Blizzard banning people for cheating in SC2 campaign

Blizzard Bans Single Player Cheaters - Cheat Happens Article

I ran across this on another forum just today and thought I'd share. Essentially Blizzard has temporarily suspended, and in some cases, outright deactivated people's copies of SC2 if they were caught using third party hacks.

In the single player game.

Let that sink in for a minute. People installed and used third party programs to cheat in single player mode and Blizzard brought the hammer down as though they had been cheating in multiplayer. And why? Because people were getting achievements by using these programs. Even assuming that's a valid argument, if Blizzard can detect the use of cheats in single player then surely they could reset, or even completely block these users from having their achievements displayed online.

Going so far as to disable people's games for something that has no impact on other players though? It honestly has me questioning whether I'll continue to play SC2, let alone buy the next game just on principle.

Anyway, how does everyone else feel about this? Does anyone feel that having the game disabled for using third-party mods and game hacks is justifiable when it's all over some achievements and gamer score?

Blizzard stopped making sense to me with the entire way the online portion of SC2 has been set up. This can be added to the list of bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:.

Well I don't cheat and personal stance on others cheating is it's alright as long as it's not in Multiplayer and you don't try to pass off the achievements as their own. They paid for the game so at most I'd think they'd just block them from showing their achievement online like you suggested or label them as cheaters, but to outright ban them for single player is a little drastic.

Time for 4chan to go after them again :P I've rarely enjoyed Blizzard's decisions, and haven't picked up a game of theirs since Diablo 2 so... They're already not getting my money. But I agree this is ridiculous. I think whatever someone wants to do to a game they bought and are playing on their own by themselves is up to them. And I approve of companies who actually encourage playing the code and creating tools and stuff. BioWare and Bethesda have never had issues with people tampering with their games

Man, at least MS is usually kinda responsible about it - they've just reset people's 'cheevos rather than outright ban them. This is kinda silly. Especially since achievements are worthless anyhow.

My knee-jerk response was to think this was a BS move, but some people take achievements seriously. People using trainers to get achievements has an effect on how they look in MP, does it not?

I think banning is a little harsh, but I think that people who hack to get achievements should have their achievements permanently revoked.


EDIT: While some might think achievements are meaningless, obviously they mean something to some people. Having them be sullied by this really bothers those people. If achievements are pointless, aren't ladders rankings in MP? Don't people take that quite seriously as well? Should they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

People using trainers to get achievements has an effect on how they look in MP, does it not?

---

Not really. It affects a score that appears beside your profile name but has absolutely no bearing on matchmaking or your ladder rank. Both of which would carry a lot more prestige online than a score based on farming single player achievements.

Quote:

---

If achievements are pointless, aren't ladders rankings in MP? Don't people take that quite seriously as well?

---

There's a big difference between a score that is awarded for completing single player, or arbitrary objectives and a rank that's based on your skill as a player. I'm a fairly strong opponent of achievements in games, but ladders and rankings are different. In the case of the latter, it's a real measure of one's skill as a player, especially when the matchmaking system is fairly well designed, as the one in SC2 is, and does a pretty good job of matching people based on their relative skill. Achievements are more often than not given for obtaining goals anyone can obtain. Getting to a high bracket in SC2 multiplayer on the other hand is a much more challenging and hard earned achievement in my eyes, especially in a game as competitive as SC2, and shows a lot more mastery of the game than completing the single player achievements.

Meh it's blizz. They are pretty hardcore against the whole "don't smurf up" rule. So the best way around this in any situation is don't smurf up. IE don't give them a reason to ban you and you're fine.

The point is that cheating in single player isn't a remotely reasonable reason for banning someone. And I agree with that.

This isn't the first time Blizzard was completely retarded. I would be amused if they received some more well-deserved public scorn for this.

I think the whole idea Blizzard is trying to broach is that achievements should be a measure of gaming ability, not just time spent farming. To max out your achievements you have to do some tasks that are quite difficult. Ironic that people complain that achievements mean nothing but when a company tries to add some prestige to them they get scorn for it.

