|
I'm enjoying this healthy debate!
The fact of the matter is that you do not own SC2. Yes, you paid for it, but it's like paying to go see a show at the theater. You got to see the show and enjoy the show, but you don't own it.
It's the same thing with movies and CD's. I spent $15.00 to purchase this DVD so it's mine, why can't I make copies of it and sell it on the cheap to all my friends? It's because the material saved on that little plastic disc does not actually belong to you, and what you actually paid for was the right to view it privately. As for SC2, you did not buy the game. You only bought the right to play it, depending on your adherence to the terms stipulated in the contract you signed at installation.
So is this business model ethical? Yes and no, and good arguments can be made either way. I have a gut reaction to get angry at people who cheat to easily obtain achievements/wins/whatevers that I had to practice and work hard for, and I absolutely support these recent bans and suspensions from Blizzard. But hey, I can only speak for myself.
|
I'm sorry but someone who is ready to cheat in single player just to get achievements is probably crazy enough to cheat in multiplayer.
Do you really want cheaters in the ladder?
|
Without a statement from Blizzard saying why the people were banned, any specualtion regarding Blizzard's motives is just going to spark a needless argument with one side defending Blizzard and the other attacking. Without any insight into each individual case, it's impossible to say whether Blizzard is in the right or the wrong - I'd say that the majority of people's reaction to this will be 'meh', you don't need to alter the code of the game, and it is in the ToS, so really you're running a big risk, as BNet2 seems to be very much like Steam and Xbox Live in regards to these sort of "against the ToS" changes.
|
You cheated and got caught. Suck it up.
fireb0rn what disproportionate punishment are you talking about fgs, they have to buy a new game. They obviously have money to burn, since they are paying for cheats in the first place.
Everything they want to do they could have done legally, except they wouldn't get the achievements. And would have to work for them like everyone else who is interested in those.
Oh and keep on digging Half. How is trying to look smart working out for you? 
|
On October 12 2010 06:19 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that.
On October 12 2010 06:20 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
But they're not. Single player achievement cheaters got 14 day suspensions.
Ladder hackers got permabans.
Show nested quote +
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.
The world doesn't revolve around you. This was another suspicion of mine which he clarified, and nothing to do with your argument. Get out of here and stop replying like a rude kid, and maybe people would listen to you.
|
i smell alot law suits against blizzard. Buying the game by the EU laws give you rights to do whatever you want with it. If you cheat or do anything else that is against blizzard rules they can ban your game account, but you should still be able to play single player and offline mode, even re-activate the game if you have to reinstall..
This is like buying TV In order to use it you have to activate it online and login each time before you watch TV. But buying it you agree to not watch what you want but what the manufacture want you to watch. You watch what you want and they ban your TV rendering it useless. I realy hope this stop. There should be laws that guarantee our rights as costumers, selling of content in game is bad thing 1st of all its virtual 2nd you don't realy own it, its property of the company that pretend to sell it to you, they can ban your account, and they don't have to give you reasons for it. Online and virtual property should be considered privete just like your car,house,TV,jewelery and other stuffs. Ask yourself a question what happen to things that you buy if the company decide to stop the servers this happend to alot mmorpgs that used micro payments. I will make a petition when i find the time for it. and send it to the EU costumer rights, becouse i don't think the current laws are suited for the current situation with all the games with micropayments
|
On October 12 2010 06:33 AcOrP wrote:
i smell alot law suits against blizzard. Buying the game by the EU laws give you rights to do whatever you want with it. If you cheat or do anything else that is against blizzard rules they can ban your game account, but you should still be able to play single player and offline mode, even re-activate the game if you have to reinstall..
This is like buying TV In order to use it you have to activate it online and login each time before you watch TV. But buying it you agree to not watch what you want but what the manufacture want you to watch. You watch what you want and they ban your TV rendering it useless. I realy hope this stop. There should be laws that guarantee our rights as costumers, selling of content in game is bad thing 1st of all its virtual 2nd you don't realy own it, its property of the company that pretend to sell it to you, they can ban your account, and they don't have to give you reasons for it. Online and virtual property should be considered privete just like your car,house,TV,jewelery and other stuffs. Ask yourself a question what happen to things that you buy if the company decide to stop the servers this happend to alot mmorpgs that used micro payments. I will make a petition when i find the time for it. and send it to the EU costumer rights, becouse i don't think the current laws are suited for the current situation with all the games with micropayments
No this is not at all like this. There is no other customers hurt by you watching what you want. Like there is in this case.
|
On October 12 2010 06:23 DigitalD[562] wrote:
I think think that Xbox Live resets peoples achievements to zero and puts a cheater label on their profile picture to shame them when they play online. Doing something like this a better way to go about dealing with single player cheaters.
