Blizzard banning people for cheating in SC2 campaign

[Raistlin]

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.

[Skyblade]

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.

[kotora]

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

[Iceglow]

couple of points:


On Blizzard banning people for Single Player Hacks:

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.

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 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.

[Raistlin]

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

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:

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.

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.

[Pheesh]

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.

[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.

[Pheesh]

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

[kotora]

*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

[VeloZer0]

*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.

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.

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.

[Rostum]

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.

[NorthernChaosGod]

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

[Slothy]

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 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.

[DMKA]

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

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

[VeloZer0]

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.