Also, all we have is this one account of a company who makes money selling these cheats. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a little bit skewed. It is probably just as likely that the ones that were perma-banned got that because they were having temper tantrums about their original suspension.

And I don't think Blizz's current anti-hack system is set up to differentiate between single and multiplayer hacks. Does anyone really think they or any other company would spend money changing the system to give people the ability to cheat on their achievements?

EDIT: For those of you who don't know, Blizzard does include cheats built into the game already. They just don't let you get achievements.

Is it ridiculous? Sure. If it's something that is covered somewhere in the information provided with the game though, that's a bummer.

Banning for cheating in single player? Geto out of here!

I have been laughing and laughing since I first got wind of this. Blizzard has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how people play in single-player and at most this warrants a revocation of cheevos and the ability to earn them.

I am glad I didn't buy SC2; it doesn't seem like I'm missing much anyway, and this is just deranged.

If you're pathetic enough to cheat in single player mode, you deserve to be banned from every game ever. Go Blizzard. Produce more nerdrage for my laughter. The Halo Reach fiasco has become stale.

Honestly I really couldn't care less as I'd never go anywhere near a RTS game, but think it's hilarious that the gaming world takes achievements/trophies this seriously now.

Achievements aren't taken that seriously though. I mean, it's impossible to play through the single player game without getting achievements. Someone who was stuck on one mission and wanted to see the rest of the campaign, so used a cheat to get through it could wind up getting banned, because there is an achievement just for beating each mission. Kind of ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Achievements aren't taken that seriously though. I mean, it's impossible to play through the single player game without getting achievements. Someone who was stuck on one mission and wanted to see the rest of the campaign, so used a cheat to get through it could wind up getting banned, because there is an achievement just for beating each mission. Kind of ridiculous.

---

I respectfully disagree. Go watch a movie/playthrough video on YouTube if you want to experience a game's story with zero challenge. I mean I really don't care if people cheat (you're only cheating yourself out of the experience the developers intended for you, so I mean, go for it) but it's kind of sweet to know that people can't necessarily get away with it anymore.

I like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Achievements aren't taken that seriously though. I mean, it's impossible to play through the single player game without getting achievements. Someone who was stuck on one mission and wanted to see the rest of the campaign, so used a cheat to get through it could wind up getting banned, because there is an achievement just for beating each mission. Kind of ridiculous.

---

Or they could, you know actually play the game how it's suppose to be played and get better.

Or they could, you know, engage with an entertainment medium in the manner which is most entertaining to them.

Or they could, you know, just watch it like DMKA said. If they're cheating they're not really doing the work on their own. I'm in complete agreement with him on this. I mean why play a game if you're gonna cheat and not actually play the game.

(SPOILER)Talking like this is fun :D

Who are we to decide what other people find fun? Why does the idea of fun have to be some static thing, rather than a malleable idea which different people experience in different ways at different times?

Sometimes I like to play a difficult game where I win after a lot of effort.
Sometimes I liked to play a game where I can earn a ridiculous level of power after a lot of effort.
Sometimes I just want to be Lu Bu amid an infinite crowd of no-account scrubs, invincible and terrible.

If someone wants to cheat their way through a game, as far as I am concerned they are free to do so. I don't see why anyone is getting all judgmental and self-righteous about this. Y'all are just being a bunch of stop having fun Guys :p

Those last two things are the same, you have to unlock Lu Bu, he's usually pretty hard to unlock too so you've earned your rampage :colbert:

I enjoy seeing nerds get butt-hurt, and enlisting the use of cheats designed just to get achievements (I haven't played SC2 but I assume there's certain cheats in the game that make the game easier etc.) sounds like one of the saddest forms of cheating. Deactivating someone's copy of the game may be a little bit harsh, but at the end of the day if you don't cheat (or simply stick to cheating via the allowed means) then you won't have the hand of Blizzard come crashing down upon you. Read the rules and don't complain when you get caught breaking them.

