|
Recently, Blizzard has banned several community members for using third party cheats in single player games and custom games versus AI.
The cheats being used were not the maphacks or drophacks we're accustomed to in multiplayer games, but rather, "Trainers", local game hacks used to manipulate local, offline, play. These work in single player, but not in multiplayer, because single player games are entirely local, and only upload critical achievement and completion data onto multiplayer.
In practice, the work functionally identical to exploiting in game single player exploits, or the use of blizzard sanctioned cheat codes.
The same report was also confirmed in the Rock Paper Shotgun gaming blog
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?
(Original reported by Cheathappens.com. They don't host maphacks or any competitive hack, only single player trainers, which have traditionally never been the subject of controversy)
|
Thoughts?
They got owned.
User was warned for this post
|
We already knew Blizzard's management of Battle.net 2.0 was pretty moronic, so this just follows suit.
|
It's really absurd. Can you imagine being banned from playing any other game on your computer for using a trainer in single player?
|
On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:
In practice, the work functionally identical to exploiting in game single player exploits, or the use of blizzard sanctioned cheat codes.
In practice sure, but Blizzards codes disable achievement gain. Thus, even if you cheat to get through the campaign faster to get through the story, you do not earn the achievements as you have not earned them.
On October 12 2010 04:27 floor exercise wrote:
It's really absurd. Can you imagine being banned from playing any other game on your computer for using a trainer in single player?
Why not?
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.
People cheating with trailers to get achievements they do not deserve == People cheating with map/drop hacks to get wins in multiplayer they do not deserve.
Sure a much smaller sub-set of people care about said achievements, but keeping a legitimate playing field in all aspects of the game, including single player is important.
It may not be important to you, it's not really important to me, but someone out there took time to get those achievements legitimately and it's important to them.
|
Well there should be a warning for that.Banning for using trainers in single player is really stupid.....They should just remove the achievements of said account if it "matters".ROFL who gives a fuck about achievements anyway?
|
The "best" fix to this would be to just remove achievements. It would fix alot of stuff such as those people that join games and leave them just for achievements as well as would prevent Blizzard "needing" to ban people who cheat in single player.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Well as much as I don't think Blizzard should be doing this, I'm not sure if consumers actually own the right to modify what they buy, as strange as that sounds, because I know modding video game consoles is actually illegal.
|
|
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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? You clicked the box. If you're not happy with it, you shouldn't have clicked the box.
|
On October 12 2010 04:33 TMTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +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? You clicked the box. If you're not happy with it, you shouldn't have clicked the box.
That was a yes or no question you know.
So you're arguing consumers of digital products should not be given any consumer protections what so ever?
|
Why are they banning for cheating in campaign? Thats like banning people for using "power overwhelming" in sc1. And its not like people are gonna judge how good a player is based on their achievements
|
|
|
On October 12 2010 04:33 skyR wrote:There's already a thread on this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159820Why do some of you defend people that use trainers thinking they don't deserve a permanent ban? You do realize that the majority (probably all) the people that use trainers also use maphacks.
oh sorry I only searched sc2 general >.>.
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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.
|
It seems to me that Blizzard already provides enough cheat codes for single player, all of which void achievements, that there is no need for trainers etc.
When you purchase SC2 you effectively purchase a licence to use the game under the EULA, and Blizzard reserves the right to revoke your licence at any point for any reason. So if you decide to alter the original game in an unintended and (possibly harmful) manner they can ban you.
With current licencing policies, you don't actually own a copy of SC2, you lease it. So I understand why Blizzard may decide to ban people abusing the game.
On the other side single player has usually been typically a no holds barred event, allowing people to explore the inner and outer workings of the game.
But I say people should read the EULA before hitting accept and installing your game, especially if you plan on using 3rd party add ons. This is particularly important on games that require you to play online, or publicly share your progress. Blizzard is sending out a message not to mess with their stuff, but I think it's a bit harsh.
|
On October 12 2010 04:36 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with the game so long as it does not affect others. And no, achievements mean absolutely nothing. If you think they have an effect on multiplayer you are dumb.
Cheating online = bad. Cheating on your own = why should I care? I know why Blizzard cares: money.
|
On October 12 2010 04:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Did they click "Yes, I agree to the terms of use" when they installed the game? Yes
Do the terms of use say something to the effect of "we can ban you for modifying game files"? Yes
Did these people modify game files? Yes
So where is the problem?
|
On October 12 2010 04:38 floor exercise wrote:
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with the game so long as it does not affect others. And no, achievements mean absolutely nothing. If you think they are have an effect on multiplayer you are dumb.
Cheating online = bad. Cheating on your own = why should I care? I know why Blizzard cares, money.
The problem being allowing hacked exe files and such into their online environment that spans all their games. You are feel to cheat if you play the game offline, which you can.
|
What kind of cheats are they? Are they something that cant be done in custom maps, or blizzard's in-game cheats? IF the cheats are made specifically to win and still score achievements(which blizz' cheats wont), I can understand banning. Still seems a bit harsh. Personally would prefer SP to not be tied to multi, but it is what it is.
Also, even if you think achievements are dumb/useless, it is a part of the experience blizzard is creating-- they are right to defend it. The defense that it isn't directly hurting people and therefore OK, isnt really right. Exaggerated example: wow raiding. These "external games" like achievements, bragging rights etc are part of the experience they're selling. It might not be for us, but some do people care.
|
Wow this is so funny, they got owned so hard. Getting banned for using cheat in the single player? It is a really embarassing way to be banned imo.
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No that is not at all what I am arguing, you can modify your client fine, and you can go ahead and play offline with your modified client and you will not get banned.
When you login to Battle.net this changes, you are logging into a service Blizzard provides for you.
There are terms to using this service, part of it is a unmodified client. If you want to modify your client, by all means you can go ahead and mod the game completely and play it offline or on your own service.
You are using a modified client with trailers to login to Blizzards Battle.net servers. Clearly breaking their ToS for said service. Furthermore you are now cheating the service to get achievements you did not actually earn. A ban is a legitimate response for Blizzard here.
|
I dont get the need for trainers/cheats in single player games. Sure, if a game doesnt have built-in cheats then i can see why. But if you just want to get through the sc2 Sp campaign the built-in cheats are there, but you dont get achievements (obviously). if you want the achievements, then the only way you should be able to get them is by doing it legit.
|
The fault does not lie with the consumer, rather the fault is with bad design. Single player should be completely separate from Multi player.
An alternative approach by Blizzard could have been to reset the single player achievements of those found cheating in single player. I think this would have been much better than banning people. That is a bit drastic if you ask me.
|
What's even more surprising is that people actually pay money for the trainers this site makes
|
On October 12 2010 04:39 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +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. Did they click "Yes, I agree to the terms of use" when they installed the game? Yes Do the terms of use say something to the effect of "we can ban you for modifying game files"? Yes Did these people modify game files? Yes So where is the problem?
The problem is that a company doesn't possess the right to repossess the end consumers of a product on the grounds of technicality.
And yes, I'm aware that product was a service. So are a variety of things. Hotels are a service, yet if I were kicked out a hotel for a reason that was deemed "arbitrary", the hotel would face legal repercussions.
No that is not at all what I am arguing, you can modify your client fine, and you can go ahead and play offline with your modified client and you will not get banned.
When you login to Battle.net this changes, you are logging into a service Blizzard provides for you.
There are terms to using this service, part of it is a unmodified client. If you want to modify your client, by all means you can go ahead and mod the game completely and play it offline or on your own service.
You are using a modified client with trailers to login to Blizzards Battle.net servers. Clearly breaking their ToS for said service. Furthermore you are now cheating the service to get achievements you did not actually earn. A ban is a legitimate response for Blizzard here.
First of all, there is no distinction between Starcraft 2 as a product and Starcraft 2 as a service, the way it has been marketed and sold. A person banned from B-net cannot access Starcraft 2.
Starcraft 2 is a service. Similar any variety of services. Indeed, most services maintain the right to physical kick you out if you're behaving in a way that detriments other consumers, or the ability of the company to function. However, they cannot arbitrarily kick you out, even if that arbitrary reason was outlined on the TOS.
|
If you are trying to earn achievements in single player by modifying files, you are cheating. I'm betting that you are probably connected to some of these "trainers" in some way and are just being mad that people are getting caught for cheating. There's absolutely nothing wrong for Blizzard to ban these individuals.
|
On October 12 2010 04:43 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:39 Sentenal 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. Did they click "Yes, I agree to the terms of use" when they installed the game? Yes Do the terms of use say something to the effect of "we can ban you for modifying game files"? Yes Did these people modify game files? Yes So where is the problem? The problem is that a company doesn't possess the right to repossess the end consumers of a product on the grounds of technicality. And yes, I'm aware that product was a service. So are a variety of things. Hotels are a service, yet if I were kicked out a hotel for a reason that was deemed "arbitrary", the hotel would face legal repercussions. First of all, there is no distinction between Starcraft 2 as a product and Starcraft 2 as a service, the way it has been marketed and sold. A person banned from B-net cannot access Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 is a service. Similar any variety of services. Indeed, most services maintain the right to physical kick you out if you're behaving in a way that detriments other consumers, or the ability of the company to function. However, they cannot arbitrarily kick you out, even if that arbitrary reason was outlined on the TOS
Yes, but Blizzards reasoning is not arbitrary, its very clear and can be mapped out. What is your point?
Guy if a reason for a ban is outlined in the ToS, it is by definition not arbitrary.
You are trying to delve into the topicethics here. But this is not similar to unlocking an iPhone. When you unlock an iPhone other iPhone users do not suffer.
When you cheat to get achievements you are taking away the work and value of other peoples achievements.
While I personally think it is silly to care about such things, there exist people who care about such things.
What do you want Blizzard to do? Tell them to go fuck themselves for caring about something different than the average player?
|
Conspiracy Theory = Get Banned to re-buy the game. Anyway, really absurd of blizzard.. but what's in the EULA we must follow or else....
|
On October 12 2010 04:43 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:39 Sentenal 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. Did they click "Yes, I agree to the terms of use" when they installed the game? Yes Do the terms of use say something to the effect of "we can ban you for modifying game files"? Yes Did these people modify game files? Yes So where is the problem? The problem is that a company doesn't possess the right to repossess the end consumers of a product on the grounds of technicality. And yes, I'm aware that product was a service. So are a variety of things. Hotels are a service, yet if I were kicked out a hotel for a reason that was deemed "arbitrary", the hotel would face legal repercussions.
So consumers possess the right to lie when they agreeing to the terms of use, but companies don't possess the right to enforce the terms of use the consumer agreed to when the consumer violated the agreement?
|
On October 12 2010 04:45 Licmyobelisk wrote:
Conspiracy Theory = Get Banned to re-buy the game. Anyway, really absurd of blizzard.. but what's in the EULA we must follow or else....
it's a 14 day ban
|
How do we know that the banned players weren't cheating online? Any firm evidence that it's not just cheaters lying to avoid recriminations?
|
On October 12 2010 04:46 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:45 Licmyobelisk wrote:
Conspiracy Theory = Get Banned to re-buy the game. Anyway, really absurd of blizzard.. but what's in the EULA we must follow or else.... it's a 14 day ban
Not all of them were.
So consumers possess the right to lie when they agreeing to the terms of use, but companies don't possess the right to enforce the terms of use the consumer agreed to when the consumer violated the agreement?
Only if they violated a stipulation that could be deemed legitimate.
|
Legally speaking I believe games have for a long time maintained the rights to the code and the right to prevent people from changing it. EULAs have always included clauses about that. The real difference is that Blizzard now has the power and the will to actually enforce these agreements.
Its not that Blizzard is giving you less control (legally) over the game then other companies, its just they are actually doing something when you break the EULA.
|
|
|
On October 12 2010 04:45 Licmyobelisk wrote:
Conspiracy Theory = Get Banned to re-buy the game. Anyway, really absurd of blizzard.. but what's in the EULA we must follow or else....
its not absurd. it happens all the time when people exploit achievement systems on xbox games too. sure i hate blizzard too, but pointing the finger at them for this is stupid and shortsighted.
You think they care about an extra 5k units sold? please.
|
You should be able to do whatever you want in single player.
|
On October 12 2010 04:47 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:46 syllogism wrote:On October 12 2010 04:45 Licmyobelisk wrote:
Conspiracy Theory = Get Banned to re-buy the game. Anyway, really absurd of blizzard.. but what's in the EULA we must follow or else.... it's a 14 day ban Not all of them were.
Hahah, right they just happened to make a big fuss about the 14 day ban instead of the permanent ones. I know the article mentions by passing someone was banned permanently, but it appears likely he was banned for something else, assuming it's even true. Bear in mind this is a site that SELLS trainers.
|
I'm hating Blizzard every day a bit more.
That's none of their damn business what you do with your ccomputer in single player ffs!
|
If I work hard and spend my time earning achievements without cheats, I would expect that other people who have earned my achievements have worked hard as well. Some people really don't care about achieves, but there are plenty who do and cheating cheapens the whole experience.
Also, Blizzard is just acting within the terms of the EULA, which you virtually signed before playing the game. You got banned for breaking rules that were clearly presented to you from the beginning and I don't think you have any ground to stand on when you complain about it.
And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2.
|
Their ToS does not justify anything they do. Seriously you're going to get behind these ridiculous bullshit agreements that are about nothing but sucking up every possible penny out of the community, claiming it as their own IP. While the rest is just trying to cover their own ass from ever getting sued no matter what. "shoulda read the terms", you guys are complete tools.
There is no good reason to ban people for cheating in single player. It's single player, no harm no foul.
|
On October 12 2010 04:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm hating Blizzard every day a bit more.
That's none of their damn business what you do with your ccomputer in single player ffs!
Luckily you can cheat all you want as long as you do it in offline mode instead of on b.net
|
loves how the OP fails to mention that the bans are not permanent
|
And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2.
Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode.
loves how the OP fails to mention that the bans are not permanent
There are seven testimonies on that site stating they were perma banned for using trainers, and that they've never used hacks. While both of us can debate the validity of those claims until we're blue in the face, the point is, there is plenty of probable cause to believe that they were, and no refutations.
|
I supposed these bans. "Once a cheater, always a cheater". I'm pretty sure 90% of those who use trainers in single player cheat online as well (or at least would cheat if remained undetected). Power to Blizzard for doing this.
|
I just looked at the trainers on that cheats site and all the things they do can be achieved with the Blizzard cheats that are built into the game (which also disable achievements) so the only reason people would bother to use these trainers is to get achievement points.
Just like WC3 and SC there are tons of cheat codes Blizz have put in the game which you are free to use...
|
If these guys wanted to cheat in single player so much, just use the Blizzard-approved cheat codes that are already in the game.
All the complaints are pretty hilarious, in my opinion.
|
On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2. Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode.
They were playing alone, but they were still online. Should cheating while playing custom games alone be allowed as well
|
On October 12 2010 04:38 floor exercise wrote:
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with the game so long as it does not affect others. And no, achievements mean absolutely nothing. If you think they have an effect on multiplayer you are dumb.
Cheating online = bad. Cheating on your own = why should I care? I know why Blizzard cares: money.
It's because the cheaters fuck up the acheivment system.
Cheating is cheating. I'm glad they got banned. Who the fuck cheats on single player though lol.. Regardless they should be banned. Blizzard shouldn't even have to warn people. I mean it is common sense.
|
That article makes me laugh
“Having been in the cheating business for over 13 years now, I’ve learned that people cheat for many different reasons. Some people have time constraints and want to be able to experience the entire game, so they cheat through the most difficult parts in order to reach the end. Some people might be older or handicapped or simply not possess the fast-twitch reflexes of a 12 year old which seems to be a requirement of some games these days. Ultimately, cheats and trainers help game publishers and are the reason that companies other than Blizzard don't start throwing out bans for single player use. Who is more likely to purchase additional DLC and sequels to a game, someone frustrated half way through that cannot finish the game or someone that was able to enjoy all the game had to offer, albeit with the use of cheats?”
Lol at the reasoning in this article.
Two words
CHEAT CODES. Sc2 has them, so use them. You dont need trainers.
