EPTLegally, Blizzard doesn't sell you the software, they simply license you to use it. They can pretty much revoke that license at any time, for any reason that has been enumerated to you as an end user.
Sucks, but maybe don't cheat?
Blizzard Banning Singleplayer Cheaters? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
Legally, Blizzard doesn't sell you the software, they simply license you to use it. They can pretty much revoke that license at any time, for any reason that has been enumerated to you as an end user. Sucks, but maybe don't cheat? | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On October 11 2010 20:03 kojinshugi wrote: Which reminds me to add, the main incentive for Blizzard is not to reduce cheating, but to increase sales (as always). They would love to ban *all* customer accounts if they could, gradually, just to get people to buy the game one more time. Go prove you were innocent. It's similar with electrical companies and other monopolists.Why IP ban when you can get them to pay you sixty more bucks? | ||
|
Cantankerous
114 Posts
On October 11 2010 16:33 Gifted wrote: I believe this article has many GLARING fallacies to it and does a great job of showing a one sided skewed opinion. I do feel the need to point out however that so do you - you're misrepresenting what I feel is the key issue here. 1. You click "Accept" to an EULA when you install the game and the article even touches on it in a slanted attempt to disillusion that it's looking at both sides. Like any agreement, it's up to the person who it's placed before to read it. If we should bring to a real life example (which the article does often to support it's point) would a person sign a legal document regarding purchasing a car without even looking at it in any way? Isn't it pretty much general knowledge that this is a stupid decision to make? Too many people do just that when they click "accept" to an EULA. This is all true, but is that really all there is to the situation? First off, I'd like to remind you that I've seen EULAs upwards of a hundred pages of legalities and technicalities to protect the companies interest in any way imaginable. Quite frankly, I doubt anyone in here has read the entire EULA of a game before you play simply because you wanted to make sure you were on the same page as the company. It *is* unreasonable, but it's still forced on people as a legal agreement. The other side of this is that a company needs to lay out some rules, and if breaking those rules means the user forfeits his copy of the game he needs to be informed, and the EULA is invented. I'm not sure what can be done about that. 2. Unfortunately, by accepting the EULA a person also accepts the terms which they actually have purchased the game. The CD alone does jack crap, or the download file. To use it they have completely set in stone that you are purchasing the ability to play the game and not the game itself. This is so standard as it's in pretty much EVERY EULA ever created by a company with more than 2 games under it's belt. And I'm sure this point alone brings out the constant flow of people saying "But that's not right! I payed money for this game!" but you lose a lot of credibility when you "agree" to the terms and say later "I don't like the terms". You have full authority to say "Not Agree" and walk away from StarCraft II if your beliefs were so important to you. This is where I really disagree with you. Imagine if the EULA said something like that blizzard reserved the right to ban you if you are a republican. Would that be alright? Technically, you agreed to it in the EULA so you can't really complain. Would you say that you forfeited your right to play the game the moment you became a republican and then walk off with a jolly smile on your face? I'll assume your answer is no, but how about if they say you can be banned for playing too much and overloading the servers? or for not humming along to the terran soundtrack or for 6-pooling? I would think it's pretty apparent that while they did say so they would in the contract you accepted that does not mean it's in any way right, and *that* is what the discussion is about. Not about whether or not it actually says so in the EULA but whether it is acceptable that they do that. 3. I never understood the need to use a trainer or cheat program in StarCraft II single player when there is a FULL LIST of in game cheats to allow you to do all that you need. They give you the means to do all the silly stuff on your own, HELL, they even let you edit the maps themselves if you look at how to do it.. they are all right there in your folders. If it's for getting online achievements easy I have no sympathy for anyone doing this, and I do think a suspension coupled with the removal of illegally gained achievements is well deserved (note that I believe this is justified on the grounds that they are essentially hacking to get the achievements without the work, thus cheapening it for other players - I do not think it's right just because it says so in the EULA). However, the few times in my life that I have used a trainer it's been for some specific function - I remember after a few playthroughs of some star wars FPS I was getting pretty bored but I wanted to try playing with unlimited jetpack fuel, but the ingame cheats only had stuff like god mode and unlimited ammo, so I got a trainer for it. I don't know what a trainer would give you in SC2 but if they're doing it in offline singleplayer they should