Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Sadly, both my brother and sister are pretty much diehard fans of Blizzard one way or another...

Once Diablo 3 comes out, they'll be asking around for that.

[Virex]

Doesn't change the fact that Blizzards banning for achievement farming. Which is really silly.

Valve has been doing the same for quite some time, and I didn't see much outrage over that...

[dogstile]

Doesn't change the fact that Blizzards banning for achievement farming. Which is really silly.

Valve has been doing the same for quite some time, and I didn't see much outrage over that...

Really? I thought they just took away the achievement scoring ability. I've never heard of valve doing that.

Besides, why would I think Valve doing it make it any less worse. It sucks, always will do, no matter who is doing it.

Unless you're talking about VAC bans which were given out for people cheating in multiplayer.

[fenrif]

Blizzard did publically state they were going to be harsh on unauthorized third-party cheat programs.

And I hate it, but in some cases we no longer own the games we purchase: we buy a license for their use. StarCraft II's EULA leaves that pretty clear in the very first, all-caps paragraph, and there's no "dense legalese" there. And it seems that, while it's true you can't read the EULA before purchasing the game, you can get a full refund if you reject the terms of the agreement within a month of said purchase.

THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE GAME
(DEFINED BELOW), YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE
TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE GAME. IF YOU
REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER YOUR PURCHASE, YOU MAY CALL
(800) 757-7707 TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.

As questionable as it may be, if you agree with the terms presented in the EULA and stick with the game, then you can't really complain unless you really didn't infringe any of the stated rules.

As for the car analogy, that really doesn't work. The CheatHappens trainers were specifically designed for a particular version of StarCraft II, and the developers coded and essentially sold them knowing precisely that kind of tool was forbidden by Blizzard. A Radiohead CD has tons more uses than being played in, say, a very specific production line of 1994 Ford Escort models. It really doesn't apply.

It doesn't matter what Blizzard put in the EULAs. You can't sell someone an apple then tell them they're just renting it from you. As I said, EULAs are of dubious legal standing anyway... But once you're purchased a product, you own it. No matter what they write in the EULA, you own that copy of starcraft. The only reason stuff like this is still in EULAs is because it's never really enforced, because if it was it'd have all kinds of judges complaining about how many statutes and laws it violates.

The car analogy still stands, because it doesn't matter what version of SC2 the programs were developed for, or even if they were sold. Once you own a product you can do what you like with it, regardless of wether its some program someone else made specifically to alter lines of code or if you go in there yourself and change variables on your own. The fact taht they're selling the cheats is completely irrelevant. Unless you think that for some reason that selling software that only works with another specifc piece of software is bad?

If you still think it isn't apt, then replace the whole "radiohead CD" with "car-specific seat covers, speakers, engine parts, tyres, etc"

Blizzard/Activision and other companies like them are trying to alter the way purchasing things works. They want to tell you what you can do with things you own, trick you into thinking you don't own them, deliberatly stop your posessions from working at their whim, etc. It's utter BS.

[Thexor]

Wait, wait, what? Apparently you didn't hear the recent Autodesk ruling - namely, you don't own software. It's a fairly recent decision (and it doesn't apply outside the USA, so if you aren't American, feel free to ignore it for now), but the fact remains:

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.

Take extra-special note of sections (1) and (3) there. No, you do not own software, at least not until the ruling above is overturned. You are legally restricted to use the software only in the ways intended and authorized by the vendor. In this particular case, the use of third-party hacks violates the terms of the agreement; as such, Blizzard has all the legal backing they need to ban individuals for hacking, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that hacking.

While we're on the whole 'legal perspective', I'd like remind you that, from a legal perspective, there's no difference between 'multiplayer' and 'singleplayer' hacking - it all boils down to the use of third-party applications to modify the intended usage of a program. You can't argue that banning/suspending for use of hacks in singleplayer is illegal (as the article strongly implies), without arguing that banning for use of hacks in multiplayer is also illegal. Which is a step that very few practical gamers are willing to take.

[IronyOwl]

It doesn't matter what Blizzard put in the EULAs. You can't sell someone an apple then tell them they're just renting it from you. As I said, EULAs are of dubious legal standing anyway... But once you're purchased a product, you own it. No matter what they write in the EULA, you own that copy of starcraft. The only reason stuff like this is still in EULAs is because it's never really enforced, because if it was it'd have all kinds of judges complaining about how many statutes and laws it violates.