The point is there shouldn't be any goddamn rules about the singleplayer portion of the game in the first place. It should be up to the player to do with it whatever he wants. It's none of their smurfing business.

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

I think it's smurfing hilarious, go Blizzard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

---

gee 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.

The argument in this thread is about as retarded as the "fiasco" itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

---

gee 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.

---

Indeed. Next someone will get sued or banned for scratching a game disk or something, because they "altered" it

Going to extremes always makes a good example and completely supports and defends your argument in the event that you, yourself, cannot do so. If a company is known for banning people who cheat, setting aside the right versus wrong argument, why would you tempt fate and do it anyway? I have absolutely no sympathy for the person the article is about because, in his own words, he was prepared for it to happen and did it anyway.

Blizzard can do whatever they want with their own game. They are not forcing you to buy it, play it, or cheat while doing either of them. All of these are personal choices. If they want to hurt their public image, they can go ahead and do that. Clearly they are not hurting financially from decisions like these.

PS: Car companies cannot take back the cars you purchase because they have no way to physically monitor it, in the same vein as Blizzard can with their respective franchises. They also cannot ban or sue you for scratching a disc for the same exact reason. Stop using silly and ignorant examples an in attempt to support your already poor argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

---

gee 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.

---

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/30403...jpg?1260647699

I've never played any Blizzard games, so I'm just going to talk about my opinion of cheating in general. Cheating when competing with actual people is kinda lame (unless you know everyone's cool with it). When it's just you in your own home playing a single player game no one should give a smurf, especially not you.

The missions in GTA games bore me. Playing the game "correctly" bores me. Putting in the cheats to get every weapon and infinite health the blow the smurf out of everything ever with no consequence is so much fun. Anyone who has ever used the flying car cheat in GTAIII can tell you how fun it is just messing around, testing the limits of what you can do. Though obviously they intended for you to have this kind of fun, seeing as they programmed the cheats in purposely.

Tomb Raider I have fun playing, even when not cheating. But I also have a lot of fun exploiting the corner glitch (allows you to get to the top of a tall structure by repeatedly jumping in front of its corner). It's fun exploring areas the developers never intended for me to reach. It's not an especially big area, but when I found out I could get on the other side of that really big gate in front of Lara's mansion, I was pretty excited. Also this one time in TRII I used a game shark because I wanted to use weapons inside Lara's house, and when I pulled out her guns she had this white pyramid thing piecing her stomach. Then whenever I shot the weapons, her hands and her head were replaced by her butt for some reason. Fun fact: Lara does not enjoy swimming in this condition.

There are also times when I want to enjoy (or laugh and point at) a game's story, but I am short on time or just plain don't like the gameplay. I can cheat and zip right through it.


I am not breaching any terms of service (smurf you game maker if I am). I am not cheating anyone out of anything. I am not affecting anyone or anything at all except for me and my own gaming experience.




In summary: I like having fun. I like playing games to have fun. If I have spent money on a game and I am not having fun, I will save the situation by doing things to make it more fun. Sometimes I will do these things to make an already fun game even more fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Going to extremes always makes a good example and completely supports and defends your argument in the event that you, yourself, cannot do so. If a company is known for banning people who cheat, setting aside the right versus wrong argument, why would you tempt fate and do it anyway? I have absolutely no sympathy for the person the article is about because, in his own words, he was prepared for it to happen and did it anyway.

Blizzard can do whatever they want with their own game. They are not forcing you to buy it, play it, or cheat while doing either of them. All of these are personal choices. If they want to hurt their public image, they can go ahead and do that. Clearly they are not hurting financially from decisions like these.

PS: Car companies cannot take back the cars you purchase because they have no way to physically monitor it, in the same vein as Blizzard can with their respective franchises. They also cannot ban or sue you for scratching a disc for the same exact reason. Stop using silly and ignorant examples an in attempt to support your already poor argument.