People just engage in these arguments because they like to argue about whats right/wrong and like to feel smart on the internet instead of looking at the underlying rationality of the entire situation.
Oh and people will always take any opportunity to throw jabs at video game companies/blizzard
|
Removing achievement may be the dumbest fix for this problem. Achievements are good things, cause players to feel accomplished and give motivation to play more. Which also benefits the producer, because the game is getting more play time. Why people complain about achievements, I don't know.
Sure they don't have an effect on multiplayer, but who cares? It feels good to have them around.
Those who are using hacks/cheats to exploit that are idiots, and should rightfully so be banned. And yes, it affects other players because why are they trying so hard to get those achievements when you could just use hacks/cheats? May not have merit in many eyes, but to them it is worth something and Blizzard is doing a good job of protecting the rights of those players who choose to play fairly.
Is achievement grinding or non-mulitplayer achievements worth getting or is worth your time is a whole different issue, so please don't bring up stupid arguments like 'achievements are for losers' or 'it just wastes time'. People will do what they please, and to say what's dumb or not is discriminatory.
|
Blizzard wants achievements to mean something to the people who care about achievements.
I suspect that more people care about achievements than people who hack to get them. How is banning these hackers not a logical move? If you're going to hack a game, you'd better check if it's legal. It's not like you pressed a button on the menu screen and got hacks, you had to know what you were doing (or download shit from shady websites).
Think about it this way. You're playing Street Fighter, and there's these little kids who really care about getting a high score. You only care about winning, but oh well, let them have their fun. And, then, one guy goes up and hacks the machine to display "1st: FUU 99999999". Does it really matter? Does the world end? No; but it takes away fun from a certain group of people. As the arcade owner, wouldn't you favor the high score kids over the hacker?
|
The only reason why people used trainers to cheat was to get achievements, if not, they would had used the cheat codes. If for some reason those codes aren't enough for you, you could had used the offline mode and then used your trainers that you for some fucking retarded reason bought from some hacker site.
In short, the hackers got what they deserved.
|
On October 12 2010 04:33 skyR wrote:There's already a thread on this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159820Why do some of you defend people that use trainers thinking they don't deserve a permanent ban? You do realize that the majority (probably all) the people that use trainers also use maphacks.
This is just not true. I have used trainers and other single player cheats for various games including BW. Sometimes its damn fun to do so, but I have never ever cheated in a multiplayer game
|
On October 12 2010 04:38 floor exercise wrote:
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with the game so long as it does not affect others. And no, achievements mean absolutely nothing. If you think they have an effect on multiplayer you are dumb.
Cheating online = bad. Cheating on your own = why should I care? I know why Blizzard cares: money.
I think there are a few issues regarding this...
First of all (I could be wrong) but I think they are concerned that it affects achievements, which would be unfair to those who spent hours of their life trying to get "Aces High" or whatever achievement you want to throw out there.
Another is that Blizzard has always been against third party modifications - I believe in the WC3 ToS any "Third party program" that was run during a game was considered cheating. This meant Banlist and Pickup Listchecker (popular things for dota).
I think this is mainly a "slippery slope" argument. For example you let some people cheat, but you don't let other people cheat, where do you draw the line. Will this encourage cheating? Will it become a problem (if not already) and get out of control? What if people use single player to test their hacks for multiplayer (or use it as development grounds). Again, it's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
I think the bottom line is Blizzard is looking out for the community as a whole (in regards to cheating) and is trying to take a proactive approach that says "Hey, cheating is NOT okay."
I support Blizzard on this issue.
|
On October 12 2010 04:53 Cade)Flayer wrote:
I just looked at the trainers on that cheats site and all the things they do can be achieved with the Blizzard cheats that are built into the game (which also disable achievements) so the only reason people would bother to use these trainers is to get achievement points.
Just like WC3 and SC there are tons of cheat codes Blizz have put in the game which you are free to use...
I replied to the last guy who said this and a mod pmed me saying I needed to say more then just "no".
Instant Cooldowns, Unlock Research, Unlimited Credits, Minerals, Gas, Troops, Kill Enemy Resources, Reveal Map, Instant Build, Instant Units, God Mode, Super Damage, Unlimited Unit Energy, Heal Unit/Structures, Drain Unit/Structures, Add Kills, Save/Load Position (Teleport), Speed up/Slow Down Units, Increase/Decrease Fire Rate, Increase/Decrease Unit Range, Instant Control of Entire Map, Control Enemy Units, Increase/Decrease Mission Timer. Made exclusively for Cheat Happens.
Really I don't see why I was pmed instead of the other guy who just didn't read lol. Clearly, the vast majority of trainers offer unique functions.
|
On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2. Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode. There are seven testimonies on that site stating they were perma banned for using trainers, and that they've never used hacks. While both of us can debate the validity of those claims until we're blue in the face, the point is, there is plenty of probable cause to believe that they were, and no refutations.
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
It's in the ToS, you can draw a clear line from action to ban with reasons. Blizzard did not go "hey trailers ban".
There was something specifically written in the ToS about it. So maybe you should learn the definition of your favorite word before throwing it out there so much?
Are you the kind of guy who is going to smoke weed, get caught, and then use the "Oh that law is so stupid, weed isnt' harmfull at all" defense in court? Even though its a clear law, in your mind it's stupid so it doesnt apply to you?
|
Achievements are there so that the game has staying power. The reward and progressions system in games such as Modern Warfare and Starcraft 2 allow people to earn token rewards. Token rewards serves as positive reinforcement, which proves to be one of the more successful tools to reinforce behavior.
|
Also I'd like to note that many were banned for using cheats in custom games, where no achievements are unlocked, and no cheat codes are usable.
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
Its in the ToS, you can draw a clear line from action to ban with reasons. Blizzard did not go "hey trailers ban". There was something clearly written in the ToS about it. So maybe you should learn the definition of your favorite word before throwing it out there so much?
Do you want to argue why removing a customers access to a service he purchases for local cheat codes for local use is not 1) 2) and 4)? Your definition of arbitrary just further reinforces my points.
|
On October 12 2010 04:56 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:53 Cade)Flayer wrote:
I just looked at the trainers on that cheats site and all the things they do can be achieved with the Blizzard cheats that are built into the game (which also disable achievements) so the only reason people would bother to use these trainers is to get achievement points.
Just like WC3 and SC there are tons of cheat codes Blizz have put in the game which you are free to use... I replied to the last guy who said this and a mod pmed me saying I needed to say more then just "no". Show nested quote +
Instant Cooldowns, Unlock Research, Unlimited Credits, Minerals, Gas, Troops, Kill Enemy Resources, Reveal Map, Instant Build, Instant Units, God Mode, Super Damage, Unlimited Unit Energy, Heal Unit/Structures, Drain Unit/Structures, Add Kills, Save/Load Position (Teleport), Speed up/Slow Down Units, Increase/Decrease Fire Rate, Increase/Decrease Unit Range, Instant Control of Entire Map, Control Enemy Units, Increase/Decrease Mission Timer. Made exclusively for Cheat Happens.
Really I don't see why I was pmed instead of the other guy who just didn't read lol. Clearly, the vast majority of trainers offer unique functions.
do people really need that many cheats in order to "train"?
you could've just made a custom map like this
and why do i get the feeling that you were someone who used this trainer
|
I wonder if they will ban people for using someone's save file to get the Kerrigan portrait/achievement points. :O
|
On October 12 2010 05:00 Half wrote:
Also I'd like to note that many were banned for using cheats in custom games, where no achievements are unlocked, and no cheat codes are usable.
even worse.
|
so what does a 'trainer' mean? a computer bot to play against for practice? I don't understand how that could help you in single-player campaign achievements or harm multiplay, and the blizzard bots are ridiculous.
|
EDIT: nvm I dont care lol
|
On October 12 2010 05:01 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:56 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 04:53 Cade)Flayer wrote:
I just looked at the trainers on that cheats site and all the things they do can be achieved with the Blizzard cheats that are built into the game (which also disable achievements) so the only reason people would bother to use these trainers is to get achievement points.
Just like WC3 and SC there are tons of cheat codes Blizz have put in the game which you are free to use... I replied to the last guy who said this and a mod pmed me saying I needed to say more then just "no".
Instant Cooldowns, Unlock Research, Unlimited Credits, Minerals, Gas, Troops, Kill Enemy Resources, Reveal Map, Instant Build, Instant Units, God Mode, Super Damage, Unlimited Unit Energy, Heal Unit/Structures, Drain Unit/Structures, Add Kills, Save/Load Position (Teleport), Speed up/Slow Down Units, Increase/Decrease Fire Rate, Increase/Decrease Unit Range, Instant Control of Entire Map, Control Enemy Units, Increase/Decrease Mission Timer. Made exclusively for Cheat Happens.
Really I don't see why I was pmed instead of the other guy who just didn't read lol. Clearly, the vast majority of trainers offer unique functions. do people really need that many cheats in order to "train"? you could've just made a custom map like this and why do i get the feeling that you were someone who used this trainer
Haha, I'm Diamond 1300 (not that it matters, but at least it shows I don't suck right) and have acquired every single campaign achievement without trainers. I also own the CE edition of the game.
even worse.
Local custom games, they don't work online.
|
On October 12 2010 05:00 Half wrote:Also I'd like to note that many were banned for using cheats in custom games, where no achievements are unlocked, and no cheat codes are usable. Show nested quote +
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
Its in the ToS, you can draw a clear line from action to ban with reasons. Blizzard did not go "hey trailers ban". There was something clearly written in the ToS about it. So maybe you should learn the definition of your favorite word before throwing it out there so much?
Do you want to argue why removing a customers access to a service he purchases for local cheat codes for local use is not 1) 2) and 4)? Your definition of arbitrary just further reinforces my points.
See that earlier post ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159928¤tpage=3#60 ), it is edited with reasons why it is not arbitrary. If that does not make it clear to you, then you might have reading comprehension issues or have a very skewed system of how contracts work.
Please actually read:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159928#5
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159928¤tpage=2#25
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=159928¤tpage=3#60
|
I don't understand why you would want to cheat in single player, you don't get the satisfaction for defeating the game. 
|
haha seide you are such a troll. see you in a diff thread doing the same shiet
|
On October 12 2010 05:02 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:00 Half wrote:Also I'd like to note that many were banned for using cheats in custom games, where no achievements are unlocked, and no cheat codes are usable.
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
Its in the ToS, you can draw a clear line from action to ban with reasons. Blizzard did not go "hey trailers ban". There was something clearly written in the ToS about it. So maybe you should learn the definition of your favorite word before throwing it out there so much?
Do you want to argue why removing a customers access to a service he purchases for local cheat codes for local use is not 1) 2) and 4)? Your definition of arbitrary just further reinforces my points. See that earlier post, it is edited with reasons why it is not arbitrary. If that does not make it clear to you, then you might have reading comprehension issues.
The existence of any kind of correlative connection doesn't make it less arbitrary, according to your own definition lol. For instance, 2) shows clear connection, but is still entirely arbitrary.
Moreover, if laws are arbitrary, that may suck, but the entire point is companies should not have the same power as the fucking state. We're not debating the legitimacy of a law here, we're debating the legality of company policy.
|
On October 12 2010 05:05 viraltouch wrote:
haha seide you are such a troll. see you in a diff thread doing the same shiet
You mean actually arguing with a basis and well written responses? If that is trolling, then what kind of world do we live in.
|
Cheating on the single player campaign will allow players to gain achievements with no real time expense. Other people spend a very large amount of time into these achievements. So for hackers to get these free points is not something we need to have happen. If your arguement is that they just want to see the harder content, well Blizzard has in-game cheat codes that allow you to do just that.
And there was a warning. Blizzard posted on September 14th
Blizzard Entertainment has always taken cheating in any form in Blizzard games very seriously, and that's no different for StarCraft II. If a StarCraft II player is found to be cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form, then as outlined in our end user license agreement, that player can be permanently banned from the game. This means that the player will be permanently unable to log in to Battle.net to play StarCraft II with his or her account.
Playing StarCraft II legitimately means playing with an unaltered game client. Doing otherwise violates our policies for Battle.net, and it goes against the spirit of fair play that all of our games are based on. We strongly recommend that you avoid using any hacks, cheats, or exploits. Suspensions and bans of players that have used or start using cheats and hacks will begin in the near future.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/809157#blog
This is pretty much a catch all for hacking. It does not say multiplayer hacks. It says anything that alters the game files. DOn't hack and don't use anything to help you in the game and you will be just fine.
|
I personally would have given a warning before thrown down the ban hammer...but that's just me.
Edit:snakeyes post makes my point irrelevant. They were warned.
|
On October 12 2010 04 Half wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a service. Similar any variety of services. Indeed, most services maintain the right to physical kick you out if you're behaving in a way that detriments other consumers, or the ability of the company to function. However, they cannot arbitrarily kick you out, even if that arbitrary reason was outlined on the TOS.
but what's arbitrary or not is open to interpretation. in your opinion it's arbitrary, in blizzard's opinion it's not. now what? i guess in the worst case scenario a judge would have to decide if it is arbitrary or not.
|
On October 12 2010 05:05 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:02 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 05:00 Half wrote:Also I'd like to note that many were banned for using cheats in custom games, where no achievements are unlocked, and no cheat codes are usable.
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
Its in the ToS, you can draw a clear line from action to ban with reasons. Blizzard did not go "hey trailers ban". There was something clearly written in the ToS about it. So maybe you should learn the definition of your favorite word before throwing it out there so much?
Do you want to argue why removing a customers access to a service he purchases for local cheat codes for local use is not 1) 2) and 4)? Your definition of arbitrary just further reinforces my points. See that earlier post, it is edited with reasons why it is not arbitrary. If that does not make it clear to you, then you might have reading comprehension issues. The existence of any kind of correlative connection doesn't make it less arbitrary, according to your own definition lol. For instance, 2) shows clear connection, but is still entirely arbitrary. Moreover, if laws are arbitrary, that may suck, but the entire point is companies should not have the same power as the fucking state. Is that a hard concept?
A state forces their laws upon you, your only choice is to really move. Software: you bought the product and installed it, you had a choice whether to accept the terms they laid out for you.
Since you did you accepted that you will not modify your client, and if you did you run the risk of getting banned.
Individual buys product, sees terms -> Acceptance of these terms makes terms no longer arbitrary -> individual breaks terms -> individual gets banned as outlined in terms.
What is so hard to understand?
|
I feel like a spear of ice has be lunged into my chest.
Blizzard has become a dark shadow of what it once were.
Soon they will ban you because you typed holy shit.
|
And there was a warning. Blizzard posted on September 14th Blizzard Entertainment has always taken cheating in any form in Blizzard games very seriously, and that's no different for StarCraft II. If a StarCraft II player is found to be cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form, then as outlined in our end user license agreement, that player can be permanently banned from the game. This means that the player will be permanently unable to log in to Battle.net to play StarCraft II with his or her account. Playing StarCraft II legitimately means playing with an unaltered game client. Doing otherwise violates our policies for Battle.net, and it goes against the spirit of fair play that all of our games are based on. We strongly recommend that you avoid using any hacks, cheats, or exploits. Suspensions and bans of players that have used or start using cheats and hacks will begin in the near future. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/809157#blog
It is indeed a catch all. There are several more catch-alls in past TOS's that were, in reality, never enforced, because blizzard felt they lacked the public support to take these cases to trial. Just because a company proclaims something, doesn't mean its so, surprisingly enough.
And indeed, if these were followed to the letter, the Diablo 2 modding scene would never have developed.
http://modsbylaz.hugelaser.com/
http://homepage3.nifty.com/miyoshino/es/es3top.htm
A state forces their laws upon you, your only choice is to really move. Software: you bought the product and installed it, you ahd a choice whether to accept the terms they laid out for you.
Since you did you accepted that you will not modify your client, and if you did you run the risk of getting banned.
Caveat emptor huh? The good ol motto of stooges everywhere. Please, explain the legal and ethical justification of a buyer beware policy on digital consumption to me then.
|
On October 12 2010 05:02 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:01 awu25 wrote:On October 12 2010 04:56 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 04:53 Cade)Flayer wrote:
I just looked at the trainers on that cheats site and all the things they do can be achieved with the Blizzard cheats that are built into the game (which also disable achievements) so the only reason people would bother to use these trainers is to get achievement points.