The car analogy still stands, because it doesn't matter what version of SC2 the programs were developed for, or even if they were sold. Once you own a product you can do what you like with it, regardless of wether its some program someone else made specifically to alter lines of code or if you go in there yourself and change variables on your own. The fact taht they're selling the cheats is completely irrelevant. Unless you think that for some reason that selling software that only works with another specifc piece of software is bad?

If you still think it isn't apt, then replace the whole "radiohead CD" with "car-specific seat covers, speakers, engine parts, tyres, etc"

Blizzard/Activision and other companies like them are trying to alter the way purchasing things works. They want to tell you what you can do with things you own, trick you into thinking you don't own them, deliberatly stop your posessions from working at their whim, etc. It's utter BS.

Except, we're not talking about apples and they never said they were selling it to you. You might as well complain that you paid for a whore and now she's trying to change the way purchasing works by claiming that you're not allowed to tattoo her. The fact of the matter is, it's almost never that simple with anything more complicated than fruit.

[dogstile]

Of course you can argue that changing code in single player isn't illegal while doing the same in multiplayer is. You can use smoking as an example.

If you're outside and its only affecting you? Go ahead.
If you're inside and its affecting 5 people aside from you? Fuck off.

[fenrif]

Wait, wait, what? Apparently you didn't hear the recent Autodesk ruling - namely, you don't own software. It's a fairly recent decision (and it doesn't apply outside the USA, so if you aren't American, feel free to ignore it for now), but the fact remains:

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.

Take extra-special note of sections (1) and (3) there. No, you do not own software, at least not until the ruling above is overturned. You are legally restricted to use the software only in the ways intended and authorized by the vendor. In this particular case, the use of third-party hacks violates the terms of the agreement; as such, Blizzard has all the legal backing they need to ban individuals for hacking, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that hacking.

While we're on the whole 'legal perspective', I'd like remind you that, from a legal perspective, there's no difference between 'multiplayer' and 'singleplayer' hacking - it all boils down to the use of third-party applications to modify the intended usage of a program. You can't argue that banning/suspending for use of hacks in singleplayer is illegal (as the article strongly implies), without arguing that banning for use of hacks in multiplayer is also illegal. Which is a step that very few practical gamers are willing to take.

I'm not in the USA, and stuff like that is one of the main reasons I'm glad that I'm not. If you let multinational coorperations pay for laws as they see fit, which seems to be the case in America, then you end up with crap like this.

The difference between singleplayer and multiplayer is that, generally to use mutliplayer you have to connect to the games online service. If you play MW2 online you have to connect to infinity ward.net or whatever it's called. They can ban you from that because its their service. That's the difference. Stopping people from playing multiplayer is generally just a case of disallowing them from connecting to the online service, which is fine. Noone is finding fault with that. But you still can make use of the game, you can edit the files to connect to someone else's servers, you can play singleplayer or LAN, etc. (Yes i know the singleplayer connects to their online service, but that's exactly what I have a problem with)

Except, we're not talking about apples and they never said they were selling it to you. You might as well complain that you paid for a whore and now she's trying to change the way purchasing works by claiming that you're not allowed to tattoo her. The fact of the matter is, it's almost never that simple with anything more complicated than fruit.

Noone said we're talking about apples. But I think you'll find that not only is your strawman completely ridiculous (you don't own a whore when you pay her... theres no purchasing!, tattooing her isn't at any point part of the transaction, etc). Also I think you'll find with the vast majority of consumer purchases that it is that simple, even with things more complicated than fruit.

They didn't send me an email saying "you dude, we're gonna sell you SC2!" no. But when you goto a shop and exchange money for something on a shelf, guess what... You just bought it!. Today I went and bought some milk and bread. Noone at any point during the entire transaction said "I'm selling you this bread." But I still bought it. This is the entire basis for our society and culture.

[Virex]

Of course you can argue that changing code in single player isn't illegal while doing the same in multiplayer is. You can use smoking as an example.

If you're outside and its only affecting you? Go ahead.
If you're inside and its affecting 5 people aside from you? Fuck off.

