Blizzard bans more SC2 hackers

[Lyri]

But that would involve reading them first, which I'm sure nobody does.

It's why threads like this get made and people shout "OMG UNFAIR!"

Single player affects online stats, ergo you shouldn't be doing it.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

I'll make you a deal.

Go buy a fresh copy of a game, it doesn't matter what game it is, go buy a copy...

... Open it, go on, break that plastic. You like that smell of freshly opened software product complete with some advertisements for hardware don't ya? Smells good right?

Good. Now put the DVD in your tray. Load it up.

Done? Awesome. Now you just have to install the game... oh, hold on, "To play this game you must abide by the following user agreement."

Read the agreement and install the game. Don't play it. Just install it. Now try and get your money back. You can't do it.

Let me take it back to the store and illustrate:

***

"Hi, I recently purchased this game and would like to return it." I say to the nerdy girl behind the counter.

"I'm sorry sir but your box has been opened and the seal broken." Her eyes are full of sympathy, she knows my pain. "I can't give you a refund on this game."

I am confused. I have not yet used the product and I can't return it? I decide to inquire further. "Why not? You sell used games here all the time... just re-wrap it and you're good to go."

Videogame-Counter-Girl sighs and tells me that, unlike console games, a PC game can be copied easily. All I needed was the CD key and since I've had a chance to use it, the game can't be returned. It has been, "Licensed to me for individual use."

I explain that I did not accept the EULA or the ToS. I never installed the game. She suggests calling customer service of the publisher.

***

Quoted from Publicknowledge's Matt Kuhn (26 July, 2010):

"As Blizzard would have it, in a case currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, when you pay cash for a copy of one of their games from a local retailer, you haven?t actually bought it. You don?t own that copy; it remains Blizzard?s property and it?s only with their explicit permission that you can install or play the game."

***

Quoted from Starcraft II's EULA:

"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."

***

Me: "Hello, I'm calling to request a refund of my purchase for Starcraft 2 due to a disagreement in the End User License Agreement. I have my purchase receipt and it is dated exactly twelve days ago."

Blizzard: "What part of the agreement do you disagree with?"

M: "Section 2.E F and G which limit my ability to create protocols of communication for local area network gameplay. My friends and I are computer science students at Lehigh University and can't get the IT staff to use port triggering for battle.net. This is causing us to be unable to play with each other over the Service and upon researching our rights to alter the game learned that we would face copyright infringement penalties for trying to play with one another."

B: "Well I'm sorry for your trouble. Have you talked with technical support about the issue?"

M: "Yes, we tried all of their suggestions but nothing works because of the campus intranet structure."

B: "That is unfortunate. You have, however, installed the game and in doing so agreed to the EULA. We will not be able to provide you with a refund of your purchase. Can I help you with anything else?"

***

The argument that software (read: a product) is not ours to own after paying for it but is instead a "licensed product to be used only in manners directed by the publisher" is ludicrous. When you pay for a piece of art do you merely obtain a license to hang or display the art? What if I want to use my art in a more creative fashion? I want to buy art to burn it... but that's not part of the license I payed money for.

I have said it time and time again: "The EULA is not enforceable in a court of law." I will continue to say it REPEATEDLY AND UNTIL THE END OF TIME because it is the "truth." In no system of personal property do you purchase a product and limit yourself only to its intended use (with the notable exception of cleaning products in the case of public safety). I have personally used objects in ways that their creators had probably never intended and I was able to do this because I purchased a product and had free use over all and any functions of said product.

If a guy wants to modify the sound files in SC2 to play Murloc sounds, I say let him. If he wants to modify the in-game portraits to porn, fine. He bought the software and as far as I am concerned he can do whatever he wants with it.

The argument of hacking multiplayer as a reason to deny the modification of files is weak. If you want to have a secure and hack free multiplayer experience, make the game hash-check files which are relevant to gameplay like constants and mapdata when the game loads. Sure it might take a little while longer, but I'd rather have a moderately longer loading time per game than have my personal freedom and property rights shit on by a corporation.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.248158-Blizzard-bans-more-SC2-hackers?page=3#9143840

 

[bob1052]

Great but Blizzard is still selling you a product and then trying to control how you use it.

Licensing.