Just like WC3 and SC there are tons of cheat codes Blizz have put in the game which you are free to use... I replied to the last guy who said this and a mod pmed me saying I needed to say more then just "no".
Instant Cooldowns, Unlock Research, Unlimited Credits, Minerals, Gas, Troops, Kill Enemy Resources, Reveal Map, Instant Build, Instant Units, God Mode, Super Damage, Unlimited Unit Energy, Heal Unit/Structures, Drain Unit/Structures, Add Kills, Save/Load Position (Teleport), Speed up/Slow Down Units, Increase/Decrease Fire Rate, Increase/Decrease Unit Range, Instant Control of Entire Map, Control Enemy Units, Increase/Decrease Mission Timer. Made exclusively for Cheat Happens.
Really I don't see why I was pmed instead of the other guy who just didn't read lol. Clearly, the vast majority of trainers offer unique functions. do people really need that many cheats in order to "train"? you could've just made a custom map like this and why do i get the feeling that you were someone who used this trainer Haha, I'm Diamond 1300 (not that it matters, but at least it shows I don't suck right) and have acquired every single campaign achievement without trainers. I also own the CE edition of the game. Local custom games, they don't work online.
what is a local custom game in sc2? u mean the VS AI where you can get the AI/FFA achievements?
|
The title is really misleading. After seeing it, I had to log in to check if i was banned because i cheated in single player so many times. Thankfully i wasn't
But I don't really trust a guy from cheathappens about getting banned for only using trainers in single player. Can anyone in TL confirm it?? If you used trainers are you banned??
|
I really hope you are trolling.
Look, if you agree to something and you are told the consequences and still do it the reasons don't fucking matter, you did it and that's what they told you not to do. It's like telling your girlfriend don't cheat on me then you find her suckin some D's maybe it's a lot of D's who knows? It's highly unlikely you'll take her back cause her reasons were arbitrary they don't matter you caught her suckin something that's not yours after she told you she wouldn't do it thus betraying your trust.
I don't understand why you can't wrap it around your skull that being dealt with the way you agreed you would be dealt with is unjust.
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
|
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice.
Tell me. Is this justice?
|
On October 12 2010 05:09 Half wrote:Show nested quote +And there was a warning. Blizzard posted on September 14th Blizzard Entertainment has always taken cheating in any form in Blizzard games very seriously, and that's no different for StarCraft II. If a StarCraft II player is found to be cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form, then as outlined in our end user license agreement, that player can be permanently banned from the game. This means that the player will be permanently unable to log in to Battle.net to play StarCraft II with his or her account. Playing StarCraft II legitimately means playing with an unaltered game client. Doing otherwise violates our policies for Battle.net, and it goes against the spirit of fair play that all of our games are based on. We strongly recommend that you avoid using any hacks, cheats, or exploits. Suspensions and bans of players that have used or start using cheats and hacks will begin in the near future. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/809157#blog It is indeed a catch all. There are several more catch-alls in past TOS's that were, in reality, never enforced, because blizzard felt they lacked the public support to take these cases to trial. Just because a company proclaims something, doesn't mean its so, surprisingly enough. Show nested quote +A state forces their laws upon you, your only choice is to really move. Software: you bought the product and installed it, you ahd a choice whether to accept the terms they laid out for you.
Since you did you accepted that you will not modify your client, and if you did you run the risk of getting banned. Caveat emptor huh? The good ol motto of stooges everywhere. Please, explain the legal and ethical justification of a buyer beware policy on digital consumption to me then.
I am not discussing ethics with you in this thread, if you want to discuss software ethics you can PM me.
I believe someone should be able to do whatever they want with their software if it does not hurt other consumers. What I believe does not matter here.
If you actually read, I have explained to you why people using trailers hurts other players who actually worked to get these achievements.
While you may not care about this, it does not make it irrelevant. Other customers are hurt by people breaking to ToS. Blizzard takes action to protect customers who are playing legitimately.
You may not believe that this is right ethically and should be different. Thats fine.
But in this case, in the current situation your ethical beliefs are irrelevant, same with mine.
|
I always thought Achievement system was stupid because people were going to take it way too seriously.
And this is one of many reasons that validates it. Not only are players taking it seriously, but when the devs starts to do as well, it will reinforce it back to the players that achievement system indeed is srs bzns. lame.
|
I am not discussing ethics with you. I believe someone should be able to do whatever they want with their software if it does not hurt other consumers. What I believe does not matter here.
If you actually read. I have explained to you why people using trailers hurts other players who actually worked to get these achievements.
While you may not care about this, it does not make it irrelevant. Other customers are hurt by people breaking to ToS. Blizzard takes action to protect customers who are playing legitimately.
You may not believe that this is right ethically and should be different. Thats fine.
But in this case, in the current situation your ethical basis is irrelevant, same with mine.
I said legal and ethical. Legality is certainly relevant, a case which you have not argued.
Ethics was just the extension of that. If the move is neither clearly defined as legal, and unethical, why would you defend it like a lapdog?
|
On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2. Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode.
Half, where is your legal precedent for this claim? I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. In what cases has it been decided that certain terms of a contract (the TOS in this case) can not be enforced if they are deemed by a court to be neither reasonable or relevant. Also, reasonable and relevant to what? What the court can infer as the underlying agreement of the contract?
I've always been of the understanding that when I agree to a contract, I agree to all terms of that contract (unless the performance of such terms are inherently illegal, and blocking individuals from the use of a private service is not an inherently illegal action). So the only question here in my mind is whether someone has breeched the terms of the contract, which has happened. Unless you have evidence that courts have the power to deem portions of contracts as irrelevant?
|
On October 12 2010 05:14 Laggy wrote:
IIt's like telling your girlfriend don't cheat on me then you find her suckin some D's maybe it's a lot of D's who knows? It's highly unlikely you'll take her back cause her reasons were arbitrary they don't matter you caught her suckin something that's not yours after she told you she wouldn't do it thus betraying your trust.
This has got to be the greatest metaphor for hacking I've ever seen.
|
On October 12 2010 05:18 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I am not discussing ethics with you. I believe someone should be able to do whatever they want with their software if it does not hurt other consumers. What I believe does not matter here.
If you actually read. I have explained to you why people using trailers hurts other players who actually worked to get these achievements.
While you may not care about this, it does not make it irrelevant. Other customers are hurt by people breaking to ToS. Blizzard takes action to protect customers who are playing legitimately.
You may not believe that this is right ethically and should be different. Thats fine.
But in this case, in the current situation your ethical basis is irrelevant, same with mine.
I said legal and ethical. Legality is certainly relevant, a case which you have not argued. Ethics was just the extension of that.
Ok legality. I dont think I have to point out anything to you other than what I ahve already wrote.
Primary purpose of laws: Protect the public that is doing things fairly.
Lets treat a ToS as a law: It is protecting players, so their achievements and wins have value.
People using trailers/map hacks/drop hacks are breaking ToS and lowering the value of wins and achievements since they are getting them illegitimately and with less effort.
Blizzard enforces their ToS by banning people who are hurting the legitimate users by cheating.
|
Ok legality. I dont think I have to point out anything to you other than what I ahve already wrote.
Primary purpose of laws: Protect the public that is doing things fairly.
Lets treat a ToS as a law: It is protecting players, so their achievements and wins have value.
People using trailers/map hacks/drop hacks are breaking ToS and lowering the value of wins and acievemts since they are getting them illegitimately and with less effort.
Blizzard enforces their ToS by banning people who are hurting the legitimate users
that was ethics bro.
|
On October 12 2010 05:16 NIJ wrote:
I always thought Achievement system was stupid because people were going to take it way too seriously.
And this is one of many reasons that validates it. Not only are players taking it seriously, but when the devs starts to do as well, it will reinforce it back to the players that achievement system indeed is srs bzns. lame.
i don't think it's about taking it seriously or not.
achievements are a part of the game and some people have fun with it, why should others have the right to take that away? everyone understands that cheaters on the ladder destroy the fun for everyone and should be banned. well, people cheating to get achievements is the same thing.
personally, i don't really care about achievements... but those who do have the same right to enjoy the game as those who don't.
|
On October 12 2010 05:21 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Ok legality. I dont think I have to point out anything to you other than what I ahve already wrote.
Primary purpose of laws: Protect the public that is doing things fairly.
Lets treat a ToS as a law: It is protecting players, so their achievements and wins have value.
People using trailers/map hacks/drop hacks are breaking ToS and lowering the value of wins and acievemts since they are getting them illegitimately and with less effort.
Blizzard enforces their ToS by banning people who are hurting the legitimate users that was ethics bro.
Like you said yourself man, ethics underlie legality.
You know usually in a debate, both people draw out clear points, where reasoning can be seen going in steps from start to finish.
Not 1 person keeps telling the other the same thing over in over, in simpler and simpler ways, and the other responds just using fail circular logic.
|
They probably could have used these hacks in Guest mode but nope, the fact that they paid for the trainer means achievement points were serious business to them hence they logged into B.Net with a hack and wonder why they were banned for 14 days.
And can't they still play offline in guest mode and still use the paid trainer?? Oh yea no achievement points earned in guest mode.
|
They can still play the game. They just don't have access to battle.net anymore since they used mods to influence achievements on battle.net, so it seems to me that it's perfectly fair. If you don't ban people who abuse the system that way, then it's unfair to everyone who also had problems with the campaign, used the cheatcodes aware they wouldn't get an achievement.
Being banned for life is rather harsh though.
|
On October 12 2010 04:34 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:33 TMTurtle 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? You clicked the box. If you're not happy with it, you shouldn't have clicked the box. That was a yes or no question you know. So you're arguing consumers of digital products should not be given any consumer protections what so ever?
He's arguing that if you agree to give them up, then no. I happen to agree.
|
Hahaha, they expected to get away with using third party cheats in the "always connected experience?"
They tried to use said cheats to power their achievement scores?
And they got mad when they got banned?
Props to Blizzard for making me giggle.
|
On October 12 2010 05:20 Big Jim Slade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote:And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2. Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode. Half, where is your legal precedent for this claim? I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. In what cases has it been decided that certain terms of a contract (the TOS in this case) can not be enforced if they are deemed by a court to be neither reasonable or relevant. Also, reasonable and relevant to what? What the court can infer as the underlying agreement of the contract? I've always been of the understanding that when I agree to a contract, I agree to all terms of that contract (unless the performance of such terms are inherently illegal, and blocking individuals from the use of a private service is not an inherently illegal action). So the only question here in my mind is whether someone has breeched the terms of the contract, which has happened. Unless you have evidence that courts have the power to deem portions of contracts as irrelevant?
Even a lawyer couldn't define for you 100% if this move was legal or not. Thats for the courts to decide, and I'm certainly neither a court justice nor a lawyer. However, I know for an 100% certainty that the law is murky enough that it cannot be clearly defined either way.
Removing a customers access to a service he payed for without restitution due to an issue of private usage that doesn't conclusively damage the value of the service as a whole nor violate any legal clause can be seen as a violation of several elements of contract law, including unconscionability, misrepresentation, Illusory promise.
Like you said man, ethics underlie legality.
You know usually in a debate, both people draw out clear points, where reasoning can be seen going in steps from start to finish.
Not 1 person keeps telling the other the same thing over in over, in simpler and simpler ways, and the other responds just using fail circular logic.
K, i'm starting to think you're trolling. If you want to debate ethical underpinnings, fine, explain to me why Caveat Emptor is an appropriate policy for digital consumption, or alternative, so I'm not strawmanning you, debate why this is not a case of caveat emptor (though you previously just basically defined it as such, but w/e).
They can still play the game.
No, they cannot.
|
What the, i would have understand removing the achievements of those who cheated or something around those line, but banning, for single players?
I'm scared now, since i've loaded up Cheat Engine and messed around with the game in singleplayer, as i do with pretty much every game once i've done everything, for the fun of it. I did not get any achievements but still i don't want to get my account banned.
|
On October 12 2010 05:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice. Tell me. Is this justice?
What the fuck does that have to do with a video game?
|
On October 12 2010 05:34 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:16 Half wrote:
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice. Tell me. Is this justice? What the fuck does that have to do with a video game?
once you explain to me what this has to do with video games and blizzard.
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
just felt like responding to his irrelevance and naivete with some playful insight, thaz all bro D:.
|
The OP is biased imo. My view is that Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to ban people for cheating. Achievement hackers aren't even close to multiplayer hackers on an "evil" scale but they still get achievements for doing nothing. Achievements may not hold dear to many on TL, but I think we all know the kind of people who hopped on the bandwagon for SC2 but didn't play BW.
|
cheating is cheating, has to be banned..
|
This makes zero sense. But i'm assuming since your always online, Blizz can't tell the difference.
|
He makes a solid point, and your response is to find some "dirt" on his country?
cute
|
On October 12 2010 05:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:20 Big Jim Slade wrote:On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote:And Half, the rules being violated here were not "arbitrary." If you check into a hotel and sign a contract to not do X, and then you go and do X anyway, then they have every right to kick you to the curb. It's the same deal with SC2. Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode. Half, where is your legal precedent for this claim? I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. In what cases has it been decided that certain terms of a contract (the TOS in this case) can not be enforced if they are deemed by a court to be neither reasonable or relevant. Also, reasonable and relevant to what? What the court can infer as the underlying agreement of the contract? I've always been of the understanding that when I agree to a contract, I agree to all terms of that contract (unless the performance of such terms are inherently illegal, and blocking individuals from the use of a private service is not an inherently illegal action). So the only question here in my mind is whether someone has breeched the terms of the contract, which has happened. Unless you have evidence that courts have the power to deem portions of contracts as irrelevant? Even a lawyer couldn't define for you 100% if this move was legal or not. Thats for the courts to decide, and I'm certainly neither a court justice nor a lawyer. However, I know for an 100% certainty that the law is murky enough that it cannot be clearly defined either way. Removing a customers access to a service he payed for without restitution due to an issue of private usage that doesn't conclusively damage the value of the service as a whole nor violate any legal clause can be seen as a violation of several elements of contract law, including unconscionability, misrepresentation, Illusory promise.
You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either.
Anyone who would try to go to court because their account was banned for this would be laughed at by any judge or lawyer.
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enroll, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
I can write out my point in a clear line, one thought leading to the other, and have dont this, several times aready for you, each iteration simpler than the last so you might possible understand.
I have shown you why it cheating, the parties which are hurt by this, that is is stated as an offense in the terms which you agreed to.. Your logic has thus far consisted of saying "Well it's not fair, people should do what they want, they paid money for it" over and over.
|
Undermining the achievement system is a perfectly valid reason to ban people.
Also you deserve to be banned for buying cheats it's that stupid :p
|
ahahah nice sidetrack into ethics seide. very relevant indeed.
|
I dont care if they play online or offline. If they cheat, they get banned.
|
On October 12 2010 05:37 SmoKim wrote:He makes a solid point, and your response is to find some "dirt" on his country? cute
It was actually dirt on a Canadian corporation, and you seem to have completely missed the point.
He responded to my assertion that blizzards policies were indifferent to the rights of the consumer by pointing out often states are indifferent to the rights of individuals. I responded by facetiously pointing out that thinking that corperations are states was fallacious and poisonous, and used an example I hope would "hit close to home", so to speak.
Its ok, I enjoy supplementing my posts to make up for your lack of reading comprehension D:. pad dat postcount son.
(not really)
|
On October 12 2010 05:34 Gourmand wrote:
What the, i would have understand removing the achievements of those who cheated or something around those line, but banning, for single players?
I'm scared now, since i've loaded up Cheat Engine and messed around with the game in singleplayer, as i do with pretty much every game once i've done everything, for the fun of it. I did not get any achievements but still i don't want to get my account banned.
