stance on third party programs that would affect the multiplayer experience.
|
On October 12 2010 08:58 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
And if Blizzard screws the pooch on it, then SC2 will fail and they'll lose out. Keep in mind that making money on mods is still a mostly unexplored market, which is why we're seeing all these things with Bnet and e-Sports. But keep in mind that none of it is illegal or violating contract laws or whatever. It's all about profit, and we as customers have the power to give them that profit. If Blizzard's exploits with Bnet fail, then Blizzard will be the biggest loser in it.
Right, none of that is relevant to contract law, but this is, so its important that consumers realize there is a "ground floor" so to speak, in terms of there rights as consumers as far as digital consumption is concerned. You openly concede the possibility that blizzard can harm the consumer if it views that that is the most profitable course. Which is why its important that precedents are set on how far they can go. Revoking an individual license on local usage of a single player portion of a game for actions done in single player seems too far.
Well keep in mind that the article you linked in the OP says that the reason Blizzard gave for banning is that their exploits have an impact on multiplayer achievements. Achievements are very important to a lot of players, so it's in Blizzard's best interest to enforce it. It wasn't necessarily the fact that they modified the game that caused the ban, but the fact that the modifications had effects on the multiplayer portion of the game.
|
On October 12 2010 08:53 Seide wrote:
Does a company not have a right to protect their intelectual property? I mean people worked hard a lot of money was invested into this game.
...
While going after an established scene is a bit harsh, as it seems they are doing with BW, it is a bit different there. Kespa and Gretect never had very good relations to begin with, and now its boiling over.
The competitive Brood War debacle basically comes down to 1) Whether Blizzard has the right to simply pick and choose when certain "infringements" of intellectual property have outlived their usefulness (where they ignore KeSPA for eight years and then decide to drop the hammer) and 2) Whether it's a good thing that the developer automatically becomes the unquestioned overlord of their product. And I'm not too big on either of those situations.
Blizzard could of easily done what Valve did, and pretty much hire the CS team and buy them out. Instead they let DoTA run. You dont see blizzard going after LoL or HoN saying "this originally started on b.net, thus it is ours" either.
Well, they couldn't. Hell, in the current legal landscape, Farm Town doesn't infringe on Farmville. It takes more than "same genre" to do that.
On October 12 2010 08:53 Spawkuring wrote:And if Blizzard screws the pooch on it, then SC2 will fail and they'll lose out. Keep in mind that making money on mods is still a mostly unexplored market, which is why we're seeing all these things with Bnet and e-Sports. But keep in mind that none of it is illegal or violating contract laws or whatever. It's all about profit, and we as customers have the power to give them that profit. If Blizzard's exploits with Bnet fail, then Blizzard will be the biggest loser in it.
Well, is it smart for Blizzard to sacrifice one of their biggest selling points (a massive mod-making community) for a shot at a direct profit stream? Not sure of that, either.
|
I'm kinda curious as to why anyone would be defending the rights of people to hack the game in any way whatsoever. I mean the game can be played offline can it not. They can't ban you if your doing things to the game offline. I mean there isn't even a reason to hack it, I mean it's been said in this thread more then a few times there are cheat codes for it. There's even custom maps where you can do practically anything with the game you would ever want. So directly changing game files or use hacks in anyway could only be done so with malicious intent. Either to force unearned achievements or to maphack online or any other hacks there might be, the fact still remains that it gives an advantage over others. Though many people do not like achievements or don't care about them there are some that do. If you think I'm wrong in this lemme know, I'm just curious as to why the people that are upset by this whole banning are feeling like this was a bad move on blizzards part. Seems like most are just trying to "fight the power".
|
On October 12 2010 09:11 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Well, is it smart for Blizzard to sacrifice one of their biggest selling points (a massive mod-making community) for a shot at a direct profit stream? Not sure of that, either.