be able to do whatever they want. 4. When the article visited analogies regarding "purchasing a car that gets taken back" is also a poor fallacy. If you purchased the car and it said in the actual agreement "We will take back the car if you put a new stereo in it" and you "agree" to the terms.. you have ONLY yourself to blame when the car gets repossessed. That depends on what kind of a purchase it is though - if you're renting the car, or even paying it off over a period of time so that it does not actually belong to you for a period of time then yeah - they would be in their right to demand the car back if you made unauthorized changes to it. After all, they're taking a risk by giving you the car before you've completed your payments, and they don't want you ruining it in case you don't pay up. If this were an actual straight up purchase that kind of deal would be outrageous, especially if you're the only company selling that particular product. Funnily enough though this reminds me of apple, but that's for another day. | ||
|
Cantankerous
114 Posts
On October 11 2010 17:12 Crushgroove wrote: A great many very good and valid points in the thread already... but I have always been of the opinion that if you violate TOS you are subject to the pains and penalties of said violation. Legally, Blizzard doesn't sell you the software, they simply license you to use it. They can pretty much revoke that license at any time, for any reason that has been enumerated to you as an end user. Sucks, but maybe don't cheat? I was going to respond negatively to your post but then I saw your signature and I laughed so hard that I'm in a ridiculously good mood now and don't feel like posting anything negative. Damn you Crushgroove, you are a worthy opponent! | ||
|
Almania
145 Posts
Imagine if the EULA said something like that blizzard reserved the right to ban you if you are a republican. Would that be alright? Technically, you agreed to it in the EULA so you can't really complain. Would you say that you forfeited your right to play the game the moment you became a republican and then walk off with a jolly smile on your face? I'll assume your answer is no, but how about if they say you can be banned for playing too much and overloading the servers? or for not humming along to the terran soundtrack or for 6-pooling? I would think it's pretty apparent that while they did say so they would in the contract you accepted that does not mean it's in any way right, and *that* is what the discussion is about. Not about whether or not it actually says so in the EULA but whether it is acceptable that they do that. Most of the above suggestions would fall under "unreasonable contract terms", and you'd possibly have legal recourse. I doubt any court in any country would deem that a EULA which has over 50% of it dedicated to what amounts to "you shall not reverse engineer or modify this game" as unreasonable though. Because it's perfectly common-place. Nothing in the EULA strikes me as the slightest bit evil or immoral. | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
If I created a hack that let me ladder continuously against a fake opponent in order to artificially inflate my score, I should be banned for it. Hacking to increase your achievements is no different. | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
they say their cheats and trainers help people who dont have the reflexes or skill to beat the game vanilla. FUCKADATSHIT! Which one of blizzards own cheats wont make that possible? The people using trainers know very well what theys doing. They are going out of their way to bypass the use cheats and not get any achievements already built in to the game so they can flex their epeens online. If they are so innocent then why play online? They want the achievements but are too lazy or not going to bother trying to get them without the trainers. If you ask me blizzard should learn from tl and i.p ban them. They are after all breaching contract. Why anyone would want to use trainers or cheats anyway is beyond me. Half of the fun of playing any game is getting so frustrated that you want to break something and then finall getting it right after so many attempts. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
| ||
|
Gamjadori
Japan131 Posts
I have no clue what SC2 SP hacks are out there, but what could they possible offer that costum maps can't provide in a legit way save achievements? | ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On October 11 2010 17:59 Cantankerous wrote: This is all true, but is that really all there is to the situation? First off, I'd like to remind you that I've seen EULAs upwards of a hundred pages of legalities and technicalities to protect the companies interest in any way imaginable. Quite frankly, I doubt anyone in here has read the entire EULA of a game before you play simply because you wanted to make sure you were on the same page as the company. It *is* unreasonable, but it's still forced on people as a legal agreement. Yes, it is "all there is". You are presented with a contract, and you are not forced to accept. If you consider it too much trouble, you are entitled to a refund for declining the agreement. If you click accept/ok/etc and just hope for everything to be in order, you don't have justification for disagreeing with the terms that you accepted. Politicians do this every day - how is it working out for you? This is where I really disagree with you. Imagine if the EULA said something like that blizzard reserved the right to ban you if you are a republican. Would that be alright? I should hope that you would read the EULA beforehand, disagree with such terms, and request your refund. Regardless, no legal contract (USA anyway) can violate your rights - even if you agree to it. The EULA in question is specifically designed not to violate your rights, and the practice of EULA in general (specifically even with Blizzard) holds up in court. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 11 2010 20:19 Gamjadori wrote: I have no clue what SC2 SP hacks are out there, but what could they possible offer that costume maps can't provide in a legit way save achievements? The bans are for hacking the client to award achievements with cheat codes on. | ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
