| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:08 Paver wrote: So if someone opens the game box puts the cd in finds the term of service, actually reads it (!) and decides they do not agree can they then take the game back for a full refund? You can take anything back for a full refund if you keep the receipt, at least in civilized countries. | ||
|
Zestypasta
United States61 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:05 fireb0rn wrote: Why, when something like this happens, do people automatically jump and say "it's in the EULA, so it's fine"? We KNOW that it is legal for Blizzard to do this. The only question is whether it is just/reasonable for them to do it. The fact that people are undermining the achievement system is a problem, but the punishment is clearly not proportionate to the crime. If the problem is that they are getting achievement points they don't deserve, why would you not just disable achievements on their account? Why would you ban someone for something--using trainers, hacks in SP--that is acceptable in 100% of other games? It's ridiculous. Either method of punishment (disabling points / banning) works perfectly as a deterrent/punishment, but I suppose only one potentially makes Blizzard more money, so I guess their reasoning is pretty self-explanatory... Actually Half isn't saying its legal. People that use these are probably using map hacks too so even though it may be evil to you it makes sense for blizzard to use their banning abilities to me. I don't feel sorry for them at all. They were warned. So that covers my thoughts on whether Blizzard SHOULD have done it. Now I will cover why they CAN do it. Even though this has been said multiple times I'm going to say it again; Everyone agreed to the EULA so you are legally bound to it. | ||
|
stevensegal
Canada3 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:08 kojinshugi wrote: No one dares ban you, you'll break their bones with your aikido. True, Steven Seagal never cheats, I break the bones of cheaters with my slow chop. Don't mistake it, slow but powerful! | ||
|
PandaPolice
Australia86 Posts
There's a reason why those people gets only 14 days ban. For those who got perma-banned, I won't be surprise if they cheat during ladder and claim they have done "nothing". Riiiiight.... | ||
|
Merano
Austria105 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:05 fireb0rn wrote: Why, when something like this happens, do people automatically jump and say "it's in the EULA, so it's fine"? We KNOW that it is legal for Blizzard to do this. The only question is whether it is just/reasonable for them to do it. The fact that people are undermining the achievement system is a problem, but the punishment is clearly not proportionate to the crime. If the problem is that they are getting achievement points they don't deserve, why would you not just disable achievements on their account? Why would you ban someone for something--using trainers, hacks in SP--that is acceptable in 100% of other games? It's ridiculous. Either method of punishment (disabling points / banning) works perfectly as a deterrent/punishment, but I suppose only one potentially makes Blizzard more money, so I guess their reasoning is pretty self-explanatory... so you think the appropriate sentence for someone stealing 1000$ is to take away the 1000$ from him? I agree that a ban is harsh; but so far I have mostly read about 14 day suspensions there have been several threads about players complaining about other players achievement points; even if most of us don't care about achievement points, some others are; so if someone messes around with the points, I think is legit for Blizzard to be harsh here | ||
|
tacrats
476 Posts
http://www.cheathappens.com/show_board2.asp?headID=101081&titleID=13225 | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:16 vica wrote: Blizzard could also be taking the lazy and impartial? approach. Anyone who does anything out of line is automatically banned. It would make sense. Treat minor and major infractions the same, so it's less work. Even if it is a minor infraction, it's still a violation of their rules. Similar to treating a convenience store robber to a bank robber. Possibly. But they're not. Single player achievement cheaters got 14 day suspensions. Ladder hackers got permabans. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Even though this has been said multiple times I'm going to say it again; Everyone agreed to the EULA so you are legally bound to it. Contracts can't stipulate anything they want, unreasonable stipulations can easily be challenged in court. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:19 kojinshugi wrote: But they're not. Single player achievement cheaters got 14 day suspensions. Ladder hackers got permabans. Makes a bit more sense then I suppose. We need Blizzard to speak about this. | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:04 Half wrote: http://www.cheathappens.com/show_board.asp?titleID=13225 No. Seriously, this thread has officially come full circle or something. Think i'll stop being a forum warrior and let you guys have some fun D:. Good, because it's everyone vs. you and you have no argument other than regurgitating there is no legal basis. I'm sorry but what does your link mean? Are you saying because X amount o cheaters claim to have perm bans that it means we should take their word as legitimate, and that they only cheated in single player although many others were only given temp bans for the same thing? That forum has like 1 total post a day, honestly. Do you know what happens, all the time, after a banwave? There are hundreds of little kids saying they never hacked. And try to me again how botting, which can be 100% client side is "okay." | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