I don't think it's smart either, but then again none of us really know how the e-sport situation will evolve. Nobody really knows what the fuck they are doing because e-sports is a completely unexplored market.
|
There should have been a warning, but the cheaters should have also realized that they were cheating in a Blizzard game, since Blizzard is well known at this point for banning the use of third party programs in their previous games, and the fact that they are doing it while connected to battle.net. It is a shame that some people who wanted to mess around in single player probably got banned, but there was the alternative with playing single player offline of battle.net, so they only have themselves to blame for that. I can't comment on the "custom" games you were talking about because you never really explained that well.
Blizzard feels that they are well justified in these bans because it creates an unfair advantage to getting achievements for those who cheated over those who normally play the game. I support the mentality to have achievements and ladder play as fair as possible to all who play the game on battle.net. I will say that the bans are a harsh penalty to enforce for those on single player for just a first offense, but those trying to manipulate the ladder should face any consequences they get.
I do not find the banning of these cheaters to be much of an issue, so that is where you add your next opinion on the matter.
Now you say that this shows that Blizzard has complete administrative control over your Starcraft 2 account. This is unfortunately true. It seems like since World of Warcraft, Blizzard has tried to take more control over peoples accounts. I think this goes back to their attempts at creating a fair play environment for everyone. But it does make them seem power hungry and controlling. Despite this, I think as long as you don't use third party cheats, the average consumer will not be affected by accepting Blizzard's EULA.
Now you might think it is very unreasonable that the consumer should have to blindly accept that Blizzard controls their account, and it is, but Blizzard has had this type of EULA for a few years now with World of Warcraft, and when Starcraft II was announced to be completely based around battle.net. If you knew you would have not liked the idea of doing this, then you should not have bought the game. Or maybe you had not known, or do not own the game right now and still bring up your concerns.
Basically, I only think those complaints should not be associated with the incident of banning those who were using cheats.
As for modding the game, I don't think that seems too restricted, just because Blizzard has tried to supply the consumers with a very extensive map creator to change many aspects of the game for people's enjoyment. But I say seems because Blizzard still tacks on their limits on custom games, which I feel shouldn't be there, and still tries to control every aspects of the user's online experience.
Overall, I don't like the way Blizzard has headed with Starcraft II and battle.net, and I don't support that by not purchasing the game. It might not make a difference in their sales but I don't want to be forced to use whatever system they implement for every aspect of the game. But this banning incident shouldn't be viewed as a negative decision by Blizzard because they are only doing it to provide the best multiplayer environment for their existing customers.
 . I don't understand why you couldn't have posted that a few pages ago though instead of a stupid back and forth bickering.
We are mostly in agreement, but except for one key thing.
Now you might think it is very unreasonable that the consumer should have to blindly accept that Blizzard controls their account, and it is, but Blizzard has had this type of EULA for a few years now with World of Warcraft, and when Starcraft II was announced to be completely based around battle.net. If you knew you would have not liked the idea of doing this, then you should not have bought the game. Or maybe you had not known, or do not own the game right now and still bring up your concerns.
You're right. This is the standard video game ToS. Its existed for almost two decades now. However, game publishers have always been hesitant to exercise it to its fullest extent. Sometimes because doing so was simply not at all profitable, but other times because they were not sure how it could hold up in a court of law, nor did the infrastructure exist to excersize it to its fullest extent. In short, they didn't have the power. Now, they do, due to increasing role of internet in gaming and newly passes court rulings that can be construed in there favor, consumers really do have to fight for some baseline regulation on online content. So far, its incredibly disproportionately lacking in comparison to almost every other consumer goods sector.
Basically, I only think those complaints should not be associated with the incident of banning those who were using cheats.
I can see how you can get this impression. The term "using cheats" carries an incredibly negative stigma in a competitive community like Starcraft. But Trainers, especially gamers who traditionally play single player games with no mod tools, and often structured in a format to prevent any kind of modding at all, are a fairly basic part of how they game. The idea of purchasing Starcraft 2 to leisurely play the single player, and then having account action taken on you, goes beyond these people indirectly impacting the scarcity of (easy to get anyway) achievements.
This, combined with the above, is just another manifestation of an increasingly disregard for the rights a consumer would enjoy in any other industry. Does banning single player cheaters really detriment the game that much? No, but we both agree that the direction blizzard is going is bad, so criticizing the formation of another precedent is hardly adhering to the slipper slope fallacy.