---

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 debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

PS: Car companies cannot take back the cars you purchase because they have no way to physically monitor it, in the same vein as Blizzard can with their respective franchises.

---

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 kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

---

gee 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.

---

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 Bunny

The argument in this thread is about as retarded as the "fiasco" itself.

---

Indeed, as is nearly every other argument currently taking place in this forum. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

PS: Car companies cannot take back the cars you purchase because they have no way to physically monitor it, in the same vein as Blizzard can with their respective franchises.

---

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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

gee 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.

---

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.

Tough luck the guy, but meh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Blizzard can do whatever they want with their own game. They are not forcing you to buy it, play it, or cheat while doing either of them. All of these are personal choices. If they want to hurt their public image, they can go ahead and do that. Clearly they are not hurting financially from decisions like these.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Going to extremes always makes a good example and completely supports and defends your argument in the event that you, yourself, cannot do so. If a company is known for banning people who cheat, setting aside the right versus wrong argument, why would you tempt fate and do it anyway? I have absolutely no sympathy for the person the article is about because, in his own words, he was prepared for it to happen and did it anyway.

Blizzard can do whatever they want with their own game. They are not forcing you to buy it, play it, or cheat while doing either of them. All of these are personal choices. If they want to hurt their public image, they can go ahead and do that. Clearly they are not hurting financially from decisions like these.

PS: Car companies cannot take back the cars you purchase because they have no way to physically monitor it, in the same vein as Blizzard can with their respective franchises. They also cannot ban or sue you for scratching a disc for the same exact reason. Stop using silly and ignorant examples an in attempt to support your already poor argument.

---

Bunny, I love you.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

You can't actually but SCII, you can only lease it.

---

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.

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.

Technically that's true. But courts won't just say "contract of adhesion! *void*" to any non-negotiated contract. The "take-it-or-leave-it" aspect is just one factor to consider. I strongly doubt any court would refuse to enforce the contract of sale of a video game because it was not negotiated.

The point stands that the terms of service is not bargained for. But a better argument is that the buyer does not even see the terms until after the contract of sale, and so there was never any contract for the ToS to begin with. Plus, any unusual terms in form contracts aren't going to be enforced, since courts recognize that no one reads them (my Contracts professor even defined form contracts as "documents which are irrational to read"). This is the same reason why you should never actually bother reading through credit card forms, etc.

This is getting somewhat off-topic, though. I doubt Blizzard will be sued over this. My main point is that, if true, this is a remarkably dumb policy.

The whole "leasing it from Blizz" idea comes from the fact that the game is impossible to play without getting Blizzard's permission each and every time. Even if you have an account, you can't play without logging in through their servers, even if you then choose to play without experiencing anything online.

So, if they ban you, you can't even enjoy the game itself without their online component, because the game is impossible to play without it. They are, in short, revoking your purchase.

Not that this is a surprise. Giving the rise of online authentication and game services, I've been expecting this for a while. One of the reasons I hate Steam is because it has the potential for the same sort of thing. If the service ever decides to screw you, there is nothing you can do about it, since there is no access to the game content outside the service.

You can actually play your steam games offline without having to authenticate.

couple of points:


On Blizzard banning people for Single Player Hacks:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Someone who was stuck on one mission and wanted to see the rest of the campaign, so used a cheat to get through it could wind up getting banned, because there is an achievement just for beating each mission. Kind of ridiculous.

---

Considering SC2 allows players to select the difficulty of each mission prior to the launch of the mission so that the player can simply re-load their game or retry the mission at an easier difficulty if they are having trouble. (normal is not really much of a challenge so playing on easy would make it simply retarded) Sometimes if I missed some research objective I really wanted to get or secondary objective I'll re-play the mission on the lowest settings possible thats if I'm lazy and or the mission is a long one, I'm not even going to state how easily you can win using just marines and medics the entire way. Also theres inbuilt cheats but using them will trigger code to deactivate the achievement scoring. So if someone is THAT keen to finish the storyline then they can get around it. I've never struggled on normal and would say my nephew if he had the patience at 8 could complete the game on the easier settings. We're not talking cheating we're talking game hacks, programs and files deliberately designed to break the game code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Why can't a company regulate the game they made? o_O That's an absurd notion to me.