The point is that they were tracking the achievements on-line, so it's more like cheating in a competition.

[IronyOwl]

They can ban you from that because its their service. That's the difference.

There is no difference. They never stated they were selling you software, they said they were licensing it to you- in other words, providing a service.

Noone said we're talking about apples. But I think you'll find that not only is your strawman completely ridiculous (you don't own a whore when you pay her... theres no purchasing!, tattooing her isn't at any point part of the transaction, etc)

Where's the difference? A game sits on a shelf, you give the clerk money, you take the box with you to do stuff. A whore sits on the street corner, you give the pimp money, you take the whore with you to do stuff. At no point are hacks or tattoos an explicit part of the deal.

But when you goto a shop and exchange money for something on a shelf, guess what... You just bought it!. This is the entire basis for our society and culture.

Also I think you'll find with the vast majority of consumer purchases that it is that simple, even with things more complicated than fruit.

You are grossly mistaken. As an extremely simple example, suppose I purchase a game- I own it now, yes? So it's perfectly within my rights to make copies of it and undercut the developer with it, right? Except, now people who spend money to produce games can't make a profit, because people who didn't spend money making it can replicate it and sell it for nearly pure profit. "I bought it it's mine" doesn't work here.

Furthermore, there's the issue of what "the game" encompasses. The game has a logo, right? So if I buy the game, and I own the game, I obviously own the logo and can put it on whatever I want, right? Again, no. Doesn't work so well.

So clearly, trying to treat most complicated objects like discreet, wholly owned, no-strings-attached products doesn't really work. Games are an extreme example of this- you've got brand name, characters, races and organizations, underlying code for everything from resource acquisition to how the graphics display, potential updates from the parent company, and so forth. Trying to lump these cleanly into "you purchase and own this" and "you did not purchase and have no interaction with this" - much less trying to put them all in the same category - is utter madness.

[Virex]

But when you goto a shop and exchange money for something on a shelf, guess what... You just bought it!. This is the entire basis for our society and culture.

Also I think you'll find with the vast majority of consumer purchases that it is that simple, even with things more complicated than fruit.

You are grossly mistaken. As an extremely simple example, suppose I purchase a game- I own it now, yes? So it's perfectly within my rights to make copies of it and undercut the developer with it, right? Except, now people who spend money to produce games can't make a profit, because people who didn't spend money making it can replicate it and sell it for nearly pure profit. "I bought it it's mine" doesn't work here.

Furthermore, there's the issue of what "the game" encompasses. The game has a logo, right? So if I buy the game, and I own the game, I obviously own the logo and can put it on whatever I want, right? Again, no. Doesn't work so well.

Note that you can actually buy a game in this sense, by buying the license. It's implausibly expensive though.

[dogstile]

Of course you can argue that changing code in single player isn't illegal while doing the same in multiplayer is. You can use smoking as an example.

If you're outside and its only affecting you? Go ahead.
If you're inside and its affecting 5 people aside from you? Fuck off.

The point is that they were tracking the achievements on-line, so it's more like cheating in a competition.

I know that, I mentioned it in an earlier post. Don't see how its like cheating in a competition though. Never will.

The point is i'll never see why this warranted a ban off of B.net over an achievement wipe and I never will.

[The Doctor]

If anyone who plays this wants to try out a melee map I made, it's called Braxis Boxcars. It's a conversion of the old Starcraft Boxers map, with a bit of touching up and modification.

I haven't tried it myself with another player, but you never know.

[Farseer]

They seemed to forget that most stones are free, too.

I'd buy Wings of Liberty if it was £20. At £35-£40 pounds, that's way way too high for a single campaign of a pretty heavily chopped up game (inb4 someone comes in to defend their new "campaigns" whilst forgetting that the map making software was designed to make it pathetically easy to design new levels) and still too much for multiplayer.

Anyone know where I can get a copy cheap?

[IronyOwl]

I'm not normally one for whiny image comparisons, but that one made me genuinely laugh. Well done, whoever made it.

Anyway, the game needs to be tied to an account to function, so no second hand stuff unless they're selling the whole Battle.net account (which is obviously more issue-prone). I would assume single player is pirateable (but very large), but you're SOL for the full game. Campaign's pretty nice, though, if you're getting it for free.