As for legality, legality is relative to the ideals and demand of society. Interpretation of Consumer rights regulations, applied to normal products, have varied immensely throughout time. Ultimately, the court decision isn't going to be based upon an objective analysis of the law (hint: There isn't one), but personal bias, which is shaped by public opinion.
And I can't imagine for the life of me why the consumer public would actively advocate against policys that could only benefit them, besides the fact that there fanboys or shills, and is really just a startling trend of consumers stupidly, ignorantly, advocating positions contrary to there own interests out of some manufactured position, a trend that is present outside of the game industry as well.
The idea that people should be thankful to receive adequate service from companies is not just disturbing, but actually poisonous towards a market economy.
|
Show nested quote +
For instance, blizzard cannot use copyright law to stop me from creating a starcraft parody mod.
Parody falls under fair use.
|
I've been reading half the thread and I have to say I'm shocked. Not so long ago, when you BOUGHT the game, you could do whatever you wanted to do with them, fry them, eat then, cheat with then, take them for a nice dinner, whatever. Then the ToS and EULA showed up, these pseudo-legit documents would convince players that these are hard laws, defend-able in court's around the globe.
Newsflash, this may be the case in america, but in europe you'd probably be laughed at. So please stop pointing to these as the end all answer to why a bunch of kids got banned.
Secondly I see a lot of posts assuming that these hackers changed gamefiles. This is false for any regular trainer that modifies simple values like for example minerals, gas, pop and shit like that. All this is is a memory lookup (local) to the location where that value is stored, and then changed to whatever. This cheat only works in single player since all game-relevant values of the multiplayer games are kept on the battlenet servers.
Now if in some way this was an off-the-chart trainer/hack that actually worked multiplayer.. well then they got what they deserved, hacking in MP gives legit players a clear disadvantage and ruins the fun of legit players. I'm all for bans like these.
However, banning some sub-copper kid just because he wants a shiny kerrigan avatar and uses a simple min/gas/pop trainer for it.. really? are you guys fucking kidding me that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What competitive player worth his salt gives a shit about mr copper getting full single player games? Take a long hard look at yourself and re-evaluate what you find important instead of caring about what the other guy is doing that has zero effect on yourself.
Note the clear distinction between both cheaters, the one is the MP-cheater that ruins the fun of other gamers, the other is the SP-cheater that find his new kerrigan avatar totally rad and doesn't cheat the ladder, doesn't cheat against any human opponent and doesn't hurt anyone with it...
|
I didn't have internet this weekend so I thought "ah well, let's play some games vs AI"... yea right, the fucking thing wouldn't even LOAD. I could start up the game no prob, but when clicking on 'vs AI' in the Singleplayer thing... all I get is this annoying neverending Flash-like hourglass. Of course they want to monitor every little thing you do with their game. If they can't even make aspects of the singleplayer mode WORK, I would advise them to not give a flying F what people do with the program. Ban hackers, leave those poor SP cheating guys alone.
It's nonsense to ban for singleplayer cheating, imho. Who cares? Seriously? People who use cheats will probably never even play online and if so get pummeled by bronze players, Jesus H. Christ.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Only need 1 thread for this
|
On October 12 2010 09:22 Karok wrote:
Note the clear distinction between both cheaters, the one is the MP-cheater that ruins the fun of other gamers, the other is the SP-cheater that find his new kerrigan avatar totally rad and doesn't cheat the ladder, doesn't cheat against any human opponent and doesn't hurt anyone with it...
he paid for the trainer to a hack site that develops multiplayer cheats.
it's like those stupid PSA's that say when you buy pot from drug dealers, you're funding terrorism.
but in this case, its just 1 company that sells hacks and i don't see why anyone on this site is defending people who use their products.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Closing the other one cause this is bigger.
|
On October 12 2010 09:16 Half wrote:The idea that people should be thankful to receive adequate service from companies is just disturbing.
