I'm very confused on what these "training" programs did that couldn't have been done in the SC2 map editor? Why couldn't this cheating website just release maps that had all of the same features for ai skirmishes? And everything advertised in their trainer could be done with the in game cheats during the campaign except for increasing the kills of a unit which does nothing. I see no reason to have used the training program and break the EULA. The people who did so deserve what they got for being to lazy to type out the cheats provided by blizzard.
Poll: It's really time to stop supporting Blizzard
- Thread starter astrav1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I haven't bought a blizzard game since I used to play WoW. Since I went cold turkey from that, I just haven't seen anything by them that interests me. I am not boycotting them out of principal, just because I don't play the type of games they make.Garak73 said:
That all applies to the sale and distribution of the work, it doesn't say anything as to what happens once you own it and bring it home. I can edit the entire Harry Potter series in my own home, bring J.K. Rowling herself over here and show it to her face and there'd be nothing she could do. She can't sue me over anything, because I haven't attempted to distribute or sell those works. The same can be said of any product bought except software. Why is it altering the game at home isn't allowed? I can even tinker around with the Hardware till my heart's content, all it does is void the warranty, why is the software suddenly special? Maybe they should have warranty on games, you alter it, you don't get any tech support. I could live with that, and in fact I think some EULA's even have such a clause, but before the era of all games being connected to the internet never had a way of checking.HellsingerAngel said:
Your argument basically all rests on the EULA and their ToS, but as I've already stated that agreement is already on shaky ground.
But hopefully you're right and I'm just making a mountain out a zergling hive. Blizzard may be the only one to ever do this, and if so I'm glad, but it never hurts to raise awareness of an minor issue before it becomes a major one. Perhaps, if all sides find an equitable solution in the beginning we can avoid a lot of ugliness down the road. So better to open a debate about it now, and perhaps voice our concerns to the industry at large, than wait until it devolves into a massive fight between consumers and the industry. Perhaps Blizzard will acknowledge they went too far and limit the bans to multiplayer only, and if not well than at least they know we're concerned over this course of events. Keeping concerns quite doesn't do anything except delay the inevitable.
I'm guessing most of you guys on the first couple pages didn't read the article. Cheating in single player. How the hell does that warrant them disabling your game? It's /single player/.
It loses most legal rights right there for doing that.
What, that form you agree to /after/ you buy the game.Merkavar said:
It loses most legal rights right there for doing that.
I seriously can't believe anyone here actually agrees that the customer who paid money for their own purchase should get it disabled remotely because they wanted to have fun with it. I hope none of you never used a Gameshark or a Game Genie when you were a kid, or you rightfully deserve to get your consoles thrown into a fire by your own logic.
I cannot click a thread without being disgusted by the people in this forum, it's astounding.
I cannot click a thread without being disgusted by the people in this forum, it's astounding.
You do realize that this is The Escapist right? We don't support stupid campaigns of stupidity for stupid reasons.astrav1 said:
The sooner you figure it out the better.
The irony... the delicious irony. Did *you* read the article?dogstile said:
I ask because they weren't banned for cheating, they were banned for using 3rd party programs to get achievements. There's a big difference! SC2 has cheats built in but when you use them it disables achievements for that match, meaning you can cheat to your hearts content but don't get any 'nerd cred' for it.
The trainer they were supposedly banned for using (I say supposedly because as of yet the only source for this is from the very website of a group that produces said cheats which seems highly questionable to me!) were to get achievements. If they'd only wanted to have fun then they wouldn't have been using them.
I found nothing wrong with cheating that way to get achievements. It makes some people happy, it has no effect on multiplayer gameplay. Let them do it. It's like banning people for using a third party program to mess around in saints row.The Madman said:
On the one hand, I think it sucks to be banned from playing your game because you cheated on the single player game.
On the other hand, cheating online is utterly immoral, and from the article I gathered that the trainer from cheathappens that their users were using can be used to cheat online. I support banning people who download it. There are cheats built into the game that you can use in single player. There is no need to get 3rd party applications. Still, I concede permanent bans for one offence is very harsh. Removal of all achievements and a strong warning for the first offence might be a fairer punishment.