Say you remove his achievements... what about the hack that is running while logged into B.Net... Do you think blizzard is gonna be ok with just removing his achievement points but allow him to continue on with this trainer that probably does more than what you were probably doing?
|
You cheat, you get banned. Simple rule. No excuses.
|
On October 12 2010 05:40 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:37 SmoKim wrote:He makes a solid point, and your response is to find some "dirt" on his country? cute It was actually dirt on a Canadian corporation, and you seem to have completely missed the point. He responded to my assertion that blizzards policies were indifferent to the rights of the consumer by pointing out often states are indifferent to the rights of individuals. I responded by facetiously pointing out that thinking that corperations are states was fallacious and poisonous, and used an example I hope would "hit close to home", so to speak. Its ok, I enjoy supplementing my posts to make up for your lack of reading comprehension D:.
You're mentally deficient if you can't discuss the terms of service of a video game without introducing random pinko political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Please, for the love of god, stop.
Blizzard is banning people who hack their software to cheat on a competitive online gaming service. They'd also ban people who win trade to the top of the ladder.
|
You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either.
Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee".
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
"aperantely" so huh?.
|
[QUOTE]On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:
You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either.
Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee".
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
"aperantely" so huh?.
[/QUOTE]
See now you are jumping on minor spelling errors to try to prove me wrong, because you cannot do so through regular means. gg no re.
|
On October 12 2010 05:35 Half wrote:once you explain to me what this has to do with video games and blizzard. Show nested quote +
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
just felt like responding to his irrelevance and naivete with some playful insight, thaz all bro D:.
The proper response to an idiotic post is not more idiocy.
|
On October 12 2010 05:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice. Tell me. Is this justice?
you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous.
|
On October 12 2010 05:47 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:35 Half wrote:once you explain to me what this has to do with video games and blizzard.
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail.
just felt like responding to his irrelevance and naivete with some playful insight, thaz all bro D:. The proper response to an idiotic post is not more idiocy.
Then why did you respond LOL.
you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous.
You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right?
|
On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:Show nested quote +You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". Show nested quote +
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
"aperantely" so huh?. Show nested quote +
You're mentally deficient if you can't discuss the terms of service of a video game without introducing random pinko political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Please, for the love of god, stop.
Blizzard is banning people who hack their software to cheat on a competitive online gaming service. They'd also ban people who win trade to the top of the ladder.
I like how you didn't read my last post either. Not gonna bother.
If you can't argue against valid points you might as well ignore them and argue pointless semantics for 4 pages huh?
|
Well maybe blizzard needs to make their own trainers? Obviously their tutorials weren't enough and people needed help to get through... SP!? Kind of rediculous, I've never seen bans in any game for achievement bugging especially through single player, MP is really the only thing that counts, Blizz is wasting their time with SP.
|
On October 12 2010 05:48 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee".
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
"aperantely" so huh?.
You're mentally deficient if you can't discuss the terms of service of a video game without introducing random pinko political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Please, for the love of god, stop.
Blizzard is banning people who hack their software to cheat on a competitive online gaming service. They'd also ban people who win trade to the top of the ladder.
I like how you didn't read my last post either. Not gonna bother. If you can't argue against valid points you might as well ignore them and argue pointless semantics for 4 pages huh?
Find me a valid point I haven't responded to. Go! And for the record, it wasn't me who started debating on semantics.
See now you are jumping on minor spelling errors to try to prove me wrong, because you cannot do so through regular means. gg no re.
u srs troll? lol. that guy was right, should never have bothered with you t-t.
|
If this game was an offline only game then no one would care, but since there is so much E-Peen going around with achievements nowadays I can see why Blizzard went through with this, as soon as you hit BNet, you play on their terms, and modifying the game files is a well known no no. I'm not a achievement whore, but I have friends who are, and they take it seriously.
|
On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:
Then why did you respond LOL.
My response wasn't idiotic. Please stop, this is the SC2 general forum.
|
On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:Show nested quote +you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right?
i didn't, actually, so i guess i must apologize.
it doesn't make your analogy less ridiculous, though, i hope you realize that.
|
On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:Recently, Blizzard has banned several community members for using third party cheats in single player games and custom games versus AI. The cheats being used were not the maphacks or drophacks we're accustomed to in multiplayer games, but rather, "Trainers", local game hacks used to manipulate local, offline, play. These work in single player, but not in multiplayer, because single player games are entirely local, and only upload critical achievement and completion data onto multiplayer. In practice, the work functionally identical to exploiting in game single player exploits, or the use of blizzard sanctioned cheat codes. The same report was also confirmed in the Rock Paper Shotgun gaming blog 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? (Original reported by Cheathappens.com. They don't host maphacks or any competitive hack, only single player trainers, which have traditionally never been the subject of controversy)
Thoughts ?
Well done... you want to play games with trainer ? then be smarter and install it not using your legal copy / cdkey / bnet account.
It's not a big deal... it might be the first time that a company does that to their users but hey... somebody have to do it for the first time... Cheating in singleplayer or in multiplayer to show-off to the community that you have "MORE" of what you deserve should be banned. It doesn't matter if it is 1v1 games, or achievement points, or ladder points...
|
On October 12 2010 05:54 BulldogBCN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right? i didn't, actually, so i guess i must apologize. it doesn't make your analogy less ridiculous, though, i hope you realize that.
What? I wasn't even making an analogy lol. Its called an example. Specifically why you need to stop confusing corporate policy with legal policy.
Please stop, this is the SC2 general forum.
Please.
|
On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:Show nested quote +You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee".
It's Blizzard's game. They specified all of the rules within the terms of service, which you signed and agreed to abide by, when you activated your account. If you violate these rules, they can do whatever they want to your account about it.
So ask, did you violate these rules? You modified Blizzard files you agreed not to. Thus, they removed you from the game.
+ Show Spoiler +Additional License Limitations. The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard's copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;Account Suspension/Cancelation. BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU. Accounts terminated by Blizzard for any type of abuse, including without limitation a violation of these Terms of Use, will not be reactivated for any reason. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of this TOU, a Game EULA or other Blizzard policy. from: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/termsofuse.html
|
another thumbs up if you ask me. cheating is cheating.
|
On October 12 2010 05:57 vica wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". It's Blizzard's game. They specified all of the rules within the terms of service, which you signed and agreed to abide by, when you activated your account. If you violate these rules, they can do whatever they want to your account about it. So ask, did you violate these rules? You modified Blizzard files you agreed not to. Thus, they removed you from the game. + Show Spoiler +
Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard's copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game.
You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;
Account Suspension/Cancelation.
BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU. Accounts terminated by Blizzard for any type of abuse, including without limitation a violation of these Terms of Use, will not be reactivated for any reason. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of this TOU, a Game EULA or other Blizzard policy.
="The TOS said so duuuddee".
If you feel that response is inadequate the reread the thread, you're not making any new or relevant points here, so you can just mill over whats been said already.
|
On October 12 2010 05:59 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:57 vica wrote:On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". It's Blizzard's game. They specified all of the rules within the terms of service, which you signed and agreed to abide by, when you activated your account. If you violate these rules, they can do whatever they want to your account about it. So ask, did you violate these rules? You modified Blizzard files you agreed not to. Thus, they removed you from the game. + Show Spoiler +
Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard's copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game.
You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;
Account Suspension/Cancelation.
BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU. Accounts terminated by Blizzard for any type of abuse, including without limitation a violation of these Terms of Use, will not be reactivated for any reason. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of this TOU, a Game EULA or other Blizzard policy.
=
....so whats your counter argument to that simple, yet incredibly conclusive statement again?
|
I don't use any trainers or cheats and I never have gotten banned
|
Nice sensationalist original post. They are 14 day bans. You are completely invalidating their service by farming achievements, it's no different than anything else they ban you for, there is no gray line at all, you are cheating.
|
On October 12 2010 06:02 PokePill wrote:
Nice sensationalist original post. They are 14 day bans. You are completely invalidating their service by farming achievements, it's no different than anything else they ban you for, there is no gray line at all, you are cheating.
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:.
(At guy below me: Seriously is reading the entire thread that hard for you? I don't think you people have produced any new or original arguments for four pages now that haven't been addressed in the previous four)
|
On October 12 2010 05:59 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:57 vica wrote:On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". It's Blizzard's game. They specified all of the rules within the terms of service, which you signed and agreed to abide by, when you activated your account. If you violate these rules, they can do whatever they want to your account about it. So ask, did you violate these rules? You modified Blizzard files you agreed not to. Thus, they removed you from the game. + Show Spoiler +
Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard's copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game.
You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;
Account Suspension/Cancelation.
BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU. Accounts terminated by Blizzard for any type of abuse, including without limitation a violation of these Terms of Use, will not be reactivated for any reason. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of this TOU, a Game EULA or other Blizzard policy.
= If you feel that response is inadequate the reread the thread, you're not making any new or relevant points here, so you can just mill over whats been said already.
You gave up your rights when you signed their terms of service. This is a service, not a product. Do not mistake the two. All you are holding is a blank cd and a key that lets you access the service. It can be terminated at anytime for any reason whatsoever.
|
On October 12 2010 05:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:54 BulldogBCN wrote:On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right? i didn't, actually, so i guess i must apologize. it doesn't make your analogy less ridiculous, though, i hope you realize that. What? I wasn't even making an analogy lol. Its called an example. Specifically why you need to stop confusing corporate policy with legal policy.
you trivialized corporate crime by comparing it to blizzard banning cheaters. i don't care what you want to call it, it is what it is.
|
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...
|
On October 12 2010 06:05 BulldogBCN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 05:54 BulldogBCN wrote:On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right? i didn't, actually, so i guess i must apologize. it doesn't make your analogy less ridiculous, though, i hope you realize that. What? I wasn't even making an analogy lol. Its called an example. Specifically why you need to stop confusing corporate policy with legal policy. you trivialized corporate crime by comparing it to blizzard banning cheaters. i don't care what you want to call it, it is what it is.
Except I never compared it to blizzard cheaters D:, nor did I even compare anything at all.
Man you're hopeless bro.
|
On October 12 2010 06:02 stevensegal wrote:
I don't use any trainers or cheats and I never have gotten banned
No one dares ban you, you'll break their bones with your aikido.
|
On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:
Recently, Blizzard has banned several community members for using third party cheats in single player games and custom games versus AI.
...
These work in single player... upload critical achievement and completion data onto multiplayer.
...
(emphasis added)
All of the ToS and legal arguments going on in this thread are missing the point. Because of the acheivement system, "single player" in SC2 *is a form of multi-player.* Your accomplishments are public, viewable to everyone, and scored in a way that is meant to be comparable. One need look no further than WoW to know that some players take achievement play very seriously.
If you are against cheating in multiplayer, I think common sense and basic reason compels you to stand against this form of cheating too. Personal feelings aside (I don't give a shit about achieves either), it *is not* "single-player" in the traditional sense of the word, and shouldn't be treated as such. You used a 3rd party program to modify game data, and the record of this game was then sent to their servers and out to the rest of the world. You cheated. You should be banned.
|
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?
|
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...
What if it's acceptable in other games? Does that make it right? No. I have not seen a single game where it is acceptable to cheat.
They did disable achievements. They also gave you the cheats, and a warning that said, if you use cheats, it'll disable achievements. These players clearly wanted to bypass that.
It's reasonable because they own the game. They let you play it. You start messing around with their game, and they have every right to stop you from playing it.
Achievements are part of multiplayer, so what you do in single player, even if you think has no effect, is transferred into multiplayer. If you cheat in single player, you're cheating in multiplayer, and no one will argue you should keep your account after cheating in multiplayer.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2010 06:08 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:02 stevensegal wrote:
I don't use any trainers or cheats and I never have gotten banned 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!
|
I support Blizzard for this action. As soon as the single-player campaign involves online participation plus online point rewards, it's a multiplayer game. Yes, there are people taking achievement points seriously, and some of these achievements leads to unique Portraits. It's a mini competition, cheaters should be, and have been banned.
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....
|
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
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2010 06:19 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Makes a bit more sense then I suppose. We need Blizzard to speak about this.
|
On October 12 2010 06:04 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:02 PokePill wrote:
Nice sensationalist original post. They are 14 day bans. You are completely invalidating their service by farming achievements, it's no different than anything else they ban you for, there is no gray line at all, you are cheating. http://www.cheathappens.com/show_board.asp?titleID=13225No. 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."
|
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.
|
On October 12 2010 06:06 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:05 BulldogBCN wrote:On October 12 2010 05:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 05:54 BulldogBCN wrote:On October 12 2010 05:48 Half wrote:you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right? i didn't, actually, so i guess i must apologize. it doesn't make your analogy less ridiculous, though, i hope you realize that. What? I wasn't even making an analogy lol. Its called an example. Specifically why you need to stop confusing corporate policy with legal policy. you trivialized corporate crime by comparing it to blizzard banning cheaters. i don't care what you want to call it, it is what it is. 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... 
|
On October 12 2010 05:49 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 05:48 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote:You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee".
Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes.
"aperantely" so huh?.
You're mentally deficient if you can't discuss the terms of service of a video game without introducing random pinko political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Please, for the love of god, stop.
Blizzard is banning people who hack their software to cheat on a competitive online gaming service. They'd also ban people who win trade to the top of the ladder.
I like how you didn't read my last post either. Not gonna bother. If you can't argue against valid points you might as well ignore them and argue pointless semantics for 4 pages huh? Find me a valid point I haven't responded to. Go! And for the record, it wasn't me who started debating on semantics. Show nested quote +
See now you are jumping on minor spelling errors to try to prove me wrong, because you cannot do so through regular means. gg no re.
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:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:27 Seide wrote:
No that is not at all what I am arguing, you can modify your client fine, and you can go ahead and play offline with your modified client and you will not get banned.
When you login to Battle.net this changes, you are logging into a service Blizzard provides for you.
There are terms to using this service, part of it is a unmodified client. If you want to modify your client, by all means you can go ahead and mod the game completely and play it offline or on your own service.
You are using a modified client with trailers to login to Blizzards Battle.net servers. Clearly breaking their ToS for said service. Furthermore you are now cheating the service to get achievements you did not actually earn. A ban is a legitimate response for Blizzard here.
First of all, there is no distinction between Starcraft 2 as a product and Starcraft 2 as a service, the way it has been marketed and sold. A person banned from B-net cannot access Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 is a service. Similar any variety of services. Indeed, most services maintain the right to physical kick you out if you're behaving in a way that detriments other consumers, or the ability of the company to function. However, they cannot arbitrarily kick you out, even if that arbitrary reason was outlined on the TOS.
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.
|
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.
|
never was into cheating.
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.
|
On October 12 2010 04:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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).
|
On October 12 2010 06:24 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On October 12 2010 06:24 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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).
Except its not local play anymore. You are using trainers to mirror blizzards functionality for cheats. The difference is you are using trainers, since they allow you to get achievements whereas blizzards cheats do not. You are circumventing the system by modifying game files and cheating to get stuff you should have. You are saying this is right, and should not be banned.
How delusional are you? 1-10.
Many services do this. Steam. Xbox Live. You can mod your xbox to play pirated games. If you login to xbox live with that xbox, it's an insta-ban from live. No questions asked. You going to crusade against that as well?
|
I think Blizzard is trying to set a precedent, that will be important for Diablo 3, WoW, and other games. Basically, if you tamper with their game code, even for single-player stuff, you will be banned, so don't do it.
Personally, I like this hard-line stance against hackers.
|
On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote: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's not 3, and 1-2 are not per se bad. 4 is subjective, and it seems pretty much everyone disagrees with you on it.
Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA/ToS, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time.
Also the thread title is extremely misleading and should be changed.
|
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? What is the harm that is caused in using trainers? Trainers and other exploits actually lead to healthy communities like speedruns.
If Blizzard felt that this was a threat to their game, then they have clearly constructed the game wrong. You shouldn't have to ban people that aren't contributing any malice to the community because of a weaknesses in the overall game design.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Seide wrote:
Except its not local play anymore. You are using trainers to mirror blizzards functionality for cheats. The difference is you are using trainers, since they allow you to get achievements whereas blizzards cheats do not. You are circumventing the system by modifying game files and cheating to get stuff you should have. You are saying this is right, and should not be banned. How delusional are you? 1-10.