They designed the offline mode to be less desirable than the online mode (even for single player) so that they could effectively use bans to control how you play. Once banned you are left with the inferior offline mode but you still paid $60 for it.

By multiplayer being more desirable you mean it has achievements you can compare with others that is being kept fair.

As for the ingame cheats, ya know it's up to each player (who each paid full price) to decide if the built in codes are good enough. Shall we just use the 30 Lives code for Contra or shall we pull out the Game Genie? Imagine if Konami was banning you from multiplayer for that.

You can't compare Starcraft 2 to games that are entirely different. Starcraft 2 has online player to player achievement tracking, and a competitive ladder that is separated by a very, very thin line from the single player.

I am not onboard with paying full price for a product only to let Blizzard retain control and I can't believe so many of you are.

Demanding total control and leaving developers SOL while their game gets destroyed by people using trainers (see APB for reference) is not a better situation than the current.

 

[Masterpsyker]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

***Shortened for convenience***

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.248158-Blizzard-bans-more-SC2-hackers?page=3#9143840

I don't care what this guy said. If you don't have the presence of mind to think before you type then you shouldn't be typing. I have an opinion regarding this subject and I want to share it.

He didn't recant his statement, he tried to diplomatically say, "We can agree to disagree." For this he should be made to suffer and look like the fool he is.

snippity

The EULA is not hidden. It is made aware to you on the outside of the box.

The entirety of the EULA is not printed on the box sir. The example given is simply one example. A model. If you actually read the EULA and decide, "HELL NO," before you install the game, I'm sure Activision Blizzard would be pleased to work with you and furnish a refund... but the point I originally made (perhaps weakly) remains:

You would by the game to play it how you want to play it. I have sex on a Twister mat and use the spinner to decide what goes where. Is Parker-Brothers Entertainment going to ban me from ever buying Twister again? No.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

***Shortened for convenience***

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.248158-Blizzard-bans-more-SC2-hackers?page=3#9143840

I don't care what this guy said. If you don't have the presence of mind to think before you type then you shouldn't be typing. I have an opinion regarding this subject and I want to share it.

He didn't recant his statement, he tried to diplomatically say, "We can agree to disagree." For this he should be made to suffer and look like the fool he is.

You sir aren't even reading what I linked. I said I'm done. Now GTFO troll.

 

[bob1052]

snippity

The EULA is not hidden. It is made aware to you on the outside of the box.

The entirety of the EULA is not printed on the box sir. The example given is simply one example. A model.

Wrong again. They do not use a small example at all. They provide a URL to the entire EULA. Since it is apparent you are not familiar with this topic I suggest you stop trying to argue it.

By multiplayer being more desirable you mean it has achievements you can compare with others that is being kept fair.

Actually I was referring to the offline single player being "guest" mode.

I was too. "Online" singleplayer has achievements you can compare with others. Why is it bad that it is kept fair?

You can't compare Starcraft 2 to games that are entirely different. Starcraft 2 has online player to player achievement tracking, and a competitive ladder that is separated by a very, very thin line from the single player.

When it comes to using cheat codes in SINGLE PLAYER it doesn't matter what kind of game it is.

It does when people choose to use an online singleplayer with achievements that are compared and is only a click away from a ranked leaderboard multiplayer.

Demanding total control and leaving developers SOL while their game gets destroyed by people using trainers (see APB for reference) is not a better situation than the current.

Wait, how would using cheats in single player mode destroy YOUR game and even if it does, what does that have to do with Blizzard if you chose to cheat?

See above. They aren't doing it in single player that is seperated from multiplayer.

 

[Masterpsyker]

snippity

The EULA is not hidden. It is made aware to you on the outside of the box.

The entirety of the EULA is not printed on the box sir. The example given is simply one example. A model.

Wrong again. They do not use a small example at all. They provide a URL to the entire EULA. Since it is apparent you are not familiar with this topic I suggest you stop trying to argue it.

As it was pointed out by the poster who followed immediately after your link, "Who is going to go to the URL and read the thing before they buy the game. No one.

I may not be familiar with where and how the EULA is displayed, but I am intimately familiar with the EULA of Blizzard's products.

 

[Nouw]

There are already cheat codes in the singleplayer that Blizzard put in. People who hack it are just plain stupid. And by hacking, they mean Blizzard are banning people using an external programs to cheat.