Wow really? I never knew this because Steven Seagal never cheats. I wish blizzard would strip all their achievements and make them have only 1 profile pix saying I cheated and got caught! Baamm!
|
You go drag Blizzard to court AcOrP. Fight the man!
|
If they're banning people for cheating in single player, they might as well ban people that did the 5-minuite trick on that zeratul mission regarding the overmind...the two situations are quite similar.
Putting a disclaimer in the ToS to forbid cheating in the offline mode is silly...another analogy would be to recall everyone's PS2 (or w/e console) that used the "game shark" cheat code system; using a 3rd party mod to play a single player game...
I can see Blizzard's side somewhat, where they do not want people to be 'cheating at all' but they should really know better, singleplayer is singleplayer (maybe just reset the user's achievement points or something, but banning is over the top)
|
On October 12 2010 06:36 Ichabod wrote:
If they're banning people for cheating in single player, they might as well ban people that did the 5-minuite trick on that zeratul mission regarding the overmind...the two situations are quite similar.
Putting a disclaimer in the ToS to forbid cheating in the offline mode is silly...another analogy would be to recall everyone's PS2 (or w/e console) that used the "game shark" cheat code system; using a 3rd party mod to play a single player game...
I can see Blizzard's side somewhat, where they do not want people to be 'cheating at all' but they should really know better, singleplayer is singleplayer (maybe just reset the user's achievement points or something, but banning is over the top)
Trailers, the issue is modifying game files to cheat. Not using blizzards built in cheats or game mechanics to "cheat". Not at all similar 1 is using built in features or using bugs, the other is straight hacking.
|
On October 12 2010 06:33 AcOrP wrote:
i smell alot law suits against blizzard. Buying the game by the EU laws give you rights to do whatever you want with it. If you cheat or do anything else that is against blizzard rules they can ban your game account, but you should still be able to play single player and offline mode, even re-activate the game if you have to reinstall..
This is like buying TV In order to use it you have to activate it online and login each time before you watch TV. But buying it you agree to not watch what you want but what the manufacture want you to watch. You watch what you want and they ban your TV rendering it useless. I realy hope this stop. There should be laws that guarantee our rights as costumers, selling of content in game is bad thing 1st of all its virtual 2nd you don't realy own it, its property of the company that pretend to sell it to you, they can ban your account, and they don't have to give you reasons for it. Online and virtual property should be considered privete just like your car,house,TV,jewelery and other stuffs. Ask yourself a question what happen to things that you buy if the company decide to stop the servers this happend to alot mmorpgs that used micro payments. I will make a petition when i find the time for it. and send it to the EU costumer rights, becouse i don't think the current laws are suited for the current situation with all the games with micropayments
I know nobody takes achievement points seriously, but is there any law to protect a player's time and effort investment into online achievements? Nope, while it's so heart-wrenching sad(/sarcasm) that these players who cheat for online achievements are banned, I am sure there are some players around the world who appreciates Blizzard taking the time and effort to uphold the integrity and value of these achievements/portraits.
|
You can cheat all you want in Sc2. There are cheat codes. If you want to take it to the next level, play custom games of missions and control Z units or whatever. What these people were trying to do was not really for fun or whatever. It was to get achievements that others had to work for. I personally don't care, but some do. For some people, competing for achievements is as important to them as 1v1 competitions are to us.
Having said that, if you want to cheat in Single player, thats fine. When you get achievements and go online, thats considered cheating. Blizzard is 100% in the right here.
|
On October 12 2010 06:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:24 Zerokaiser wrote:On October 12 2010 04:37 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 04:36 Sentenal wrote:On October 12 2010 04:28 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 04:27 Seide wrote:
Modyfing game files is modyfing game files. It is against the ToS whether it is in single player or multiplayer. Sucks for the people who got banned, but you cannot argue Blizzard being in the wrong for this. So you're essentially arguing that people who purchase digital products are entitled to absolutely no consumer rights and protections? Clauses of the ToS like prohibiting multiplayer exploitation have legal basis. They interfere with the operations of company owned servers, and could, technically, be prosecuted as the distribution of malware. There is no legal legislation that prohibits consumers from modifying the code of there product, so long as no reverse engineering of encrypted information is involved. Moreover, no legal legislation I support these bans. If you notice these "trainers" don't do anything that the ingame cheats for SC2 do EXCEPT disable achievements. That is you can just use those ingame cheats to achieve the same effect, but you won't get achievements.