Many services do this. Steam. Xbox Live. You can mod your xbox to play pirated games. If you login to xbox live with that xbox, its an insta ban from live. No questions asked.
This times 1000.
Using hacks and modifying game files or data WHILE ONLINE is asking to get banned. "I was just playing singleplayer" is a terrible excuse.
This is like cheating to get all the WoW achievements or to instant level your character to 80.
"How was I hurting anyone else - I was just playing alone and my achievement points don't hurt anyone."
I can't believe this took -anyone- by surprise.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Half wrote:
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.
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? What is the harm that is caused in using trainers? Trainers and other exploits actually lead to healthy communities like speedruns.
If Blizzard felt that this was a threat to their game, then they have clearly constructed the game wrong. You shouldn't have to ban people that aren't contributing any malice to the community because of a weaknesses in the overall game design.
Please read more of the thread. Trainers are bypassing Blizzard's block, and letting players get achievement points they wouldn't normally get. The authorized cheats let you cheat, but without the achievement points.
Trainers do not lead to health communities. Interest does. Speed runs happen because it can be exploitable. Not because third party software make it exploitable. You are cheating the system, Battle.net, by getting points you shouldn't get.
|
Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time.
Why? The EULA can say anything it wants. What matters is how it stands up to being legally challenged in court, which is far more relevant specifically applied to this scenario, especially considering many people on that site have threatened legal damages.
|
On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game?
SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore.
Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic.
|
using a 3rd party program to alter blizzards game is still illegal, now the only difference is that they can catch who does it.
|
People can already use cheats. Blizzard offered them.
People are using trainers(Third party program) so that Achievements aren't disabled when they cheat.
And people are surprised they got banned for using a third party program to cheat?
|
On October 12 2010 06:51 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Start a thread on the idea of EULAs prohibiting stuff you see as reasonable (modifying local copy) if you want. This thread is pointless, because it's about them banning people for violating the EULA, which isn't news at all, they do it all the time. Why? The EULA can say anything it wants. What matters is how it stands up to being legally challenged in court, which is far more relevant specifically applied to this scenario, especially considering many people on that site have threatened legal damages.
going to court over that would be laughable and people threatening for 'legal damages' just goes to show how ignorant they really are.
"i hacked in counterstrike and got VAC banned. hacks are against the EULA but im going to sue valve for banning my account"
facepalm
|
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.
Fine, if you want to split hairs, imagine that you need to pay $10 to join the RC Group.
If you really want to argue legality instead of arguing over arguments, here you have it:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
If you want to argue the legality of what Blizzard did any further, you're going to need to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules in your favour, you're wrong.
|
My only question is this, when did achievements become some holiest of holy that needed to be protected at any and all costs?
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Okay, I lied. I have 2 questions. My other question is this:
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise?
All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations.
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations.
You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be legally binding. I like the addition of the fuck, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic.
|
On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic
I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat.
|
On October 12 2010 06:53 Zerokaiser wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
If you want to argue the legality of what Blizzard did any further, you're going to need to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules in your favour, you're wrong.
Here's a link to the court ruling, by the way, if anyone cares to see his source:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf
In short, EULAs are legally binding and must be upheld if you agree to them, no matter how absurd they are.
Unless you get the Supreme Court to overturn it.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations.
"Don't modify our product or you can no longer use our service." Isn't even CLOSE to being an illegal stipulation. Are you kidding?
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Patton1942 wrote:
My only question is this, when did achievements become some holiest of holy that needed to be protected at any and all costs?
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Okay, I lied. I have 2 questions. My other question is this:
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
That's the entire point. People are modifying SC2 files WHILE CONNECTED to bnet. If they aren't connected to bnet, no harm, no foul, no ban. It's like playing in a server all by yourself in Counter-Strike while connected to Steam. You hack, you will get banned normally. Same idea.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
http://www.cheathappens.com/show_board2.asp?headID=101081&titleID=13225
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Patton1942 wrote:
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Who cares about the integrity of ladder? What's wrong with hacking my rank up? I'll still be a bad player, why should you care?
Just because you don't care about achievements doesn't mean others don't. Many people clearly care about them, and for that reason their integrity should be protected.
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
You can. If you're offline Blizzard has no way of knowing you're cheating, let alone gives a shit.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations.
The thing is, you're wrong. At least in America.
The court further stated that whatever is in the license is binding, no matter how ridiculous. A ban on resale? A ban on lending? A ban on carrying the physical disks outside of the Western hemisphere? Forcing people to phyisically destroy their old disks? All perfectly legal, according to the court. In the official words of the courts:
We determine that Autodesk's direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23794/US_Court_Upholds_EULAs_Criminalises_Pretty_Much_All_of_Us
|
On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat.
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
|
anecdotal.
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal.
srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations. Show nested quote +
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
Can either side prove what they did was legal or illegal? To me it looks legal. It's blizzards code, and if the client was edited then the hackers are in the wrong.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:anecdotal. Show nested quote +
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal. srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
You still fail to show why it is illegal. Show this in a linear argument in your posts like other, normal people have. But be careful, linear logic is even easier to pick apart than circular logic. Perhaps you should learn the laws of your own country.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal.
srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
Blizzard can put whatever the fuck they want in their EULA, and if you break it they can ban you. Get over this fact. That is the law in the US of A, unless you want to go challenge in the SC.
|
On October 12 2010 06:51 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore. Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic.
Point taken. I personally don't like this integration of the campaign and multiplayer into this one package that detracts from the potential that each one offers.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept". Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
I think what he's saying is that contracts can't do certain things. I understand your point but, what if you signed something that made you owned by someone else as a slave? Do you think that the courts wouldn't rule in your favor?
|
What was the purpose of the trainers anyway? What advantage did they give over the built-in cheat codes?
|
On October 12 2010 07:03 telamascope wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:51 Yaotzin wrote:On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore. Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic. Point taken. I personally don't like this integration of the campaign and multiplayer into this one package that detracts from the potential that each one offers.
They aren't connected, you can play the campaign offline. You just can't get achievements offline.
|
On October 12 2010 07:05 Adila wrote:
What was the purpose of the trainers anyway? What advantage did they give over the built-in cheat codes?
Free Achievements.
|
On October 12 2010 07:04 Zestypasta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:59 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept". Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names. I think what he's saying is that contracts can't do certain things. I understand your point but, what if you signed something that made you owned by someone else as a slave? Do you think that the courts wouldn't rule in your favor?
They would rule in my favor obviously because it contradicts other civil rights laws that are already in place.
Banning people from an online service for modyfing game binaries, to circumvent a system put in place for a reason and to devalue other customers achievements and accomplishments is a bit more legitimate than making you a slave. No?
|
I can sort of understand this being bannable. Even though the cheats you're using are basically blizzard's cheats, they're getting you the achievements that everyone can see.
|
Nice one sir. I love how you used someones opinionated conjecture to twist an irrelevant citation to support your point. That was quite clever. Definitely one of the better ones in this thread.
The writer put in that claim (probably to highlight the rediculousness of the ruling), as his own opinionated summary of what the judge actually says.
In the official words of the courts:
We determine that Autodesk's direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.
All this stipulated was that software was licensed, not sold. The author infers that this in theory, could allow the owner to force the customer to do anything with his product. This is not true, it is ungrounded speculation, until someone goes to court with the case that the owner of the software he was licensed stipulated in contract unreasonable demands that.
In other words, yes, the software licenser can impose limits on usage, but the imposed limits on usage have to be legally sound in the first place. The stipulations on usage as imposed in the license have to be legal and sound according to contract law in the first place.
And there is reason this has never been tested in court on a larger scale. Because software companies know they can't win, so they prefer to get away with what they can. You realize that by this same standard, video game companies could just prohibit the resale of there games right? But they don't, because they aren't certain that it will hold up in court, especially when challenged with serious lawsuits by multibillion game retailers.
|
This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:anecdotal. Show nested quote +
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal. srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
For a contract to be unenforcable, there needs to be misrepresantation, unconscionability, a mistake, or terms which are explicitly illegal.
There are no laws in the United States that in any way consider anything in the Blizzard ToS to be illegal, and so the contract is enforceable as precedented until you appeal to court.
|
I'm so confused, and reading the thread didn't help.
There are built-in cheats. Why mod the game just to get slightly better stuff while breaking the TOS? Only thing I can think of is to gain an advantage over other players (like getting achievements, which SHOULD get them banned) or they are really really stupid for paying for trainer when they can get the same shit for free.
Edit: Seems the trainer does exactly that (let you get achievements using cheats). Ya they all deserved their bans. If you don't get the justification from Blizzard then you are probably one of the people doing this.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:44 cabarkapa wrote: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. Nice reasoning ther bro. and also. SEMANTICS HURF DURF.
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
|
I thinks shows why someone needs to hack bnet already, I want lagless lan play without the fear of bliz-bad-ban-hammer for sneezing in the wrong direction.
|
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote:
This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for hacking in single player online I would take legal action.
Fixed. Nobody got banned for cheats and nobody got banned for offline single-player.
They got banned for hacking the achievement system.
|
Rock Paper Shotgun are notorious for sensationalising news just to stir up a shitstorm and generate views.
It sounds like a very small amount of people have actually been banned for this, and those people can still play the game as guest so it's not like they've been banned from single player entirely.
Blizzard's warden program probably just scans everyone's SC for modifications and isn't even programmed to make a distinction between whether someone is cheating in multi-player, cheating for achievements or just harmlessly messing around. Given the EULA people are pretty stupid to be hacking their SC while online anyway.
|
God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA.
Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?)
|
Since everyone is connected online at all times, all memory modifications are probably noticed and logged and they don't even distinguish between MP and SP, it's not like review things case by case. Keep in mind they are not modifying game files like people here are suggesting, the program modifies the memory which is exactly what some online hacks do as well.
|
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote:
This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action.
You would take Blizzard to court for 60$ even though you cheated and completely deserve it..
They are using hacks which is against EULA and they are getting achievements (lolwhothefuckcares) and cheating, I would love to know your train of thought. Hacks fucking ruin games. pre ban wave there were so many hackers.
On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote:
God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA.
Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?)
Agreed and apparently pretty fucking stupid
|
On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote:
God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA.
Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?)
Nah not people. Person.
|
On October 12 2010 07:12 DiracMonopole wrote:
God damn, are people really arguing that it is illegal to ban people for modifying the game client? Thats one of the most reasonable uses of a EULA.
Suck up your 2 week ban, and dont hack online anymore. Just play offline, and hack to your heart's desire. (And how stupid do you have to be to PAY for trainers?)
I know right? It's literally one of the most basic and legally uncontroversial aspects of the EULA.
|
On October 12 2010 07:06 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:04 Zestypasta wrote:On October 12 2010 06:59 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept". Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names. I think what he's saying is that contracts can't do certain things. I understand your point but, what if you signed something that made you owned by someone else as a slave? Do you think that the courts wouldn't rule in your favor? They would rule in my favor obviously because it contradicts other civil rights laws that are already in place. Banning people from an online service for modyfing game binaries, to circumvent a system put in place for a reason and to devalue other customers achievements and accomplishments is a bit more legitimate than making you a slave. No?
Half said, "I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. "
You said, " Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept""
so you obviously didn't get his point. I was restating it, not my view on whether or not it was legal.
|
It's also what gives them the right to ban the hackers we ALL hate, so it would be a little distressing if they couldn't do it!
|
On October 12 2010 07:09 Lysdexia wrote:
This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action.
They logged into b.net with a hack. Go ahead and take legal action when the game offers guest mode where achievements are disabled and logging in is not required and you should be able to mess around in it.
People keep saying Single Player in SC2, but they keep forgetting that before that happens you are logging into an online service with your own account id you created.
It's not offline unless you log in as guest which doesn't asks you to log in at all but these people paid for the hack/trainer which essentially does everything Blizz provided in cheat codes typed into chatbox so they can get achievements while online.
|
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually any kind of game manipulation?
so you obviously didn't get his point. I was restating it, not my view on whether or not it was legal.
I appreciate your efforts, but don't bother with that guy T_T.
|
I am sort of confused heard; people keep talking of online and offline but what is the difference? The game is designed to where there is not really such thing as playing offline. When playing the game, you can play offline for a set amount of time, but you will be forced to log on once again after a specified time period. The single player as well as multiplayer are still tied to being online. So wouldn't it be the case that if you mess with it offline, it will be in an altered state when the person has to play online again? I think some have it in their minds that single player equates to offline much like Broodwar, but that is no longer the case. So if you alter something in single player, it will be in an altered state at one point.
But like I said, I am not sure if what I said is true. I am still a bit confused so it was the only thing that dame to mind. I could very well be wrong and I will accept it.
|
On October 12 2010 06:58 CyberPitz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:54 Patton1942 wrote:
My only question is this, when did achievements become some holiest of holy that needed to be protected at any and all costs?
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Okay, I lied. I have 2 questions. My other question is this:
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then. That's the entire point. People are modifying SC2 files WHILE CONNECTED to bnet. If they aren't connected to bnet, no harm, no foul, no ban. It's like playing in a server all by yourself in Counter-Strike while connected to Steam. You hack, you will get banned normally. Same idea.
Oh I get the gist Blizzards argument, I'm just wondering WHY single player achievements are so bloody important that they are worth banning people over. It just strikes me as being rather silly. Okay, I might give you that MP achievements might have more value. Nobody will argue that ladder rankings aren't important.
SP achieves give you profile pictures. that's it. It doesn't effect your laddering and or rank 1 little bit.
I went back and was replaying my old campaign to get some achievements that I missed (I wanted that profile picture) but after playing and replaying the mission a few times (the ghost mission) I hadn't gotten my achievements so I went to support and learned about the offline, no achieve bit. I was upset at first but then asked myself. "Self, why is this important to you? Why do you care about this?" and all I could come with as an answer was, "Oh yeah, Its not. and I don't."
|
There's a lot of ignorance about how Warden works in this thread. Blizzard targeted these hacks specifically. They most likely did it for three reasons:
(1) A lot of people enjoy competing for achievement rankings.
(2) They don't like people making money off of cheating in their game. (MMOGlider)
(3) It's very easy to detect the private hack that people paid for and Blizzard attempts* to take a zero tolerance policy on cheating.
If you want to really complain about their policy toward cheating look no farther than diablo2. You can't even play that game legitimately now unless you buy 3 cdkey sets because there is a 20 game per hour limit. You pass the limit and you get banned. The problem? You can do around 50-60 games per hour while leveling legitimately.
*Although they fail horribly at it, see WoW arena being plagued with GCD reduction hack for multiple seasons now and blahblahblah.
Edit: Astuce, the EULA is not a legally binding contract so the things you brought up aren't relevant. In this case Blizzard is well within their rights because of some horrible US laws, but even with decent laws it's likely that Blizzard's actions would be legally justified.
|
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue.
|
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you.
|
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system. lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro. Show nested quote +
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually anything, because Starcraft 2 is technically entirely online? Show nested quote +
so you obviously didn't get his point. I was restating it, not my view on whether or not it was legal.
I appreciate your efforts, but don't bother with that guy T_T.
Well there's no legitimate reason to be modifying memory for any purpose. So while it's a good point that Blizzard having too much control could be a bad thing, it's not like they are crossing any unreasonable line here.
|
On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you.
Quoted so he can't ignore it. I don't want him to derail his own thread again by only arguing with someone else's grammar errors.
|
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system. lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Show nested quote +
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually anything, because Starcraft 2 is technically entirely online?
Yes, it is already in their EULA that they can ban you for anything, but they won't because it would kill their image as a company to ban people for no reason. This case is different because there is a reason, and that is cheating to obtain an unfair advantage over other users on battle.net. If you really cared about their EULA that badly in the first place, you shouldn't have supported Blizzard by buying the game, or possibly educated yourself about your purchase in order to protect your "consumer interest"
|
On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote:
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue.
I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as Unconscionability and impracticability.
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok....
|
On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you.
unconscionable is legalese for unreasonable. The stipulation here is whether or not the ToS is unreasonable, I don't know and I won't argue either way, but you aren't saying anything he isn't, you're just being pedantic.
