Printable View
No, I totally agree. But the caricature of the argument is quite amusing. As I said, I don't even buy Blizzard games. So their position on altering them really doesn't affect them. But I agree that people should be able to do what they want with a game once its purchased, as long as it doesn't impede on other's rights to enjoy the game themselves. Embellishing a point is merely for humorous/dramatic emphasis. I'm not trying to win any debateQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
what is this bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:? Car companies can't take back cars from people because they don't have the smurfing right to do that, not because of their monitoring capabilities. Ever heard of the concept of ownership? It means after you sell something to someone, it's no longer yours and you can't just do with it whatever you please. Unless you live in a communist country of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
No it wouldn't and you know it. Circumventing intellectual property and altering one's physical posession when it's no longer your's are two entirely different things, and technically when you buy a game you don't own it, you're just purchasing a license to play it. Or so says the DMCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotoragee I don't know. Maybe because people pay for the goddamn game so they can own it and do whatever they want? Why not allow car manufacturers take back the car they sold you if you install custom rims on it while we're at it. Because that would make just as much sense as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod
Indeed, as is nearly every other argument currently taking place in this forum. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
This argument can be extended by the fact that Blizzard consistently releases patches that fix or update their games, thus they are constantly monitoring the game and changing it as they see necessary or as suggested by the community. Yes, I have heard of the concept of ownership and it does not completely apply to video games like Starcraft 2. Have you ever heard of an EULA agreement? Also, look up concept of ownership again.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotorawhat is this bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:? Car companies can't take back cars from people because they don't have the smurfing right to do that, not because of their monitoring capabilities. Ever heard of the concept of ownership? It means after you sell something to someone, it's no longer yours and you can't just do with it whatever you please. Unless you live in a communist country of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
What I know about the EULA is that it means smurf all in this country, as any agreement made after purchasing a product.
I'm actually willing to concede, as the idea of intellectual property vs. physical property is an interesting, and valid point
If that was part of the original agreement on the purchasing of the car, agreed upon by both parties, and documented, they sure as hell could. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that somewhere in the EULA or something that was agreed on in order to play the game this is covered, and just because nobody reads that stupid thing doesn't mean it's less valid. If it's not in any way covered then I would just cede to DMKA's point on intellectual vs. physical property.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotora
Tough luck the guy, but meh.
True enough. But disregarding the dumb arguments against Blizzard, you're missing the point of the actual argument: that of course Blizzard CAN do whatever the hell they want with their own game, but punishing people for "cheating" in single-player mode is still completely smurfing retarded. How anyone can even attempt to argue otherwise is absolutely beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
This is pretty insane, but I still really enjoyed the game and multiplayer is fantastic too. At most people should just have their achievements reset or a ban on their ability to get achievements. It's kind of harsh to completely ban them from playing the game, but whatever, Blizzard earn enough to not give a :bou::bou::bou::bou: what anyone thinks.
Bunny, I love you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
The funny thing is blizz allows cheating. They have cheats in the game. Infinite health, etc, like what Jessweeee described. It's in the game. They don't care for that but adding in your own stuff to cheat is what irks them. This shouldn't be any surprise. Blizz has always been this way about their games.
You can't actually but SCII, you can only lease it. If you lease a car and alter it they will also probably take some sort of punitive action against you. Blizz is 100% within their rights on this, the only debate is if they should or not.
You can say achievements mean nothing because a lot come through just playing the single player game, but quite a few are very challenging. Blizzard is interested in preserving their integrity. Would I care? No, but if they think it is important it is their community to cultivate.
Also we are only hearing one side of the story. From a few years in WoW I heard similar sob stories after every wave of bans, and by and large they were people talking out of their asses who got pissy for being banned for cheating.
Using hacks to see the story
Completely unfounded as the game comes with built in cheats
Why are people buying into this "You don't own the game you only lease it" nonsense? To my knowledge that has never once held up in a court of law, and rightly so, because it is a completely retarded principle. It sure as :bou::bou::bou::bou: wouldn't fly with anything else on the shelf. Blizz has the right to manage the community side of the game but to suggest that they have the right to render you unable to use your own product is nonsense. EULA isn't legally binding, because it's a contract of adhesion AND a shrink-wrapped license, which are both things of questionable legal and ethical standing anyway, but moreover I don't think any rational person could honestly say that they find "You don't own this product, you just paid $60 to rent it from us" to be a reasonable expectation. If I run a grocery and make people sign a form between the checkout and the door, or they can't leave with their food (And have a hell of a time getting a refund) then no reasonable person would think that "You must prepare courgettes in EXACTLY THIS MANNER AND NO OTHER" is reasonable, and thus it would not be binding.
The supposed provisions which permit this act by Blizzard are unconscionable (In the legal sense). kotora's car analogy is actually a completely sound one.
Also protip guys: When Raistlin and MILF are saying "It was bull:bou::bou::bou::bou: that a company did this" you are probably looking at something dodgy. Neither of us are renowned for an anti-business stance.
The contract of adhesion theory doesn't really apply considering you can easily decide not to buy the game. However, the fact that Blizzard includes a bunch of words on a "terms of service" that you only see after you buy the game likely would render any unusual terms unenforceable. The contract between you and Blizzard exists upon the sale of the game, not upon installation, regardless of whatever lengthy agreement everyone just clicks through during the installation process.
This is not in the slightest bit true. It may indeed be considered more of a privilege rather than a right to use Blizzard's online multiplayer system (though I doubt that; I'm sure Blizzard has to show some sort of cause, although they will certainly have wide discretion), but the right to the game itself is ensured by the sale. You offer to buy the game, the distributor agrees to sell it to you: this is a contract of sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloZer0
That all being said, I'm not even trying to argue that Blizzard can't legally do this (though it may be dubious, depending on Blizzard's policy). My point is that it's absolutely nonsensical to disable someone's game for screwing around in single-player. Regardless of your personal feelings on cheats (I would never bother, personally), regardless of your personal feelings on achievements (they are pretty damn pointless), you cannot tell people how they should enjoy a game. It doesn't matter if it's pointless (I agree it is), it doesn't matter if it's stupid or ruins the gaming experience. It's their time being spent, not yours.
Jesus christ, people. At least try to actually form some semblance of a logical thought process rather than a knee-jerk reaction to people using cheats. If the assertions in the article are true, this is completely indefensible.
Oh, my mistake, I thought that contract of adhesion just meant that there's no room for negotiation, which doesn't usually matter but comes into play if there's some crazy condition involved.