Edit:
On the other hand, cheating online is utterly immoral, and from the article I gathered that the trainer from cheathappens that their users were using can be used to cheat online. I support banning people who download it. There are cheats built into the game that you can use in single player. There is no need to get 3rd party applications. Still, I concede permanent bans for one offence is very harsh. Removal of all achievements and a strong warning for the first offence might be a fairer punishment.
Edit:
I disagree. The Achievements in SC2, and the rewards, represent the hard work and effort that people have put in to getting them. For example, I am currently using the Sarah Kerrigan portrait for my SC2 character, which I got for completing the single player campaign on the hardest difficulty. This portrait is not just some picture. It is a representation of my triumph over the game, and the fact I set it as my portrait shows people that I am damned proud of it. For some dude to get the same reward because he cheated with some trainer would undermine my accomplishment, as well as those of the other people who have gotten the achievements the hard way. I'll reiterate that their are cheats built into the game, and that anyone who found the game too hard or whatever could have used them, though naturally this prevents them from getting achievements. Since they did not do so, I assume they were deliberately cheating the system and trying to get the achievements with earning them. And that upsets me.dogstile said:
This.EcksTeaSea said:
If you agreed to the EULA (which you must have, or you wouldn't be playing the game in the first place), then you have to abide by it's rules.
Just because you skimmed over the EULA to get to the "I Agree" button faster, to begin playing quicker, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
Firstly, oi! Hands off my thread! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.237974-Blizzard-Banning-Single-Player-Cheaters]
I am surprised with the amount of support Blizzard is getting here. It seems that Blizzard's reasons ("achievements are important and must be preserved", when achievements are unimportant) seems to be approved. Plus the whole "No, you really don't own your game, now scram" message that the bans are sending out. I mean, even banning for single player? Sheesh.
I am surprised with the amount of support Blizzard is getting here. It seems that Blizzard's reasons ("achievements are important and must be preserved", when achievements are unimportant) seems to be approved. Plus the whole "No, you really don't own your game, now scram" message that the bans are sending out. I mean, even banning for single player? Sheesh.
I totally used a game Genie back in the day when I was like 5, but the difference I see here is that the game genie allowed me to do things that were other wise impossible within the game that was sold to me, I don't remember any EULA that said I couldn't use the game genie and there was even legal precedent saying that the game genie was legal to sell. Now we have SC2 that gives the player the ability to do everything the trainer offers and then some. There is the EULA that says you can't use trainers. The site the distributed the trainer should have just made maps with all of the features and a text file with all of the cheats that could be used in game. It would have accomplished the same thing and not broke the EULA and none of these people would be QQing.polygon said:
From the quick read of the article that the OP posted these people are only getting banded for a couple of days. QQ more and L2P
I actually thought I covered everything you said quite nicely. However, we come to a crossroads: your idelogical view is different from mine. Unfortunately, that's just going to lead to circling. I believe freedom should be limited, as people as a whole are ignorant. I believe companies like Blizzard have a right to say what is and isn't appropriate on their game, especially when they give complete freedom to edit anything but the base engine of the game. I believe the law, in most cases, favours the just and the correct, though there will always be exceptions we enjoy focusing on.chewbacca1010 said:
Anyway, I'm just going to quickly shoot off what points I can and that'll be that. It won't make a lick of difference to keep this going because you seem to believe freedom should be absolute (or are playing Devil's Advocat to that end) and I believe freedom should be limited. They're core values and you can't change that.
-In most cases, copywrite is applied fairly. There are exceptions. We are only human and humans make mistakes. If the laws didn't work, they'd be changed. There are just some things you need to get beyond questioning until something earth shattering happens.
-"If Valve can do it, as has been pointed out, I'm sure Blizzard could have." That would be exactly why I put all that. People who seem to say "well just disable achievements" don't realise that there are people who pain stakingly work towards maxxing those little buggers out, cheaters included. As I said, it's not as easy as it sounds, I'm certain. I have had my hand in coding and even the most basic programs (like the Windows calculator) require hundreds of lines of coding. It's not a matter of laziness, just a matter of priority.