For someone who will apparently be a lawyer in one year it is kind of shocking you'd misrepresent yourself in the first sentence of your post. "I am a lawyer", no actually, you are not.
|
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
I don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually any kind of game manipulation?
Blizzard has had the power to ban customers for any reason for years, long before SC2. The reason why they can do it is because it's a way to legally cover their asses should the need arise, but keep in mind that it's extremely unlikely that Blizzard will ever actually use their power to ban "for no reason" because it would destroy their public image.
|
On October 12 2010 07:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote:
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue. I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as Unconscionability, impracticability. Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok....
You still aren't posting any of these Consumer Rights. Seriously, just post the Consumer Rights that cover being allowed to modify a service you've purchased.
EDIT: "On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you." debunks Unconscionability.
|
On October 12 2010 07:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote:
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue. I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as impracticability. Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok....
If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum?
|
All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights.
|
If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum?
If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted?
This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with
So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
This assumption
In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused.
All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights.
Actually I was arguing it violated contract law...
|
It's not really a question of who cares about the achievements or not. The main focus should really be; would you allow hacking if you were running b.net? Sure they hack single player, but once people find out "Hey, they don't really care.." they start to invest more time and resources into the hacking/whatev. process. By doing this, Blizz shows everyone that there's really no hacking allowed within the game.
To sum it up; I think it's fair.
|
On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:Show nested quote +If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement Show nested quote +
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with Show nested quote +So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused.
Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused.
|
On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:Show nested quote +If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement Show nested quote +
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with Show nested quote +So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Show nested quote +All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights. Actually I was arguing it violated contract law...
You said it violated contract law because terms of the agreement violated consumer rights.
|
On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused.
I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
You said it violated contract law because terms of the agreement violated consumer rights.
You mean this?
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
Note the word, and, not because. As in, its illegal, and you should care, because it hurts you as a consumer. Not its illegal because ot consumer rights. Whether it actually violates the thousands of trade regulations in the U.S. was not my point, though it may very well be.
|
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
Also, let me explain this: Defending a single issue related to hacking and cheating does not make you a hacker or a cheater. Example: I posted a thread on the Battle.net forums telling people to stop whining about hackers, and that the percentage of actual losses related to hacking were far less than the chatter on that message board would indicated. And as it turned out, only a small percentage of the player base (around 5,000 players) was banned for hacking. I ended up being right. In the interim, I was called a hacker and accused of defending hackers. The thread was eventually deleted.
This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter.
|
On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this.
|
I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
Are you fucking serious? That's virtually all you've done this thread.
"Your argument refutes itself."
"Anecdotal"
Blah blah blah.
Listen, we've all posted about why the ToS doesn't violate contract law. We've responded to your reasoning as to why it does, and our reasoning also uses precedents.
If it doesn't violate contract law, and it doesn't violate consumer rights, then what does it violate?
Listen, I know it's hard for you to concede an argument when you've dug this far down, but United States law says what Blizzard did is legal. If you want a real court hearing, move to the UK.
EDIT: Anyways, I'm done with this thread. Half isn't a lawyer, and he isn't citing anything that supports his position. I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't violate my ToS agreement, so I don't need to whine and complain. Half, if you're so stubborn and sure of yourself, take it to court.
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice. I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this.
You know, following the format for a humorous effect only works if you bring up valid criticisms. Sorry, I know your used to following things without a reason or purpose.
Listen, we've all posted about why the ToS doesn't violate contract law. We've responded to your reasoning as to why it does, and our reasoning also uses precedents.
Really? Where. The few times you brought up any amount of actual evidence turned out to be immediately irrelevant or misused.
Are you fucking serious? That's virtually all you've done this thread.
Maybe because you only read half of it. You know, the half that was a clusterfuck of people making the same tired old points?
|
My suspicion is they are incentivized to ban people as much as possible to sell new copies of the program.
|
On October 12 2010 07:29 floor exercise wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you. unconscionable is legalese for unreasonable. The stipulation here is whether or not the ToS is unreasonable, I don't know and I won't argue either way, but you aren't saying anything he isn't, you're just being pedantic. For someone who will apparently be a lawyer in one year it is kind of shocking you'd misrepresent yourself in the first sentence of your post. "I am a lawyer", no actually, you are not.
No, unconscionable is a legal term of art. It has an entirely different meaning from unreasonable in a legal context. Unconscionable is much worse than unreasonable.
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Lunares wrote:
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.
Well said. I almost forgot the existence of ingame cheats.
And if you want to experiment with stuff, there's the map editor for that. Or the unit test map found on b.net.
Can someone provide a good reason and need to use trainers???
There's other legal ways of aquiring achievements. Such as taking a saved game from another player and loading it up.
|
On October 12 2010 07:49 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:45 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice. I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this. You know, following the format for a humorous effect only works if you bring up valid criticisms. Sorry, I know your used to following things without a reason or purpose.
Awesome, more stupid assumptions. KEEP EM COMING! Also I'm curious, are you purposely misusing "your" and "you're" at every possible chance?
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
Also, let me explain this: Defending a single issue related to hacking and cheating does not make you a hacker or a cheater. Example: I posted a thread on the Battle.net forums telling people to stop whining about hackers, and that the percentage of actual losses related to hacking were far less than the chatter on that message board would indicated. And as it turned out, only a small percentage of the player base (around 5,000 players) was banned for hacking. I ended up being right. In the interim, I was called a hacker and accused of defending hackers. The thread was eventually deleted.
This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter.
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. 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.
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.
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Oh, and if I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself.
But what Blizzard says in the ToS isn't illegal. The Battle.net ToS doesn't say something preposterous like entitlement to users' children. It basically says, you modify our client or use 3rd party programs to cheat in any way (regardless of relevance of said cheats), we ban you. The ban, for however long, only denies access to the battle.net services that come with the game. It's really pretty simple: in my mind it's incredibly similar to product warranty - You modify the product in a way deemed unfit by the product makers, you lose your rights to the warranty service whereas SC2 is the product and battle.net is the service.
Honestly, how has this thread survived more than one page?
|
wow big argument...
OP: I would just remove all of their achievements and give them a new achievement:
Hacker 0 Points (or -1)
"I hacked the game and got caught. Now everyone gets to see who I am."
|
For singleplayer hacking they should just be suspended or warned that it will result in their ban.
For fuzzy issues like this, it's more of an issue that people should know that what they're doing is bannable. After that, I don't see a problem with it.
|
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.
Considering the last twelve months ha Keep in mind that all EULAs in the end are simply meant to protect the company's interests, and as long as they don't violate any actual law, then they are perfectly valid and are legally binding. The days when a company prohibits mods entirely is never going to come because games generally benefit from modding communities. I can guarantee that Blizzard made a shit ton of extra WC3 sales thanks to DotA for example. Blizzard on the other hand WILL ban people if they modify the game in a way that's intended to grant an unfair advantage in-game, namely map hacking or achievement hacking. And that goes back to my previous post, where it's not about whether or not people cheated to farm achievements (there really isn't an argument against a ban for that). It's about the precedent.
Companies don't just make EULAs for the fun of it or because they can. All EULAs are made with the intention of maintaining a quality service and protecting the company. It's about protecting their profits.
|
Haha! WhiteLight, that's brilliant. They get all their achievements disabled, and gets one that is unremovable from their showcase and portrait or whatever, saying they cheated. Public humiliation at its best. :D
|
No, unconscionable is a legal term of art. It has an entirely different meaning from unreasonable in a legal context. Unconscionable is much worse than unreasonable.
So your argument is NO UNREASONABLE ISN'T UNCONSCIONABLE BECAUSE UNCONSCIONABLE IS MUCH MUCH WORSE.
Great argument. Generally, using examples help in those kind of arguments. Otherwise like, you're arguing an entirely subjective position (how much worse? MUCH MUCH WORSE)
Awesome, more stupid assumptions. KEEP EM COMING! Also I'm curious, are you purposely misusing "your" and "you're" at every possible chance?
Man im kinda laughing reading your previous comments in this thread. I love how once you run out of points you just start shouting D:.
:I fail to see how this compares to the examples you gave.
Your examples are simply modding the game. No game company with half a brain is going to resort to banning people for mods because mods are excellent sources of revenue and advertisement for the company as well.
So you'd concede "We shouldn't really care about our legal rights as consumers, cuz I totally trust companies to always let us mod ther games and stuff, and there isn't any reason why they wouldn't, nor any precedents of them not doing so".
amazin.
and nah, I'm not strawmanning you, that requires intent, and you honestly just appear to be arguing that position.
|
That's kinda unfair. If Blizzard was against single player cheats, they should send out warns. A lot of people have no clue single player cheats are harmful to the game so they do it. They should be informed before action is taken.
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies.
And it's not for all purposes, it's all purposes Blizzard cares about. Go ahead, cheat offline to your hearts content, but don't mess with Battle.net. That's what Blizzard is trying to send. (not directed at you).
If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent.
If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined.
If you are arguing that the punishment is unreasonable, then yes, you could, under what you define as unreasonable. But that doesn't matter, because the creator has the final say. He (Blizzard) defines what use is considered reasonable and unreasonable. If he believes your use is bad for his game, then he can terminate your access to it. It is a service that he extends to you. And it's within his rights as the distributer to do whatever he wants with it, since by signing, you said you will let him.
|
On October 12 2010 08:05 Half wrote:
So you'd concede "We shouldn't really care about our legal rights as consumers, cuz I totally trust companies to always let us mod ther games and stuff, and there isn't any reason why they wouldn't, nor any precedents of them not doing so".
amazin.
If Blizzard is actually violating our legal rights, then I'll complain. But so far nothing they have done implies violating a legal right. If you can prove to me that they are, then I'm all ears.
|
People can't see that allowing cheats invalidates achievements? I don't care at all about achievements, but there are a lot of people who care about them. When you let people cheat to get them, it ruins the sense of accomplishment.
People chose to modify MPQ files and/or game memory while logged in online. I'd say that qualifies as stupid enough to get banned.
|
On October 12 2010 08:05 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Awesome, more stupid assumptions. KEEP EM COMING! Also I'm curious, are you purposely misusing "your" and "you're" at every possible chance? Man im kinda laughing reading your previous comments in this thread. I love how once you run out of points you just start shouting D:.
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.
|
On October 12 2010 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:
People can't see that allowing cheats invalidates achievements? I don't care at all about achievements, but there are a lot of people who care about them. When you let people cheat to get them, it ruins the sense of accomplishment.
People chose to modify MPQ files and/or game memory while logged in online. I'd say that qualifies as stupid enough to get banned.
But then you're saying smart cheaters shouldn't get banned. The ones that aren't caught. D:
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
Mods/user patches etc are allowed at the dev's whim. This has been known for quite a while. There was a fuss at first but it's now accepted. Generally these things are in the dev's interest (hence their inbuilt support in so many games, from SC2s map editor to Civ 5's mod menu option..), but it's not unknown for devs to send out c&ds. Charging for your mod is a really good way to get one.
This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter.
Their EULA is legal. The same clause that let them ban those 5k people is the one they use to ban these people.
|
On October 12 2010 08:10 Chairman Ray wrote:
That's kinda unfair. If Blizzard was against single player cheats, they should send out warns. A lot of people have no clue single player cheats are harmful to the game so they do it. They should be informed before action is taken.
Its not cheats that they were banned for. Its hacks. Blizzard provided single player cheats. The people who were banned went out and searched for hacks that would let them cheat but not disable achievements
Anyone who went out, downloaded (and paid) for a trainer knew full well what they were doing.
|
Mods/user patches etc are allowed at the dev's whim. This has been known for quite a while. There was a fuss at first but it's now accepted. Generally these things are in the dev's interest (hence their inbuilt support in so many games, from SC2s map editor to Civ 5's mod menu option..), but it's not unknown for devs to send out c&ds. Charging for your mod is a really good one to get one.
That's copyright violation. A developer can stop the distribution of a mod on the grounds of copyright. Once again, completely irrelevant. Show me one precedent of a developer revoking an individual license to there games due to a violation of the TOS in the form of making a mod.
--------------------
But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies.
thx for rehashing 12 pages in the thread. We're past that remember? We're arguing over the legality of the end user license.
If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent.
No, they would be brought to normal, state court. The supreme court is if you want to challenge the above system itself.
If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined.
rofl. Did you just seriously argue contracts are only void if the violate the U.S. constitution?
rofl ok this argument ends now kthx, please get a clue before we proceed. You literally don't understand...anything.
------------------
Yeah it is quite funny seeing you ignore everything and it turns into this crap.
Also you didn't answer my question, I am still curious to know.
What question? rofl. What have I ignored?
More baseless accusations and spam from the guy who hasn't had a coherent post in this entire thread, appreciate it :3.
|
On October 12 2010 08:02 MichaelJLowell wrote:
The question is: Would Blizzard Entertainment have banned these players if they had modified the single-player campaign and it caused no harm to anyone (i.e. they couldn't use the trainers as a free ticket to achievement points)? Regardless of what the answer is now, the answer will eventually be "yes".
Yeah, they care if you mod their campaign using their dev tools they released to you. Suuuuuure. Take your illogical crusade somewhere else.
It's about protecting their profits.
Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this.
|
If you wanna use trainers, unplug your internet connection and play away, I assume they can't tell if you are violating the ToS that way.
If the game is too complicated for you, or you just wanna screw around, use custom games, the provided cheats, or something of the like. No need for trainers, and blizzard has EVERY right to ban people that use trainers, on their FREE TO USE service, called battle.net. If you didn't wanna be caught, play offline. People that were banned, logged into battle.net, and used the trainers. Durr? I don't care if you think that's violating our rights as gamers, you're violating the ToS, which takes precedence, because you agreed to it before you can play it.
You can't use the argument of "Oh I didn't know I was gonna be banned for using trainers". Ignorance isn't an excuse in the law, why should it be now? You can't kill someone and say "Well I didn't know it was illegal".
Common sense, use it.
|
I really can not believe you are surprised about this. Off course Blizzard owns your account. Dont you ever read what you are agreeing to ? You should.
Now if we are speaking of appropiate conduct in any company ... in that case you are extremely innocent. No offense but you should get out and look around, see how the world works, it will help you a lot.
I didnt mean to offend you at all but im just trying to help.
|
On October 12 2010 08:20 Half wrote:
That's copyright violation. A developer can stop the distribution of a mod on the grounds of copyright. Once again, completely irrelevant. Show me one precedent of a developer revoking an individual license to there games due to a violation of the TOS in the form of making a mod.
Many mods don't infringe copyright at all. You don't know much about modding I'm taking it? There's a reason no one ever dares charge for their mod, and it ain't cos they're nice.
|
On October 12 2010 08:11 vica wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
But that is exactly what it means. You do not have any rights as a software user, because you are a user. It is a service provided to you that you agree to by signing the contract. And by signing the contract, you agree to every condition it specifies. And it's not for all purposes, it's all purposes Blizzard cares about. Go ahead, cheat offline to your hearts content, but don't mess with Battle.net. That's what Blizzard is trying to send. (not directed at you). If the conditions are unreasonable, they you can bring it to the supreme court. But that's only if they're unreasonable. People are trying to say it's within our rights to modify game files. It's not within your rights. It has been allowed in the past because developers either didn't care, or thought it would be beneficial. But it was not in our rights. And it is fundamentally wrong to change or modify something that isn't yours, without authorization or consent. If you are arguing the terms are rendered void if they are unreasonable, they are only void if they violate the constitution, or what the court decides to change in the constitution. If you sign a contract selling yourself, it is illegal, since it is illegal to sell yourself. But if you sign a contract saying you don't have the permission to modify files, and then you modify the files, you have violate the contract, and they will punish you as they outlined. If you are arguing that the punishment is unreasonable, then yes, you could, under what you define as unreasonable. But that doesn't matter, because the creator has the final say. He (Blizzard) defines what use is considered reasonable and unreasonable. If he believes your use is bad for his game, then he can terminate your access to it. It is a service that he extends to you. And it's within his rights as the distributer to do whatever he wants with it, since by signing, you said you will let him.