---

gee 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.

---

You pay for the game yes but you play the game in accordance to the bindings of a contract that is what a terms of service (or End User Liscence Agreement - EULA) essentially is it's a legally binding contract between you and the program developers saying you agree to play the game by their rules. If you do not accept the contract then you cannot install or run the program and can contact the developer of the program for a refund on it should you choose to. In most TOS or EULA contracts there are multiple clauses that state essentially you won't illegally without permission from the developer modify their program in any way. Now whilst some developers won't hold you in breach of contract unless you start to make a profit from the modifications you make to their programs it is perfectly legal for them to hold you so if they choose to make a point. How is this legal? Well because when you clicked "I Accept" and move on to installing the program you have legally given them your consent to do so, ok so it's not a signature but considering it says "please read carefully" and you more often than not, have to scroll through the entire contract to click I accept it's assumed on a legal scale that you have read the TOS/EULA very carefully and understood the contract and that in accepting it legally gave your assent to the situation, if you did not agree you should have declined the TOS/EULA. Claiming you did not agree to it or did not read the contract carefully is not a valid defence, if you did not agree to the TOS/EULA you shouldn't have agreed to accept it in the first place. If you did not read it, ignorance and stupidity does not constitute a valid defence. You can't fault the company here for saying those users who are in breach of the TOS/EULA by using 3rd party or homebrew hacks to modify the games code are infact in breach of the TOS/EULA and therefore no longer eligible to play the game. It's not like they're in the wrong here, the players breaching the TOS/EULA are 100% in the wrong and it serves them right for being stupid and not reading the contracts they agree to.

On Achievements in general:

Achievements are not just a number next to your name for many gamers, look at 360 owners with gamerscore, many accredit having a high gamerscore with a level of respect earnt from other gamers, ok so the reality is having a gamerscore of over 30k means you really haven't had a life the last couple of years and could do with getting out more. Initially the idea was a basic social networking thing, achievements allow for bragging rights before achievements were invented you could claim you'd managed to revive Aerith, recruit Sephiroth and gone to the smurfing moon in the airship in FF7 and whilst many players who had half a brain knew you were full of :bou::bou::bou::bou: there was no real way of going "prove it" now with Achievements the idea is that you can prove it stuff like:
"Oh dude I dropped off the top of a cliff and survived by assasinating an elite in reach the other night"

"hahaha thats awesome wheres the proof?"

"right here buddy, look!"

"hahahaha so you smurfing did thats awesome, oh man you're going to have to show me that trick sometime!"

It brings gamers together allows them to show off the tricks, cool things and stuff what you can do in games and have a laugh over it. As well as providing a challenging option for gamers to try for. A lot of games don't seem to set their achievements very well but when they're done well they're done very well. I like how the Call of Duty, Modern Warfare series handles it's achievements they do it very well. To claim that they're just a number next to a name is true but to claim it cannot earn you respect from other gamers or be challenging to get shows that you've never tried to get some of the worlds hardest achievements. I'd like to think I'm pretty damn good at Call of Duty 4, I still have to get the Mile High Club achievement for it, ok I kinda figured I'd live without the 20g for getting through the plane in the epilogue in a minute and a half on veteran because I'm sad enough to know with practice I could do it but not sad enough to actually want to sit there grinding away at it for hours or days learning how to shave .02 seconds off every firefight. But I accept it's one of the worlds hardest achievements and those who can be bothered to try for it with the near limitless patience it can take to get it I do have a little respect for, they had the time and patience to sit there and go for it, that in itself is something of a feat.