People who are banned should get over it and learn their lesson.

Exactly, modding files have always been a violation. Use the Editor damn it!

 

[Gindil]

Seriously if this was any other company in the world people would be up in arms, but with Blizzard it's fine, it's in their terms of service. The people payed for the product, as long as they don't go online they aren't hurting anyone and Blizzard should leave them alone. Ubisoft gets in trouble for having always online DRM, but Blizzard gets off scott free for banning people from the single player, seriously what the hell.

Basically this right here.

I'm never buying another Blizzard product until they change their ToS. It's complete BS that you have to live with quite a few draconian rules because Blizzard thinks it'll give them more money.

 

[d3structor]

TBH i think it is more activision then blizzard that decided this stuff but they do seem to be inextricably linked now.

 

[UnusualStranger]

Hehe....Lets step into this mess.

Spoiler: Modding

I find this hilarious that so many people are against this. Do people realize that all that fun stuff from before in Starcraft was done by, guess what, modding the game in ways it had never been done before? Changing sounds, maps, how things react....all done pretty much illegally. Meaning that with Blizzard effectively doing this, they might as well say "Thanks for doing all that stuff for us in Starcraft, now screw off. We don't want you doing that to this game." Overall....the modders are not all people trying to break the game into tiny bits and ruin it for everyone. Quite a few are trying to make the game better, or more entertaining for others, or just a laugh for themselves. Mods are what brought people DOTA, and custom characters that you don't usually see in games, and all sorts of interesting ideas that are now so popular because people loved the creativity.

Overall...modders are not evil people for doing what they do. Its like saying all hackers are evil. Sure, there are some out to get you, but there are many others who are doing their best to make things better.

Spoiler: Achievements

You are kidding me, right? Blizzard is worried that imaginary points that count for next to nothing anywhere are somehow good reason to ban people fro using third party mods? Bull. Next..

Spoiler: Multiplayer

Yes, hacking in multiplayer = bad. Valid point. However....they are banning people who use a game in SINGLE PLAYER. The ramifications of this is downright despicable. Its like playing through any game, and doing things that you might not be expected to do. Like in Half Life 2, where you can run around being an ass while a scene is going on. Suddenly, you are banned, because they don't like you running around doing things they don't like in the single player.

If they can show they went online to change their stats and everything, sure, ban em. Otherwise, leave the damn modders alone. They helped make this game big, so shooting them in the back is downright bastardly. Besides....What exactly are they ruining if they go online with different sounds for their characters? They other player doesn't realize that they are getting a small smirk each time they click on a zergling and it sounds like a murloc?

Spoiler: EULA

You know what? We don't read this any more. Wanna know why? Cause most of them have something very simple in them. It is along a very simple line.
We reserve the right to modify the rules or regulations of this EULA at any given time.
Meaning that if they want to, they can go ahead and change a single line in there saying that you will give them everything you own if they find you illegally distributing the game. Also...The EULA by in and itself is a mess. Not only that, it is being used as a tool to pretty much keep you from playing a game how you want to. Want to play a game in a way not imagined before? Too bad. The company says no, and bans you from ever playing it again. Don't like it? Too bad. You now have a small useless disk that is good for nothing because you did something that someone else didn't like..

Also, I can honestly tell you that you will never manage to understand everything in the EULA in the first place. Its filled with all sorts of claims to ownership, a lot of that if you dare do anything to their product, they will hunt you down and eat all your food, then ask for seconds....Point is, this little agreement you sign is bastardly regardless. Its the company behind it that matters. And blizzard right now is being really dickish about the whole game of SC2.

Spoiler: Ownership

Most disgustingly out of all this has come one point. Who owns the game? With Starcraft 2, it seems you don't even own the right to play it. It sounds like YOU should be worshiping them for daring to even let you pay for this game, and that you should play it exactly how they have it, or just don't play at all. I find this the most disturbing, as when I am paying for a game to take home and put on my computer and install files for and also sign up for stupid accounts in order to even PLAY the damn game, its just downright annoying to have to wonder if I will be able to play it the next day on my equipment because I apparently don't have the right to use it because I'm "not playing it how they intended it to be played." Again, the irony being that Starcraft did so well originally because everyone was modding the hell out of it, making it into more things than anyone ever imagined.