I didn't say anything about whether or not I agreed with the interpretation. I'm arguing whether or not people think this is a valid precedent to set. It is insane to say "Well the Ninth Circuit said EULAs are legal oh well lol", especially when there's still a valid chance the Supreme Court takes up the issue and rules against it, especially when there's no valid benefit to the user for businesses to have complete control of their product.
Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 08:16 Yaotzin wrote:This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter. Their EULA is legal. The same clause that let them ban those 5k people is the one they use to ban these people.
The sentiment in this thread is that "It's written in a EULA, therefore it's legal." That's not how it works.
|
Many mods don't infringe copyright at all. You don't know much about modding I'm taking it? There's a reason no one ever dares charge for their mod, and it ain't cos they're nice.
So much talk from ignorance. The very definition of mod implies copyright infringement. The only way it wouldn't be infringement is if you didn't use any elemenets of the original game, any of the code, ui, art assets, engines, etc. In other words, not a mod.
There is no possible way to make a mod of copyright software and be free from copyright infringement.
Blizzard is a business and always has been. Some people need to get the fuck over this.
The point of this statement was that you can't rely on them to protect your own interests.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
The same competitive player that thinks a bronze player using maphacks deserves to be banned. No they'll never meet in the ladder, but that's beside the point.
Imo Blizzard should provide a fair playing field for all, those in silver laddering, those playing the game for achievements, pro players, etc. Players hacking achievements may not affect you - as clearly you do not care about achievements - but it devalues the system for those that do. It's Blizzard's achievement system, and they have every right to protect it from abuse. And good on them for doing so.
|
Wow wtf did I buy then with my money if Blizzard's allowed to take it back even for things I choose to do offline?
|
I personally haven't cheated single player, but I disagree with Blizz. I spent 5 hours or so to get the Lost Viking achievement, but I don't really care if someone cheats their way to get it...it's just a number on their account. I know "deep down" that I actually beat it myself, and that's the real "achievement" IMO.
|
Well Half, after 9 pages of you talking to one guy that could communicate and a wall full of people that can't read.. And after watching you basically trying to explain what essentially amounts to quantum physics to sheep.. I'ts clear that you're running into the same problem I do when talking to people about 'Truth'.. When everyone makes up their own 'Truth' regardless of facts, coupled with not being able to look outside their preconceptions while not supporting their opinions with facts.. Well you've got modern mankind.
I applaud your tact, and well formed posts.
|
United Arab Emirates333 Posts
Supporting the bans yes. Supporting the way they went on about doing it, no. I think alot of people meant for it to affect their multi-player achievement score or whatever but alot of people were just using it for the sake of the cheats. A simple single warning would've been great. They don't need to send it to a person's email if they're worrying about people not checking, couldn't there be a battle.net message warning someone. Seriously, i am dissapoint. But who cares we'll all still play the game.
Ultimately, it has become that we are like eggs in a egg carton. When they take out one of our brothers to boil and die(ban un-rightfully), we can just complain to each other about it and just wait and hope Blizzard don't want any more eggs to eat.
|
Actually Blizzard warned all people not to hack. First of all, all had to accept the battle.net EULA. Then there also was a blue post on the blizzard forums when they turned on the warden with another warning for hackers. There was also a post in the SCII blog from September 14th (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/809157) and several articles around the web picked this up.
For me that are enough warnings and I can hardly believe that anyone who hacked / bought a trainer didn't know about the possible consequences.
|
On October 12 2010 16:24 MarwanBaki wrote:
Supporting the bans yes. Supporting the way they went on about doing it, no. I think alot of people meant for it to affect their multi-player achievement score or whatever but alot of people were just using it for the sake of the cheats. A simple single warning would've been great. They don't need to send it to a person's email if they're worrying about people not checking, couldn't there be a battle.net message warning someone. Seriously, i am dissapoint. But who cares we'll all still play the game.
Ultimately, it has become that we are like eggs in a egg carton. When they take out one of our brothers to boil and die(ban un-rightfully), we can just complain to each other about it and just wait and hope Blizzard don't want any more eggs to eat.
They can use in-game cheats for that, which disqualify them for achievements. The only reason to use a trainer is to cheat while being eligible for achieves.
|
YES!!!
Really, it does not matter if it was ONLY for single player trainers. They modified game files and so they deserve ban. If they put no effort in playing the game, they do not need it.
As other mentioned, they could use in-game cheats to finish singleplayer. If game files modifications would be allowed in singleplayer, what would be next? FFA? Custom games? It is good to stop these cheaters on the first step.
|
If these people wanted to "cheat" so much they can just use the in-game cheat codes. This seems like they're banning people who got greedy for achievement points, which albeit extreme, is somewhat reasonable.
|
Its a good thing they got ba nned. I totaly support Blizzard on this one.Some people put a lot of effort in getting those achievements no reason why they should let someone cheat there. Even though most people dont care about achievements some do, and those who get them legitimate way deserve respect.
|
On October 12 2010 19:11 Uriel_SVK wrote:
YES!!!
Really, it does not matter if it was ONLY for single player trainers. They modified game files and so they deserve ban. If they put no effort in playing the game, they do not need it.
As other mentioned, they could use in-game cheats to finish singleplayer. If game files modifications would be allowed in singleplayer, what would be next? FFA? Custom games? It is good to stop these cheaters on the first step.
Start reading dude, because you obviously have no clue. There is a difference between "hacks"
The standard trainer (which covers around 99.99% or maybe even all of cheathappens triainers) only do local memory lookups to change values. NO GAME FILES GET CHANGED
These are local and single player cheats only and do NOT work in any way shape or form in multiplayer.
Then there are the type of hacks that intercept network packages and sends malicious information back in order to cheat multiplayer.
Now the second form (MP) impacts johny diamond if peter copper hacks his way to his league and wins from him. The first form doesn't impact johny diamond at all, since peter copper now only has some stupid nerdpoints in a singleplaye part of the game that hardly any player that focusses on MP cares about.
|
You may not be aware of this, but the way that Blizzard won key lawsuits is the fact that the information Blizzard places in RAM is also part of their copyright. By changing the values of the information placed in ram (the variables such as Min/Gas/Etc), it provides a way of "copying" Blizzard's information and therefore borders on copyright infringement which allows them to send out cease and desists against people who are creating hacks, even for singleplayer.
Alternately, if the information is not saved in RAM but in a local data file that's created by Blizzard, that is also considered changing game files. In short, the variables are stored in RAM or in game files, either way, it's considered by law as a "game file" in their simplified terms. Your argument holds no water when the research on "Blizzard vs Glider" is performed, as Glider's main defense is "We never copied or changed game files" but ultimately they lost the case because the information in RAM was "copied" to another portion of RAM for their program to perform work such as "Lookups".
Bottom line is this, trainers are not recommended for StarCraft 2, Hacks are also not recommended for StarCraft II. If you have a complaint with this, then click "Don't Accept" on the EULA and don't play the game. It's harsh, but the ultimate truth.
|
EULA might hold ground in corporate america, but not in europe. And yes the glider dudes lost the case and I wont lose a night sleep over it because they cheated in an mmo environment where it impacted other players in their gameplay. Anyone cheating in SC2 Singleplayer doesnt harm or affect other players in any way.
|
On October 12 2010 21:30 Karok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 19:11 Uriel_SVK wrote:
YES!!!
Really, it does not matter if it was ONLY for single player trainers. They modified game files and so they deserve ban. If they put no effort in playing the game, they do not need it.
As other mentioned, they could use in-game cheats to finish singleplayer. If game files modifications would be allowed in singleplayer, what would be next? FFA? Custom games? It is good to stop these cheaters on the first step. Start reading dude, because you obviously have no clue. There is a difference between "hacks" The standard trainer (which covers around 99.99% or maybe even all of cheathappens triainers) only do local memory lookups to change values. NO GAME FILES GET CHANGEDThese are local and single player cheats only and do NOT work in any way shape or form in multiplayer. Then there are the type of hacks that intercept network packages and sends malicious information back in order to cheat multiplayer. Now the second form (MP) impacts johny diamond if peter copper hacks his way to his league and wins from him. The first form doesn't impact johny diamond at all, since peter copper now only has some stupid nerdpoints in a singleplaye part of the game that hardly any player that focusses on MP cares about.
Well did not read all the posts here, sorry for that. I never tried any trainer/cheat for sc2 so i do not know much about how they work. I used trainers for other games, and most of the time there was some file manipulation involved, thats why I thought it would be the same here.
Anyway, reading of local memory (or altering it) is enough for a maphack. At least so much I understand from this thread. So lets say, even if they do not modify game files, they use third-party software. And working priciple of this software can be potentialy used for MP too.
|
I'm not entirely sure about how the maphack works, but basic resources are serverbased and as far as i know can't be manipulated locally.
either way: SP cheating = who gives a shit, MP cheating = get the hell off mah battlenets 
|
17 pages of people who mostly don't seem to get it :/
Blizzard are banning people for using 3rd party programs to cheat to help them unlock achievements.
Achievements are attached to your multiplayer Battle.net account. There are cheat codes in the game to give you godmode, infinite minerals, reveal the map etc. but these all disable the achievements, hence why people are using 3rd party programs to get them.
Achievements are a big deal to some people and if Blizzard are going to let people cheat to get them they might as well give everyone every achievement.
They had to take action against this or everyone will start using cheats to get any achievement they find hard.
If they had been using these mods in offline mode they would have been fine. They cheated in an online environment, they got banned, good job Blizzard.
|
On October 13 2010 01:03 licarn wrote:
17 pages of people who mostly don't seem to get it :/
Blizzard are banning people for using 3rd party programs to cheat to help them unlock achievements.
Achievements are attached to your multiplayer Battle.net account. There are cheat codes in the game to give you godmode, infinite minerals, reveal the map etc. but these all disable the achievements, hence why people are using 3rd party programs to get them.
Achievements are a big deal to some people and if Blizzard are going to let people cheat to get them they might as well give everyone every achievement.
They had to take action against this or everyone will start using cheats to get any achievement they find hard.
If they had been using these mods in offline mode they would have been fine. They cheated in an online environment, they got banned, good job Blizzard.
Achievements are attached to your singleplayer AND multiplayer Battle.net account.
And yes, it might be a big deal for some people, and if there was no distinction between the single and multiplayer achievements I might have agreed, but there is a CLEAR distinction between single and multiplayer achievements, they are well sectioned, you can clearly see which are singleplayer and multiplayer achievements in the UI of the game.
I really don't get why people are so concerned about the dealings of other people in the singleplayer part of the game. If I managed the achievements legit, cool, do I care if someone else got them through cheating? fuck no, their loss on the actual achievement feeling. Again, take a long hard look in the mirror and wonder why you give a crap about what someone else does in a game that doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Someone who feels his/her achievements are diminished in any way shape or form because someone else cheated their way to get it needs some mental help.
|
On October 13 2010 05:13 Karok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2010 01:03 licarn wrote:
17 pages of people who mostly don't seem to get it :/
Blizzard are banning people for using 3rd party programs to cheat to help them unlock achievements.
Achievements are attached to your multiplayer Battle.net account. There are cheat codes in the game to give you godmode, infinite minerals, reveal the map etc. but these all disable the achievements, hence why people are using 3rd party programs to get them.
Achievements are a big deal to some people and if Blizzard are going to let people cheat to get them they might as well give everyone every achievement.
They had to take action against this or everyone will start using cheats to get any achievement they find hard.
If they had been using these mods in offline mode they would have been fine. They cheated in an online environment, they got banned, good job Blizzard. Achievements are attached to your singleplayer AND multiplayer Battle.net account. And yes, it might be a big deal for some people, and if there was no distinction between the single and multiplayer achievements I might have agreed, but there is a CLEAR distinction between single and multiplayer achievements, they are well sectioned, you can clearly see which are singleplayer and multiplayer achievements in the UI of the game. I really don't get why people are so concerned about the dealings of other people in the singleplayer part of the game. If I managed the achievements legit, cool, do I care if someone else got them through cheating? fuck no, their loss on the actual achievement feeling. Again, take a long hard look in the mirror and wonder why you give a crap about what someone else does in a game that doesn't affect you in the slightest. Someone who feels his/her achievements are diminished in any way shape or form because someone else cheated their way to get it needs some mental help.
Someone may feel his achievements are diminished because of hackers, that hack the game to get achievements and people know that Blizzard isn't catching every single hacker, thus leaving doubts in some people's mind and can easily discredit them for not doing X the legit way and it's annoying when they manage to convince other people of that theory.
|
So your argument rests on: People can be twats over the intertubes?
And instead of responding like a sane person to those who doubt your achievement in a fashion like such:
"I did that achievement legit and I dont give a flying fuck what you think"
go on a mental breakdown?
I guess in the end it comes down to self-esteem, are you confident enough to get react to those trolls, or do you falter as soon as they question your ability to get those achievements.
|
On October 12 2010 04:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sadly man its blizzards baby and if you touch their baby in the wrong way they are going to smash you, when you log into the game you accept the license and term agreements once that is done you have agreed to their terms to play THEIR game, using a 3rd party software for single player isn't a big deal no one should care that you cheat in single player, but when you use those 3rd party programs that are out their couldn't they easily be migrated to multi-player ? the answer is yes. Blizzards choice for banning people using 3rd party software IMO is good, it is sad that people got banned for using it in single player but lets get realistic, you can use the blizzard issued cheats for single player... there is no need for a "mod" to change the game for you to see the story the in game cheats will give you everything you need. just remember you play blizzards game its not yours its not something you created yourself, you do not own rights to this game. Blizzard owns them and because they do, they can ban people for using 3rd party software that breaks their game. these bans come to a very welcome place in my heart single player or no.. play single player use blizzards cheats and smash face in multi-player i hope the people useing a 3rd party system to map hack drop hack etc etc get thoroughly banned and your 60 bucks is wasted because you deserve it.
|
Like a 12 year-old totalitarian sovereign who tastes power for the first time and orders every transgression to be punishable by death. Since there is no monthly fee, it seems steady profit can be maintained by simply forcing re-buys. In this spirit, I hope there will always be enough hackers and cheaters around to keep the firing squads busy.
|
Blizzard is taking all control to make a point maybe. Though it's a dumb way of doing it. Just looking for more money half the time. Took me 3 try to get my name changed from "blowme" after my friend thought it would be funny. Just trying to make another few million.
|
I think Blizzard has every right to enforce this rule, although the measures taken in this instance might have been too drastic, since it does affect your achievements and in turn that affects the multi-player experience. It wouldn't be fair for someone to have 1600/1600 campaign achievements when they cheated. Also, any kind of hacking or cheating on the game will give hackers more information and more experience with the game possibly leading to more complex hacks later.
|
Fair enough, it's like they are cheating to get achievements instead of cheating to get ladder wins.
|
what about things like background timers (not the ones that appear on screen during gameplay) but just say i have a program that will beep every 17 seconds to remind to build another scv. does it monitor all background programs?
I guess im going to have to make a mp3 that beeps every 17 seconds and put it in itunes lol. lame as
|
I agree with Blizzard. All this talk of "consumer rights" kind of makes me sick. People think they should have the right to cheat, be it in single player or multiplayer, and unfairly obtain things people otherwise would have to put alot of time and effort into is stupid. Don't cheat, don't get banned. Easy as that.
|
On October 13 2010 08:14 ayababa wrote:
what about things like background timers (not the ones that appear on screen during gameplay) but just say i have a program that will beep every 17 seconds to remind to build another scv. does it monitor all background programs?
I guess im going to have to make a mp3 that beeps every 17 seconds and put it in itunes lol. lame as
The Warden program that was made so famous by other blizzard games did indeed monitor other windows that were open in an attempt to discover 3rd party software. Whether or not this carries over when you are playing in single player, I do not know. However, pretty good chance since a bunch of people just got banned.
On the other hand, the real question is whether or not Warden works when offline (no internet, not just playing offline) and Warden has no connectivity to Bnet.