But they're not. Single player achievement cheaters got 14 day suspensions. Ladder hackers got permabans. Makes a bit more sense then I suppose. We need Blizzard to speak about this. I swear to god you two are incapable of reading. I'm sorry but what does your link mean? Are you saying because X amount o cheaters claim to have perm bans that it means we should take their word as legitimate, and that they only cheated in single player although many others were only given temp bans for the same thing? That forum has like 1 total post a day, honestly. Realize that forum is the source for everything. If you're making an ad-hominem to attack the legitimacy of them as a source, then we can't even assume blizzard took any action at all. Maybe they were all maphacking and they just blamed it on trailers. Huruwuwahuh??? The basis of this argument relies on accepting that they are a semicredible source. Otherwise there isn't even anything to argue. Good, because it's everyone vs. you and you have no argument other than regurgitating there is no legal basis. You want to refute the arguments I made earlier this thread on why the legal basis is questionable? Oh wait, nobody has for five pages. | ||
|
BulldogBCN
Spain50 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:06 Half wrote: Except I never compared it to blizzard cheaters D:, nor did I even compare anything at all. Man you're hopeless bro. you said people were associating corporate policy with justice. you said that because you don't think blizzard is acting just when they ban people based on a strict interpretation of their EULA (=their corporate policy). then you linked to an article about corporate crime and asked "is this justice?". it's pretty clear what you were doing there... but whatever, i'll stop debating with you now. you said it yourself, i'm hopeless. i'll never convince an internet robin hood like you that he did something wrong...  | ||
|
cabarkapa
United States1011 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:49 Half wrote: Find me a valid point I haven't responded to. Go! And for the record, it wasn't me who started debating on semantics. u srs troll? lol. that guy was right, should never have bothered with you t-t. Oh I apologize you did respond, just didn't respond very well. Also you extended the unnecessary debates when it could have easily been ignored. On October 12 2010 04:43 Half wrote: You failed to acknowledge that battle.net is the service that you log on to in order to play Starcraft II online. Because someone banned from battle.net cannot play Starcraft II, does not mean someone who has Starcraft II can choose to play offline from battle.net. It is not an uncommon occurrence for Blizzard to ban people for cheating online, how are we supposed to have sympathy for those who are not only stupid enough to purchase cheats, but stupid enough to use them while connected to a service that Blizzard can so easily monitor? I guess that post was also where that little "arbitrary" argument popped up, but Blizzard lays down the rules that they will stand by as a company. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the game. Blizzard is looking to preserve fairness to all players in the sense of acquiring achievements, which means banning those cheating and are able to create an unfair advantage for themselves when it comes to those achievements. | ||
|
DigitalD[562]
United States80 Posts
| ||
|
Me1234
Germany219 Posts
the built in cheat codes should be enough for everyone, the rest is just achievement whoring and i'm against it. this way achievements still mean something even though its not much but it seems there are so many people out there who really care about achievements. Ban them all. | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On October 12 2010 04:37 Half wrote: No, they don't. The idea that TOS supersedes consumer rights and legal authority is absolutely retarded. No, ToS was intended to be used to maintain legal authority and support consumer rights, not for companies to subvert both for a higher profit margin. StarCraft 2 is a product that is assimilated into Battle.net, and it was when consumers purchased it and agreed to use it. Of course I support consumer rights, but I feel the bans are acceptable. Imagine an RC racing league that prohibits vehicles that have in any way been modified from