Are people really arguing that though? I've only seen a tiny number of people use the argument that we should be thankful. In fact if anything, we're in general agreement since we have both used the argument that companies will do whatever makes profit. The only difference being that you think that there should be extra laws prohibiting games companies from banning people for modifying something in single-player because you don't feel it's just. I honestly don't see that happening however because nobody really takes games that seriously to provide consumer rights for them, especially since game companies haven't really done anything to warrant courts stepping in.
I can guarantee you at this point that no court will declare Blizzard as the bad guy in this situation. There's just nothing illegal happening here. You think that there should, but I don't think such a thing will ever happen unless every country takes games seriously like Korea.
|
As far as I know cheathappens doesn't develop multiplayer cheats, then again I dont come there a whole lot...
|
On October 12 2010 09:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
There should have been a warning, but the cheaters should have also realized that they were cheating in a Blizzard game, since Blizzard is well known at this point for banning the use of third party programs in their previous games, and the fact that they are doing it while connected to battle.net. It is a shame that some people who wanted to mess around in single player probably got banned, but there was the alternative with playing single player offline of battle.net, so they only have themselves to blame for that. I can't comment on the "custom" games you were talking about because you never really explained that well.
Blizzard feels that they are well justified in these bans because it creates an unfair advantage to getting achievements for those who cheated over those who normally play the game. I support the mentality to have achievements and ladder play as fair as possible to all who play the game on battle.net. I will say that the bans are a harsh penalty to enforce for those on single player for just a first offense, but those trying to manipulate the ladder should face any consequences they get.
I do not find the banning of these cheaters to be much of an issue, so that is where you add your next opinion on the matter.
Now you say that this shows that Blizzard has complete administrative control over your Starcraft 2 account. This is unfortunately true. It seems like since World of Warcraft, Blizzard has tried to take more control over peoples accounts. I think this goes back to their attempts at creating a fair play environment for everyone. But it does make them seem power hungry and controlling. Despite this, I think as long as you don't use third party cheats, the average consumer will not be affected by accepting Blizzard's EULA.
Now you might think it is very unreasonable that the consumer should have to blindly accept that Blizzard controls their account, and it is, but Blizzard has had this type of EULA for a few years now with World of Warcraft, and when Starcraft II was announced to be completely based around battle.net. If you knew you would have not liked the idea of doing this, then you should not have bought the game. Or maybe you had not known, or do not own the game right now and still bring up your concerns.
Basically, I only think those complaints should not be associated with the incident of banning those who were using cheats.
As for modding the game, I don't think that seems too restricted, just because Blizzard has tried to supply the consumers with a very extensive map creator to change many aspects of the game for people's enjoyment. But I say seems because Blizzard still tacks on their limits on custom games, which I feel shouldn't be there, and still tries to control every aspects of the user's online experience.
Overall, I don't like the way Blizzard has headed with Starcraft II and battle.net, and I don't support that by not purchasing the game. It might not make a difference in their sales but I don't want to be forced to use whatever system they implement for every aspect of the game. But this banning incident shouldn't be viewed as a negative decision by Blizzard because they are only doing it to provide the best multiplayer environment for their existing customers.
. I don't understand why you couldn't have posted that a few pages ago though instead of a stupid back and forth bickering. We are mostly in agreement, but except for one key thing. Show nested quote +
Now you might think it is very unreasonable that the consumer should have to blindly accept that Blizzard controls their account, and it is, but Blizzard has had this type of EULA for a few years now with World of Warcraft, and when Starcraft II was announced to be completely based around battle.net. If you knew you would have not liked the idea of doing this, then you should not have bought the game. Or maybe you had not known, or do not own the game right now and still bring up your concerns.