Please, don't try to patronizingly argue legality without knowing the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

You pay for the game yes but you play the game in accordance to the bindings of a contract that is what a terms of service (or End User Liscence Agreement - EULA) essentially is it's a legally binding contract between you and the program developers saying you agree to play the game by their rules. If you do not accept the contract then you cannot install or run the program and can contact the developer of the program for a refund on it should you choose to.

---

I would advise you to read what I've already stated about the contracts issue. This is wrong. They cannot throw whatever terms they want into a ToS that you don't have access to until after you buy the game (which is when the contract actually originates) and call it all a contract. They do it anyway, they make you click the "I agree" button after you don't read it anyway, but any unusual terms in there are not going to be legally enforceable.

Everything you said after that was equally wrong, but I want to address one point:

Quote:

---

In most TOS or EULA contracts there are multiple clauses that state essentially you won't illegally without permission from the developer modify their program in any way. Now whilst some developers won't hold you in breach of contract unless you start to make a profit from the modifications you make to their programs it is perfectly legal for them to hold you so if they choose to make a point.

---

Breach of contract requires more than that. It also requires a showing of damages, which is another reason this is legally dubious. The valid purpose behind any "non-modification" clause is to prevent hacking which in some way, shape, or form harms Blizzard. Broadening its meaning to affect the way single-player users enjoy the game violates a lot of contract principles, even if a court found that this was a breach, such as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unconscionability.

Quote:

---

Achievements are not just a number next to your name for many gamers

---

This is irrelevant and also hypocritical. Just as I can't tell people how to treat achievements, you also can't tell people how to enjoy a game. And they could just remove any "cheaters" ability to win achievements, which is plenty feasible since 1) they already do that for in-game cheats, and 2) they are able to detect this game-modifying programs somehow, or else these people wouldn't be banned.

EDIT: Which brings me back to my main point here, which is that regardless of the legality issue, this is a retarded thing to do. We can set the contracts issue aside. Hell, for the sake of this argument -- and so I'm not forced to read any more horrible misunderstandings and perversions of contract law -- I will even assume what they're doing is 100% legal.

I'm pretty sure Blizzard, having more money than God, would have incredibly good lawyers who have worked all this out for them; I don't see how they're going to get sued for this.

At the end of the day the guy broke a rule that is clearly stated you're not supposed to break (I'll admit, I haven't played SC2, but going by other blizzard games I know that they clearly tell you that 3rd party mods - sometimes the ones made for profit, sometimes not - are a no no), if he wants to moan about it then all power to him, but meanwhile people who simply followed the rules laid out for them will keep on enjoying the game.

*gives up*

If only I could make a big sign that said "REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY, THIS WAS A STUPID, POINTLESS THING TO DO WHEN BLIZZARD COULD JUST DISABLE THE ACHIEVEMENTS FOR THESE PEOPLE" and hit people over the head with it, this thread would be at least slightly bearable.

Or they could just ban them. They're a corporate business, and corporate businesses have done much :bou::bou::bou::bou:tier things to much nicer people. Kinda the way the world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

*gives up*

If only I could make a big sign that said "REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY, THIS WAS A STUPID, POINTLESS THING TO DO WHEN BLIZZARD COULD JUST DISABLE THE ACHIEVEMENTS FOR THESE PEOPLE" and hit people over the head with it, this thread would be at least slightly bearable.

---

welcome to the internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

*gives up*If only I could make a big sign that said "REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY, THIS WAS A STUPID, POINTLESS THING TO DO WHEN BLIZZARD COULD JUST DISABLE THE ACHIEVEMENTS FOR THESE PEOPLE" and hit people over the head with it, this thread would be at least slightly bearable.

---

To be fair I had two posts and four non legality related points between them and the only one you chose to speak to was the legal issues one. Though I agree we should move on.