The SOLE reason to use a trainer like this is to cheat in order to get achievements. So yes they should be banned for that. This is false. If they said they agreed to the terms of use, then that means they agreed to be banned if they modified game files. What people were doing here was harmless, but if it goes against the terms of use, Blizzard has every right to ban them. 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. 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. Show nested quote + 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 conflict ion between the two. Your point literally refutes itself.
Read that without cutting the sentence in half.
Please explain how my analogy is irrelevent. In the analogy, you join a group that provides a service (RC Racing) with the agreement that you will not in any way modify the product you use the service with. That is the same situation as with StarCraft 2 and Activision Blizzard. Blizzard provides a service (Battle.Net) with the agreement that you will not modify (use trainers with) the product (StarCraft 2) you use the service with.
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
|
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.
&
thisguy
Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that.
Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4).
Read that without cutting the sentence in half.
It doesn't change the fact that its self contradictory. Please, resolve the confliction for me, if you can kthx.
Please explain how my analogy is irrelevent. In the analogy, you join a group that provides a service (RC Racing) with the agreement that you will not in any way modify the product you use the service with. That is the same situation as with StarCraft 2 and Activision Blizzard. Blizzard provides a service (Battle.Net) with the agreement that you will not modify (use trainers with) the product (StarCraft 2) you use the service with.
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
The Competitors in an RC racing competition are not customers.
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
No, because maphackers create a very clear and demonstrable interference of service. In addition, they manipulate network packets, in addition to purely local data.
|
Oh i'm sure people who hack offline don't think about doing it online. I think it's the principle really, so having that said, why hack? Was the game you bought not good enough?
|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
& thisguy Show nested quote +Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined Show nested quote +1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4).
Bringing up pointless semantics? Oh dear, way to ignore everything I said and prove my first statement correct.
|
On October 12 2010 06:36 Ichabod wrote:
If they're banning people for cheating in single player, they might as well ban people that did the 5-minuite trick on that zeratul mission regarding the overmind...the two situations are quite similar.
Putting a disclaimer in the ToS to forbid cheating in the offline mode is silly...another analogy would be to recall everyone's PS2 (or w/e console) that used the "game shark" cheat code system; using a 3rd party mod to play a single player game...
I can see Blizzard's side somewhat, where they do not want people to be 'cheating at all' but they should really know better, singleplayer is singleplayer (maybe just reset the user's achievement points or something, but banning is over the top)
They are banning people for using THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE to cheat. Blizzard has AUTHORIZED CHEATS for single player. Understand the difference. GAME SHARKS were authorized by SONY for usage. That's why they could be distributed. It was NOT THIRD PARTY.
SPEED RUNS are simply playing the game as quickly as possibly. They are unintended consequences of the game or level design, not a cheat. Closer to an exploit.
Single player is linked to multiplayer through achievements. If you are cheating in single player, you are cheating in multiplayer, because you are getting achievements. That's why they let you cheat with the AUTHORIZED cheats. Those disable achievements.
|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
& thisguy Show nested quote +Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined Show nested quote +1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4). It doesn't change the fact that its self contradictory. Please, resolve the confliction for me, if you can kthx. Show nested quote +
Please explain how my analogy is irrelevent. In the analogy, you join a group that provides a service (RC Racing) with the agreement that you will not in any way modify the product you use the service with. That is the same situation as with StarCraft 2 and Activision Blizzard. Blizzard provides a service (Battle.Net) with the agreement that you will not modify (use trainers with) the product (StarCraft 2) you use the service with.
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
The Competitors in an RC racing competition are not customers. Show nested quote +
Using trainers and modifying game files breaks the same rules in the ToS as maphacking. Please stop manipulating the specifics in what I say and let's debate the actual legality of what Blizzard did. As far as I'm concerned, what they did is perfectly within their right even if it's not "moral" or necessary.
No, because maphackers create a very clear and demonstrable interference of service. In addition, they manipulate network packets, in addition to purely local data.
its not local play
|
On October 12 2010 06:44 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:
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.
& thisguy Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined 1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4). Bringing up pointless semantics? Oh dear, way to ignore everything I said and prove my first statement correct.
The law is semantics. Any argument concerning legality is an argument of semantics. I am claiming that the stipulation in the ToS preventing end user modification of the game are arbitrary and unreasonable. You demonstrated a potential casual reasoning blizzard might have for the banning, but that does not directly refute the fact that the legal stipulation is unreasonable on the behalf of the consumer.
its not local play
Nice reasoning ther bro.
and also.
SEMANTICS HURF DURF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NURTFz-26UI/SsC4KFoc3KI/AAAAAAAABDI/A8GfdE_rm-8/s400/crying-baby.jpg)