their out-of-package configuration (minus batteries, of course). If you change the wheels on your car for practice, but then try to put the proper ones back on for the tournaments, you've voided your eligibility to enter and you were aware of that when you joined the RC league. When you buy an electronic product you can tear it open and look at it, but it will void your warranty and you knew that when you bought it. Trainers and other game modifications that don't directly influence multiplayer are only a step away from doing so. You purchased a product that is part of an online service provided by Activision Blizzard with the agreement that you would not modify it, and you modified it. "Consumer rights" do not transcend an agreement to not undermine the service Activision Blizzard provides. | ||
|
Zestypasta
United States61 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:19 Half wrote: Contracts can't stipulate anything they want, unreasonable stipulations can easily be challenged in court. It seems to me like the code belongs to blizzard and that modifying the code would conflict the EULA. I'm pretty sure other companies would've done this had their game been set up in this style where singleplayer affects multiplayer (achievements). | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:24 Zerokaiser wrote: StarCraft 2 is a product that is assimilated into Battle.net, and it was when consumers purchased it and agreed to use it. Of course I support consumer rights, but I feel the bans are acceptable. Imagine an RC racing league that prohibits vehicles that have in any way been modified from their out-of-package configuration (minus batteries, of course). If you change the wheels on your car for practice, but then try to put the proper ones back on for the tournaments, you've voided your eligibility to enter and you were aware of that when you joined the RC league. When you buy an electronic product you can tear it open and look at it, but it will void your warranty and you knew that when you bought it. Trainers and other game modifications that don't directly influence multiplayer are only a step away from doing so. You purchased a product that is part of an online service provided by Activision Blizzard with the agreement that you would not modify it, and you modified it. "Consumer rights" do not transcend an agreement to not undermine the service Activision Blizzard provides. This has been said again and again. No matter how you tell Half that his mind will create some circular logic that counteracts everything you said in his own head. He cannot comprehend what you are saying even though he can read the words. People have provided him with their linear logic, he has yet to do the same. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 06:24 Zerokaiser wrote: StarCraft 2 is a product that is assimilated into Battle.net, and it was when consumers purchased it and agreed to use it. Of course I support consumer rights, but I feel the bans are acceptable. Imagine an RC racing league that prohibits vehicles that have in any way been modified from their out-of-package configuration (minus batteries, of course). If you change the wheels on your car for practice, but then try to put the proper ones back on for the tournaments, you've voided your eligibility to enter and you were aware of that when you joined the RC league. When you buy an electronic product you can tear it open and look at it, but it will void your warranty and you knew that when you bought it. Trainers and other game modifications that don't directly influence multiplayer are only a step away from doing so. You purchased a product that is part of an online service provided by Activision Blizzard with the agreement that you would not modify it, and you modified it. "Consumer rights" do not transcend an agreement to not undermine the service Activision Blizzard provides. rofl. You're analogy is completely irrelevant, if you feel otherwise please elaborate, but I suppose you were just looking for ways to make an exceptionally poor point look reasonable. See below. Trainers and other game modifications that don't directly influence multiplayer are only a step away from doing so. You purchased a product that is part of an online service provided by Activision Blizzard with the agreement that you would not modify it, and you modified it. "Consumer rights" do not transcend an agreement to not undermine the service Activision Blizzard provides. Read the two bolded points. Note the lack of confliction between the two. Your point literally refutes itself. "Trainers don't interfere with multiplayer in any direct way, as a result, they have the right to ban you for interfering with there service". wtf brolol. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs Clem
Dark vs herO
AllThingsProtoss
Circuito Brasileiro de…
BSL Season 20
Hawk vs perroflaco
Dienmax vs Jumper
SOOP Duel Series
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Rain
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Rush
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