Achievements do not matter much to me (except Zerglot! :D) but they do to a fair number of people. Because of that, they should be banned. Just so they do not ruin other people's experience.
|
the lesson learned is that we paid $60 to play in blizzards sandbox and we don't actually own what we paid for. i think it's absurd that some people can't play single player or vs the AI the way they want to play it.
|
The way I see it, you already have a bunch of built in cheat codes you can use, aswell as a posibility to open and edit the maps directly in the editor.
Only reason I can see for resorting to third party software would be to obtain the achievements, which some people including myself, actually care about.
|
On October 13 2010 14:30 Terranist wrote:
i think it's absurd that some people can't play single player or vs the AI the way they want to play it.
They can, any way they like. It's just that the moment you start using any form of 3d party software to alter starcraft you'll risk getting banned from online play. They can still play single player as much as they want, with whatever hacks they choose.
|
I´m against achivements. When I want them I will go play my ps3. and this is just plain stupid, but then again if only for single player experience, they should be playing a cracked copy of it and leave their intact acc for mp or achivements, so i think a temporary ban would be fairer ...
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 nafta wrote:
Well there should be a warning for that.Banning for using trainers in single player is really stupid.....They should just remove the achievements of said account if it "matters".ROFL who gives a fuck about achievements anyway?
Right now a lot of people give a fuck. Some people enjoy that part of their game play. Are you really going to sit here and insult anyone who enjoys a FUCKING VIDEO GAME differently than you? Then fuck you.
No one would care about them if they knew you could easily get all of them without earning them. This being allowed would make achievements completely and utterly meaningless, they might as well take em out of the game if they allowed this.
OF COURSE they're banning people for cheating -_-
|
One of Blizzard's Community Managers, Bashiok, has now responded to one of the threads on the Battle.net forums concerning this topic.
On 10/13/2010 12:02:15 PM PDT Bashiok wrote:
We are not banning players for using single-player cheats.
The confusion all comes from an inaccurate statement that we think cheating in single player negatively affects achievements or some such. Not the case. I don't even know if the person who this story is based on actually got banned, but if they did, it's because they were using a hack inside a multiplayer game.
I would recommend that if you want to cheat in single player StarCraft II games, use the ones we put in there. A lot of the hacks out there work in both single and multi. If you get a third party hack and intend to only use it for single player, and then go play a mutiplayer game with it still on, you're bound to get tagged.
Edited to clarify who Bashiok is, in case someone is unfamiliar.
|
Nice find xajten. Makes this whole thing completely pointless now. Those people that got banned definitely deserved it then.
|
ROFL
blizzard just wants more game sales.
all these ppl who get insta banned need to go out and buy another copy of the game.
YAY FOR MONIEZ lol
to expand on this,
even in warcraft 3, you were temp banned before you got perma banned for MAPHACKING ON LADDER
it's hilarious that you are getting perma banned for SINGLE PLAYER CHEATS
rofl
oh blizzard, did i make a good choice in refusing to buy your products =)
|
You didn't read 2 posts above you? It's a crying shame... rofl and such nonsense, yeah.
|
Money is the primary reason for blizzard to do this. Once banned, users have to get a new copy of SC2 and what does that mean? More money win their greedy wallets. This ban is ridiculous. I am personally not a user of these hacks, but I mean come on blizzard, why can't people enjoy an offline experience the way they want to. I mean for christ sake the only way people can LAN is online with bnet.
|
WTF, the NEXT one???
xajten's post is just 4 posts up!!
Reading is a lost art it seems >.<
|
On October 14 2010 04:39 xajten wrote:One of Blizzard's Community Managers, Bashiok, has now responded to one of the threads on the Battle.net forums concerning this topic. Show nested quote +On 10/13/2010 12:02:15 PM PDT Bashiok wrote:
We are not banning players for using single-player cheats.
The confusion all comes from an inaccurate statement that we think cheating in single player negatively affects achievements or some such. Not the case. I don't even know if the person who this story is based on actually got banned, but if they did, it's because they were using a hack inside a multiplayer game.
I would recommend that if you want to cheat in single player StarCraft II games, use the ones we put in there. A lot of the hacks out there work in both single and multi. If you get a third party hack and intend to only use it for single player, and then go play a mutiplayer game with it still on, you're bound to get tagged. Edited to clarify who Bashiok is, in case someone is unfamiliar.
This needs to be added to the OP. Good riddance to these a-hole hackers. They deserve no sympathy.
|
It seems like a warning would have been more suitable for single player hacks, but changing the game is against the rules, and the people who did it knew this. Their fault for attempting it without expecting this to happen.
|
An important thing to note is that blizzards system of finding hacks may not really notice what part of the game is being hacked simply knowing that part of the code has been altered from a search program of some sort and then blizzard confirming that in fact some code has been changed would simply be enough to ban someone.
|
well the EULA says you are not allowed to modify the core game files, and hacking will get your banned. it doesn't state only when playing multiplayer... just you aren't allowed to do it, period. You hit they yes button, that constitutes a legal contract, which does superseed any consumer rights you have.
Cheating in sinlge player using the cheats provided by blizzard is fine, but using outside programs to do it i only one step away from using map hacks in multiplayer.... i would venture a large chunk who use one, use the other.
Personally I think the game shouldn't even have built in cheat codes, since they are mainly put in for the programmers to use and then just never get taken out again. As soon as you build in cheats, there will be some people who take that as permission to create their own or use one made by someone else.... remove the built in ones, and many people probably wouldn't end up using cheats at all
|
At least they aren't suing them -____-
Cheating in sinlge player using the cheats provided by blizzard is fine, but using outside programs to do it i only one step away from using map hacks in multiplayer.... i would venture a large chunk who use one, use the other.
These hacks are trainers. Why would you bother going to such measures to train if you were going to use multiplayer hacks to win games? Your logic makes no sense.
|
I believe this is for the better. Their standpoint is correct concerning single player cheating and its effects on achievement points being banworthy. To what do we acheive if we cheated to obtain it? In any event, this is for the better, as it is blizzard's form of saying that they will not tolerate cheating in any form, and those who were banned already serve as examples made. I'm already quivering in my pants at blizzard's strict authority for promoting good gameplay. Albeit harsh, as many would argue, since starcraft 1's single player was cheatable, I welcome such bannings to discourage and hopefully further prevent cheating in online-play.
And plus, if you seriously have to cheat through single player, you're a fuckin nub.
|
Just gonna toss this out there:
People in this thread have made the point that a place in the service industry (a hotel was used as an example near the start) cannot arbitrarily remove you from the premises. This is false. Any industry that caters to the general public has legal precedent to refuse service to anybody, for any or no reason.
While employers often don't allow their employees to follow this up, it is nonetheless true. If you deal with the public you are allowed to refuse service to absolutely anybody for any or no reason. This gets sticky when anybody doing so is accused of something like racism/sexism/etc.
HOWEVER, as Blizzard basically said "If you do this, we ban you" and they agreed, Blizzard is fully within their right to ban them. When you buy a game you don't actually buy the game, you buy the right to play that game.
You're basically getting a license to take part. You don't buy the rights or abilities to modify that game outside of accepted parameters (IE: in game mods).
|
Hyrule19006 Posts
A better analogy would be that when you bought a video game in the past, it was yours. You owned it. Much the same way when you buy a house, you own it, and you can do whatever remodeling you want.
Nowadays, when you "buy" a game it's more like renting an apartment: you live there, you can paint, decorate, etc, but you can't tear down a wall because you don't like it; you still need the landlord's permission for stuff like that.
|
It's a decent example, but it's still not entirely accurate.
In the past (or present) when you buy a disc based release, you are buying a physical copy of the game, but you still aren't buying the game. Should your disc break you are forced to purchase a replacement as opposed to having free access to it.
Ironically, a digital release actually gives you a closer approximation to "owning" the game, especially in Blizzard's case. Should you uninstall it or break your computer or want it installed elsewhere you can simply download it over and over for free.
|
On October 23 2010 00:16 McFoo wrote:
These hacks are trainers. Why would you bother going to such measures to train if you were going to use multiplayer hacks to win games? Your logic makes no sense.
What part of using a hack is training? Just because they name them trainers doesn't change the fact they are hacks.
My point was people who use single player hacks are likely to use multiplayer....
More over, what part of playing single player WITH HACKS would help you TRAIN to play multiplayer?
Single player and multiplayer are completely different.... the only thing you learn in single player that helps in multiplayer is what Terran/Toss building makes which units, and possible what good counters are. You don't learn anything really about macro mechanics as they pertain to multiplayer, you barely have to micro unless ur on hard/brutal at which point you shouldn't need to hack.
Have i made my point yet? All these people do is CHEAT to do things that real players take the time to elarn how to do properly.... if you want to TRAIN, you play straight up, if you want CHEAT you use hacks.
|
I am a bit confused on how people would think that using hacks in single player is somehow legal. There are cheat codes in the game for this reason. How is hacking single player possibly going to improve your experience?
|
On October 12 2010 04:27 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:
In practice, the work functionally identical to exploiting in game single player exploits, or the use of blizzard sanctioned cheat codes.
In practice sure, but Blizzards codes disable achievement gain. Thus, even if you cheat to get through the campaign faster to get through the story, you do not earn the achievements as you have not earned them. Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:27 floor exercise wrote:
It's really absurd. Can you imagine being banned from playing any other game on your computer for using a trainer in single player? Why not? 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. People cheating with trailers to get achievements they do not deserve == People cheating with map/drop hacks to get wins in multiplayer they do not deserve. Sure a much smaller sub-set of people care about said achievements, but keeping a legitimate playing field in all aspects of the game, including single player is important. It may not be important to you, it's not really important to me, but someone out there took time to get those achievements legitimately and it's important to them.
do you actually achieve anything in achievements or does it just say that youve unlocked them
because unless you get anything (score/extra stuff etc) it shouldnt matter enough to ban people
|
Does that mean that u can't use cheats like TerribleTerribleDamage(god mode)?
|
No, it means you can't use a "trainer" program which injects code into SC2, altering the way the game runs.
Not to mention that it wouldn't be that difficult for someone to use the code injection as 90%+ of the work needed to maphack in multiplayer... The fact that shit like this exists, no matter how "benign" its creators claim it is, makes maphackers have an easier time ruining the game.
|
Who cares about achievements. Should these people have been banned if they were only cheating in single player? No. Do these player's achievements have a negative affect on your gameplay? No.
If they weren't cheating in multiplayer ranked games, why ban them?
|
Could people stop saying cheating in single player makes it more likely to cheat in multiplayer. What proof do you have of this? Have you never cheated at a single player game ever?
What would be better than blizzard banning people for using trainer is instead just to remove their achievements and then there would be no problem right? In fact I would start using trainers until I got my god damn achievements disabled if that was the case.
I wish games would start adding a option to disable achievements. They are just an annoyance.
|
On October 22 2010 19:53 emythrel wrote:Cheating in sinlge player using the cheats provided by blizzard is fine, but using outside programs to do it i only one step away from using map hacks in multiplayer.... i would venture a large chunk who use one, use the other.
It is still that 1 step away from hacking in multiplayer. If someone uses maphack, then ban them, but not because they do something else that might or might not imply they have a higher than average chance of maphacking.
I don't know shit about laws but I know that EULAs are not above them... You don't have to agree to it even if you click some box, it depends on the laws of your country.
|
On October 12 2010 04:38 floor exercise wrote:
People should be allowed to do whatever they want with the game so long as it does not affect others. And no, achievements mean absolutely nothing. If you think they have an effect on multiplayer you are dumb.
Cheating online = bad. Cheating on your own = why should I care? I know why Blizzard cares: money.
Cause single/multi player are semi integrated, personally i think they got what they deserve.
|
THE TERM TRAINER DOES NOT MEAN A HACK...
Trainers made for SP and SP only And if used in MP it gets disabled and does not get around the games checks and balances. and be used VS AI.
A HACK is made to go around the checks an balances And be used VS another Player To give one player an advantage.
In other words GameShark And GameGinnie Are Trainers because they do the same thing in almost the same way.
5k people banned. Some FOR really hacking some for useing trainers. Ect But 25k+ people dled the trainer form Cheathappens so 5k out of 25 is nothing. but what about all the people who used an ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKER / HACK i heard no reports of people getting banned for that..
|
On October 23 2010 10:51 mia-X17 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 04:27 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 04:23 Half wrote:
In practice, the work functionally identical to exploiting in game single player exploits, or the use of blizzard sanctioned cheat codes.
In practice sure, but Blizzards codes disable achievement gain. Thus, even if you cheat to get through the campaign faster to get through the story, you do not earn the achievements as you have not earned them. On October 12 2010 04:27 floor exercise wrote:
It's really absurd. Can you imagine being banned from playing any other game on your computer for using a trainer in single player? Why not? 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. People cheating with trailers to get achievements they do not deserve == People cheating with map/drop hacks to get wins in multiplayer they do not deserve. Sure a much smaller sub-set of people care about said achievements, but keeping a legitimate playing field in all aspects of the game, including single player is important. It may not be important to you, it's not really important to me, but someone out there took time to get those achievements legitimately and it's important to them. do you actually achieve anything in achievements or does it just say that youve unlocked them because unless you get anything (score/extra stuff etc) it shouldnt matter enough to ban people
Whenever you install a game or dl a patch you have to read the terms and rules. If you break them you must be fine with your treatment. It´s just a simple rule in the reallife, do what you agreed on.
|
for a second I was like WHAAAAA???? cause blizz wouldn't have put cheats in single player if tey didn't want people to use them... but.. ok.
|
On October 24 2010 01:02 SIL3NT-DE4TH wrote:
THE TERM TRAINER DOES NOT MEAN A HACK...
Trainers made for SP and SP only And if used in MP it gets disabled and does not get around the games checks and balances. and be used VS AI.
A HACK is made to go around the checks an balances And be used VS another Player To give one player an advantage.
In other words GameShark And GameGinnie Are Trainers because they do the same thing in almost the same way.
5k people banned. Some FOR really hacking some for useing trainers. Ect But 25k+ people dled the trainer form Cheathappens so 5k out of 25 is nothing. but what about all the people who used an ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKER / HACK i heard no reports of people getting banned for that..
I really wish people who post actually know what they are talking about before posting...
Hacks manipulate something in order to achieve a goal. It could be data from the game, giving a player complete vision. Every trainer comprises of hacks. They are programs that will hack the game engine for you, to achieve the task that is specified.
A result of a hack can be that a player gains an advantage somewhere. In that case, the hack also becomes a cheat. Thus, trainers are both hacks, and cheats.
Trainers simply modify data. They need to be constantly running to constantly modify the data. That's why if the trainer crashes, the game usually crashes.
Trainers are made for anything. What happens is that most of them are very crude, and easily detected by Blizzard. Then the player gets banned, and blames the trainer's developer. Eventually, the developers decided to warn players not to use the trainer in multiplayer mode, because multiplayer is online, and most companies have active anti-cheats on them. Single player was safe for trainers, because no one cares if you cheat by yourself.
No one used an achievement unlocker hack. They played the game, got achievements, and then got banned for getting achievements while cheating.
Gameshark is part trainer. There are options to modify the save file and game engine, but depending on what cheats you use, they simply modify the save file, and thus is just a hack, not a trainer.
The 5,000 people banned, or whatever number it really is, were banned for using the trainers. In other words, hacking. Just because they were not actually hacking with console or what not, doesn't mean they weren't using a program that hacked for them.
|
Blizzard banned people who did not "cheat" for achievement. Everyone here knows that.
Does anyone here care to pretend?
The courage of the pro-Big Boss people here is epic. To face down the weak in the name of the strong.
Kotick, Lord of Activision, has many other enemies for you to attack.
For example, West and Zampella, the creators of Modern Warfare, have been fired by Lord Kotick for failing to agree to the ToS he offered them. Lord Kotick hired armed men to terrorize them, as is his right(see the ToS).
http://brokentoys.org/2010/03/04/activision-moving-from-sucking-all-the-fun-out-of-development-to-actually-killing-your-dog/
You can expect similar insanity for Blizzard. Are you happy now? Are you happy with what you've done and what you've supported?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NURTFz-26UI/SsC4KFoc3KI/AAAAAAAABDI/A8GfdE_rm-8/s400/crying-baby.jpg)