On October 11 2010 18:24 Almania wrote: Most of the above suggestions would fall under "unreasonable contract terms", and you'd possibly have legal recourse. I doubt any court in any country would deem that a EULA which has over 50% of it dedicated to what amounts to "you shall not reverse engineer or modify this game" as unreasonable though. Because it's perfectly common-place. Nothing in the EULA strikes me as the slightest bit evil or immoral. I agree. The reason those sorts of conditions would not be in any EULA is because they would be "outrageous." He said it himself in the car analogy: That depends on what kind of a purchase it is though - if you're renting the car, or even paying it off over a period of time so that it does not actually belong to you for a period of time then yeah - they would be in their right to demand the car back if you made unauthorized changes to it. After all, they're taking a risk by giving you the car before you've completed your payments, and they don't want you ruining it in case you don't pay up. If this were an actual straight up purchase that kind of deal would be outrageous, especially if you're the only company selling that particular product. Funnily enough though this reminds me of apple, but that's for another day. We all have our expectations of what is reasonable and unreasonable. It is up to you as the consumer to inform yourself of what your are signing up to. In the same way that nobody would ever buy a car with the clause that if you put a stereo on it they'd take it away, nobody would agree to the EULA of a game that would ban you for humming to Terran music. This is slightly off-topic though. I agree that anyone using any sort of hack (for single or multiplayer) should be banned from battle.net. I can't imagine why you would use it other than for getting achievements with no effort. | ||
|
xBillehx
United States1289 Posts
edit: Lol so I took a look around the site, and these people not only told users if they wanted achievements while cheating to use their trainer, but they actually charge for membership and access to it! I don't think Team Liquid would condone this kind of thing- ever. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
There is no reason to cheat in single player..... there are already cheat codes for that. I think a 14 day ban is fine for a first time offense (only because they weren't using it in multiplayer), and probably just permanently ban for a 2nd offense. | ||
|
DX_4
Germany180 Posts
Blizzard is legally entitled to what they did. They made the rules, the customer accepts them and gets access to the game/service. If for whatever reason said customer decides to not care and instead applies his own rules he/she has to be aware that this can have consequences, up to and including revoking access rights. Simple as, there is indeed nothing more to it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for people acting all innocent to a degree that can only be described as "extremely naive and ignorant, borderline stupid". To illustrate that a bit, I'll quote parts of a comment for that article. It seems like Blizzard are a bunch of losers. I have legitimately bought SC2, and I use it only for single player campaign. I'm totally not intrested in online/multiplayer gaming, I have never done so and never will. I'm an occasional gamer, have a very busy life, and I don't have the time to spend hours of practicing or replaying all missions just to finish and enjoy the game. If I happen to choose the use of cheats/trainers, that is my personal choice and mine only. It is not up to Blizzard to tell me otherwise. I do not harm or otherwise inflict any damage to anyone else. I have paid good money to enjoy the game, and if Blizzard would shut me out of multiplayer games because I used a trainer in a single player campaign: well go ahead, I don't care!!! But let me enjoy my single player campaign my way! | ||
|
FuryX
Australia495 Posts
Blizzard has all the rights to ban people if they do shit like this. Well done Blizzard, i hope they won't cave into any outburst from cheater communities. This explains the people who are whining saying they never used 'maphack', these people used the trainer to get achievement points. Also remember, if the game is too hard, you can set the difficulty down or use Blizzards own cheatcodes and not earn achievement points. | ||
|
PlaGuE_R
France1151 Posts
| ||
|
ddengster
Singapore129 Posts
Thus, by banning single player hackers, they will be denied the chance to get themselves familiarized with sc2's engine, which in turn slows down the development of multiplayer hacks. | ||
|
rastaban
United States2294 Posts
| ||
| ||