You're right. This is the standard video game ToS. Its existed for almost two decades now. However, game publishers have always been hesitant to exercise it to its fullest extent. Sometimes because doing so was simply not at all profitable, but other times because they were not sure how it could hold up in a court of law, nor did the infrastructure exist to excersize it to its fullest extent. In short, they didn't have the power. Now, they do, due to increasing role of internet in gaming and newly passes court rulings that can be construed in there favor, consumers really do have to fight for some baseline regulation on online content. So far, its incredibly disproportionately lacking in comparison to almost every other consumer goods sector. Show nested quote +Basically, I only think those complaints should not be associated with the incident of banning those who were using cheats. I can see how you can get this impression. The term "using cheats" carries an incredibly negative stigma in a competitive community like Starcraft. But Trainers, especially gamers who traditionally play single player games with no mod tools, and often structured in a format to prevent any kind of modding at all, are a fairly basic part of how they game. The idea of purchasing Starcraft 2 to leisurely play the single player, and then having account action taken on you, goes beyond these people indirectly impacting the scarcity of (easy to get anyway) achievements. This, combined with the above, is just another manifestation of an increasingly disregard for the rights a consumer would enjoy in any other industry. Does banning single player cheaters really detriment the game that much? No, but we both agree that the direction blizzard is going is bad, so criticizing the formation of another precedent is hardly adhering to the slipper slope fallacy. As for legality, legality is relative to the ideals and demand of society. Interpretation of Consumer rights regulations, applied to normal products, have varied immensely throughout time. Ultimately, the court decision isn't going to be based upon an objective analysis of the law (hint: There isn't one), but personal bias, which is shaped by public opinion. And I can't imagine for the life of me why the consumer public would actively advocate against policys that could only benefit them, besides the fact that there fanboys or shills, and is really just a startling trend of consumers stupidly, ignorantly, advocating positions contrary to there own interests out of some manufactured position, that is present far beyond the gaming industry.
I suppose it is kind of hard for people to try to oppose Blizzard when they are one of the few companies they can trust for a quality game. I still don't think that Blizzard will end up doing anything too radical that would hurt the average player, though at this point it seems the slippery slope could happen.
It should have been made more clear by somebody, I don't know, that trainers should have been left for use in offline mode, but some people definitely were using it just to get stupid achievements, which is why I'm not surprised to see Blizzard ban everyone who used them. But yeah the penalty might have been too harsh when you consider those you mentioned who's primary focus on the game involves the use of trainers.
As long as the consumers hold the money, Blizzard will try to please them, but I don't like seeing them try to see what they can get away with while keeping the consumers happy.
|
he paid for the trainer to a hack site that develops multiplayer cheats.
They don't, read next time.
I suppose it is kind of hard for people to try to oppose Blizzard when they are one of the few companies they can trust for a quality game. I still don't think that Blizzard will end up doing anything too radical that would hurt the average player, though at this point it seems the slippery slope could happen.
It should have been made more clear by somebody, I don't know, that trainers should have been left for use in offline mode, but some people definitely were using it just to get stupid achievements, which is why I'm not surprised to see Blizzard ban everyone who used them. But yeah the penalty might have been too harsh when you consider those you mentioned who's primary focus on the game involves the use of trainers.
As long as the consumers hold the money, Blizzard will try to please them, but I don't like seeing them try to see what they can get away with while keeping the consumers happy.
This is really independent of blizzard though. A court case would really only result in very minor damages for blizzard, but it would set an excellent precedent for future occurrences.
Though i'll be honest a court case has very little chance of winning. Mainly because their simply isn't the demand from consumers to push this cause forward.
I can guarantee you at this point that no court will declare Blizzard as the bad guy in this situation. There's just nothing illegal happening here.
An American court wouldn't rule against Blizzard at this point, but laws about these things are entirely subjective. If there is sufficient demand for laws protecting digital consumers, then there will be. Sadly, we're going to have to endure a lot harsher abuses from corporations before the public finally realizes that the current system is shit I'd just hope people realize sooner rather then later, though people typically tend to realize later.
Even pursuing legal action against blizzard would send the right message.
|
It makes perfect sense in my mind for Blizzard to ban single-player hackers because if you're hacking the single-player mode (which is by the way kind of sad), there's no reason not to assume you're hacking the multiplayer as well, as you obviously have both the means and the intent.
Then again, I'm not perfectly 100% on the security system, so this is me assuming the protection starts when you log-in / initialize, meaning it's the same whether you're playing Multiplayer or Single-Player.
Edit// I read through some of the posts here and figured out that I was incorrect. Disregard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