Simply put, it seems you can't own anything any more. I am only borrowing it, and at any time, for paying full price for the game, I can be banned from ever using that disk because the company doesn't like what I am doing. Meaning that by paying for this game, I supported them, and I'm sure they love the money, but they don't think I deserve what I paid for full price, and that if I won't simply deal with them and only them, I don't deserve their stuff, regardless if I paid them for it or not.

Regardless..../rant. Sorry for wasting your time. Enjoy your evening. Have fun ripping this to shreds...what have you.

 

[MrJoyless]

Blizzards side of the argument is that many of the trainers can work in multiplayer, however they are banning people who have never even played online in order to keep the integrity of the achievement system

the integrity of the achievement system....this is what gaming has become

when have achievements mattered at all for anything other than epeen measuring

banning people to protect an achievement system is like arresting someone for saying they ate a million cheezeburgers both are lies that hurt utterly no one other than people that REALLY REALLY care too much about cheeseburgers.....

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

This has been going on for a quite a while now and I think Blizzard should stop. Blizzard can go ahead and ban those who cheat online but if you're hacking in single player it's not like you're affecting anyone else. Instead of wasting there time look for single player hackers as well as multiplayer hackers, they should just focus on banning multiplayer hackers.

On a related note I do not play SC or SCII so I may have a different opinion than those who do.

 

[dotamaster]

I think cheating in single player is OK. lol

but in Ladder... that's another story

 

[Ken Sapp]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

You mean the terms of use which you don't see until you have already purchased the game at the store, taken it home, removed the shrinkwrap(thus being unable to return the software in most stores) and begun installing?

This issue has already come up in court before and been shot down as non-binding since the terms of use are not readily available to be agreed to before the purchase takes place.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143478

AS you can see in my later post. There is an explanation and a link to the EULA on the box.

Thank you for the link to your later post. As you can probably assume I don't read the entirety of a multipage thread before making a comment or responding to one that has caught my eye.

To your point, a EULA which is available on the web for perusal prior to purchase is a hazy point at best as it is not a reasonable method of delivery for in-store purchases. Online purchases of digital download or physical product yes, but not when the box is physically in your hands in the store. Add to that the fact that most EULAs contain text which is unenforceable(and sometimes illegal) under the legal system of the land.

But to return to the main point, using a trainer in single player which has no effect on multiplayer is not a reasonable cause for banning someone and removing their ability to use their lawfully purchased software. Multiplayer has different rules due to the fact that it affects others who rightfully expect a level playing field and cheaters should be punished up to and including bans. But until they can show me that there is a measurable game effect on multiplayer from using cheats in singleplayer I will not accept that they are within their rights to take away individuals right to enjoy their lawfully purchased singleplayer game however they want.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

You mean the terms of use which you don't see until you have already purchased the game at the store, taken it home, removed the shrinkwrap(thus being unable to return the software in most stores) and begun installing?

This issue has already come up in court before and been shot down as non-binding since the terms of use are not readily available to be agreed to before the purchase takes place.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143478

AS you can see in my later post. There is an explanation and a link to the EULA on the box.

Thank you for the link to your later post. As you can probably assume I don't read the entirety of a multipage thread before making a comment or responding to one that has caught my eye.

To your point, a EULA which is available on the web for perusal prior to purchase is a hazy point at best as it is not a reasonable method of delivery for in-store purchases. Online purchases of digital download or physical product yes, but not when the box is physically in your hands in the store. Add to that the fact that most EULAs contain text which is unenforceable(and sometimes illegal) under the legal system of the land.

But to return to the main point, using a trainer in single player which has no effect on multiplayer is not a reasonable cause for banning someone and removing their ability to use their lawfully purchased software. Multiplayer has different rules due to the fact that it affects others who rightfully expect a level playing field and cheaters should be punished up to and including bans. But until they can show me that there is a measurable game effect on multiplayer from using cheats in singleplayer I will not accept that they are within their rights to take away individuals right to enjoy their lawfully purchased singleplayer game however they want.

Well thanks for replying in a civil nature. But in an even later post, I withdrew from this discussion, I couldn't see it ending well for anyone