Quote:

---

And they could just remove any "cheaters" ability to win achievements, which is plenty feasible since 1) they already do that for in-game cheats, and 2) they are able to detect this game-modifying programs somehow, or else these people wouldn't be banned.

---

It don't think it is fair to assume that their system is already set up to determine the exact nature of the third party hacks being preformed on their game. Blizzard would have to go to an extra effort to tweak their security protocols in order to accommodate people using single player hacks. In essence they would have to spend money to subsidize peoples ability to cheat on their achievements, which they frown upon in the first place.

Quote:

---

This is irrelevant and also hypocritical. Just as I can't tell people how to treat achievements, you also can't tell people how to enjoy a game.

---

No, but you can foster an environment that treats achievements as a serious accomplishment as opposed to a gimie. Which is what they are attempting to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

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.

---

Yes, but when you use their codes don't they disable achievement gaining until you disable them? Whereas you could probably still get achievements with these other cheats.

I was under the impression that video games were much like software in the way that you are just paying for the right to use it, and you can't alter it in any way. I guess I was wrong.

In either case, still incredibly dumb.

Who gives a :bou::bou::bou::bou: whether they were wrong or right to do so? Who cares if it's even a stupid move? It's smurfing hilarious. :colbert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

Quote:

---

And they could just remove any "cheaters" ability to win achievements, which is plenty feasible since 1) they already do that for in-game cheats, and 2) they are able to detect this game-modifying programs somehow, or else these people wouldn't be banned.

---

It don't think it is fair to assume that their system is already set up to determine the exact nature of the third party hacks being preformed on their game. Blizzard would have to go to an extra effort to tweak their security protocols in order to accommodate people using single player hacks. In essence they would have to spend money to subsidize peoples ability to cheat on their achievements, which they frown upon in the first place.

---

I want to say upfront that I agree with everything Raistlin has said and was the point I was getting at originally. Even assuming it is legal, it's a :bou::bou::bou::bou:ty thing to do, and I probably won't provide Blizzard with anymore business when better solutions than disabling people's game are available to them. But I also want to address this specific point, because I really doubt that it's that hard to tell when someone is using a hack in single player for two reasons:

1) They can obviously tell when people are using these hacks, and
2) They can already track when you're connected to Battle.net and would be able to tell if you were in a multiplayer game at the time these hacks were in use.

It would be pretty damn easy to know if someone is just hacking in single player. As for trying to foster an environment where achievements are taken seriously, as many of us have already argued, there are better ways than treating your fan base like a bunch of disposable wallets and forcing them to buy another copy of the game if they want to keep playing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Who gives a :bou::bou::bou::bou: whether they were wrong or right to do so? Who cares if it's even a stupid move? It's smurfing hilarious. :colbert:

---

This, right here, is the most important point. We should all be able to agree on this. If not, our society is in trouble.

Quote:

---

and forcing them to buy another copy of the game if they want to keep playing it.

---

The article said that people were getting suspended and a few even went so far as to get banned. Suspending someone and banning the account is completely different IMO. And seeing as some people got just a suspension for doing this I'm guessing the ones that got banned were up to something in addition to what earned the suspension (second warning, mouthing off admins [do they even have SCII admins?], just claimed to their friends they were only using it in single player, etc...)

Ultimately we can only attempt to have an informed discussion on the issue as we only have one account, which I don't consider objective in the least.

Raistlin, I'm glad you quoted me and was quick to point out the flaws to my argument except for one thing you didn't address the point made by me towards the end of the first paragraph. All software companies, games developers included are legally obligated to refund a person the money paid for a product should the person complain to them having refused to accept the EULA/TOS at least this is true in the united kingdom if this is not true in the usa then I'm sorry your countries consumer related laws are retarded. I've done this on a piece of software before.

Steve, I'm pretty sure that they're still not allowed to throw anything they want into the ToS. Somehow I don't think that a place with supposedly good consumer protection laws would not protect consumers, but would instead expect people to read every ToS they ever encounter and analyse it with knowledge of the law to properly understand and comprehend what it means before deciding whether to install or return something. That, in fact, seems to be the precise opposite of consumer protection.