-No, they shouldn't because they've got much bigger fish to fry. I'm sure about half the team that coded SC2 has already moved on, where as the rest are working on important things like balance patches. Then you have community events, server maintenance and, yes, using the ban hammer on cheaters. If people want to cheat, regardless of how they do so outside of the boundries of the game, they should be banned. Simple as that for me. People who break the law should go to jail. People who do wrong should be punished. It's a very simple concept and overcomplicating it can blind you just as easily as oversimplifying it can.
-Well, how about you give someone a sandwich and then get spat in your face as they proceed to make their own sandwich. That's a fairly good comparison to what trainers are to the set up Blizzard has given players to "cheat". Believe it or not, people don't just make games for money. They have a passion for it and when programers actually take the time to consider how a gamer might want to dick around in SC2 and input somne cheat codes to do so, a player then using a trainer looks suspicious and feels like they're just punching the devs in the gut for being considerate.
Furthermore, people may be complicated, but going out and getting a complicated program and learning to install it instead of, I don't know, taking thirty seconds to look up the list of cheat codes seems very pointless if all you want is Godmode. It stinks of alterior motives and I believe Blizzard smells it too. Hoenstly, cheathappens.com is a fairly unreputable site from what I can see. People pay good money to feel like they're cheating someone, which just shows to me how morally inferior we are to previous generations.
Also, FYI, a trainer does change the source code by re-arranging it or turning certain integers on.
-That freedom you speak of, upon which video games were based upon, destroy it as well. I'd rather have limitations on stupid stuff like "not cheating" than have the entire market crash aagin because shovel ware becomes the norm. Also, saying that the map editor has limitations really speaks to that fact that you don't seem to have even played the game. Not sure why you're even arguing this with that lack of knowledge here, but anyway. The editor lets you do whatever the programers could, so that's a fairly straight-forward point. Anything else would be changing the engine and at that point you should just take up coding and make your own game from scratch.
Trainers, on the other hand, hack the source code directly and don't give you an understanding of how the game works, but rather crushes how it works into a "click here, you win" scenario. Trainers are used to cheat! Nothing more, nothing less. They're used to augment the game in your favour. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that before it sinks in. I'm not against innovation, I'm against cheaters that seem to have some alternate motive because all the cheats they could want were handed on a silver platter. The big issue is that trainers also don't trigger the achievement blocking code, which brings us back to one of my previous points about achievements actually being important to some people.
-The fact of the matter is, they want to exploit the product. There is no other reasoning. Every single cheat you could want is on there, plus the ability to edit anything ever within the engine, so whether it's the gamer themselves or the fine folks at cheathappens.com it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is they have software that can cause issues with the multiplayer balance on their PC, ready to use, and have used it within single player to boost, because there's no other reason to have that software there but to cheat in multiplayer or boost. Period!
No you don't. EULAs are not legally binding in many cases and you cannot sign over your rights as a consumer. If the EULA tells you that by playing their game you are giving up a right which they have no right to take from you or even suggest you do not have, that EULA is not legally binding. That said, I'm not taking sides or suggesting Blizzard is right or wrong. I'm just saying, don't assume all the crap a company sticks in their legal section is accurate, true or binding. They can SAY whatever they want, but if they claim, for example, that my right to not be discriminated against is null and void because I played their game, they are WRONG.TriGGeR_HaPPy said:
So remember kids, don't give up your rights without being freaking sure a company can legally require that. As for me, I agree to everything. The way I see it, you only even SEE the EULA most times after you bought the game. I figure that in itself pretty much nullifies the company's credibility or legal position, and becomes a form of entrapment/holding their own product for blackmail. If a company really wanted to make sure I was okay with some agreement, they'd show me it BEFORE I gave them money (some companies might, but not most). But they don't care at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Let whiners whine, what the fuck ever. -.-
They abused, now they are whining like little squeaky pigs going to the slaughter. No pride in it at all...
They abused, now they are whining like little squeaky pigs going to the slaughter. No pride in it at all...