Also are you sure you're not referring to the 'cooling off' period created by the distance selling regulations or something? Because that has nothing to do with ToS.

They should just have added an achievement for the people that were detected as cheaters in singleplayer, so that everyone who actually cared about achievements would shut up.

www.thepiratebay.org/

without reading the thread, it has everything to do with trophies and score and the online community seeing it to evaluate you.

Of course, which is why disabling trophies for cheaters would be the logical non-dickery route to go

The problem is, there ARE cheats built in the game that stop you from getting trophies.

These people are using hacks to play and GET those trophies. That's why they are being banned. I sort of agree with it, since that goes into your public profile and score. While it does not affect your online ranking, I suppose it might make others think you are better than you are.

I think the accounts should be wiped, but not banned.

now they're suing them

If they're suing people who create online cheats then all power to them. Wireframe ruined Ravenshield, just like countless other hacks have the ability to ruin other online experiences.

This is retarded though; "The harm to Blizzard from Defendants’ conduct is immediate, massive and irreparable." Something tells me that the hacks haven't made even a dent in the monolith that is Blizzard.

how did you miss the part where these cheats have nothing to do with the online multiplayer part of the game

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Just forces people to use real cracks, which there are plenty for SC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

how did you miss the part where these cheats have nothing to do with the online multiplayer part of the game

---

The achievement hack is ONE of the cheats they've been banning people for using. Did you honestly think they'd go after people who cheat in single player and completely ignore those who cheat in online?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blizzard via a Gamespot article

"In addition to undermining the spirit of fair competition that's essential to play on Battle.net, cheating and hacking can lead to stability and performance issues with the service," the company's statement read. "Maintaining a stable, safe, and secure online-gaming experience for legitimate players is a top priority for us, and we'll be continuing to keep watch on Battle.net and take action as needed."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blizzard via another Gamespot article

"Just days after the release of Starcraft II, Defendants already had developed, marketed, and distributed to the public a variety of hacks and cheats designed to modify (and in fact destroy) the Starcraft II online game experience.

---

Zero mention has been made of people making hacks for multiplayer and it's completely beside the point anyway. Quoting them on their marketing bull:bou::bou::bou::bou: talk ("online game experience" might just as well just refer to achievements) doesn't change that.

Zero mention has been made of them suing people for the achievement hacks, the lawsuit came at a time when they are cracking down on hackers of every type, doesn't mean that they're specifically suing people who created that one cheat. They're not commenting on litigation so there's no point stating that this lawsuit is directly related to the bans issued to single player cheaters.

I haven't seen any reason to tie the two news stories together. There is no reason to believe they are targeting companies that make achievement hacks specifically. (It doesn't say they aren't either)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

The problem is, there ARE cheats built in the game that stop you from getting trophies.

---

You know, this seems to have been at the heart of the argument for these people being banned, but I have to wonder if it's necessarily true in all of the cases. I looked into what the hacks allow you to do and it seems as though it's more than what's included in the in game cheats from what I recall. How are we to say that the people using them weren't just using them so they could have more control over the game to screw around with it as they pleased? Now I'm not saying that some weren't out to achievement whore, but we can't necessarily say that was true of everyone. I mean, let's say for example that I had used some of these hacks to play around with the game a bit and got achievements as a byproduct. I can honestly say I wouldn't have been doing it for the achievements considering I have an undying hatred of them.

And let's keep in mind that Blizzard's policy isn't just limited to cheating either. They don't want people doing anything to modify the game, which presumably includes modding it. So how would Oblivion and Fallout 3 fans feel if Bethesda started lording over them in this manner? Actually, they'd probably feel like they bought the game on a console. :D

the fact that Blizzard has now filed law-suit passed the point of ridiculous.

Blizzard deserves to go bankrupt for this.