Blizzard Attacks StarCraft II Cheat Developers
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
I did the find the hex value thing with a COMPILED fan game(it was a metroid tetris type game). Compiled meaning a program outputed with no source code given. I don't know about you but I didn't do any reverse engineering to find the source code or steal it from the makers computer.Pebkac said:
You completely missed the point. They aren't suing people who were dissatisfied with the game, they were suing because cheating causes dissatisfaction. L2 comprehensive reading.Flipscore said:
I wish they pursued gold sellers this aggressively. I'm sure if they wanted to they could easily get rid of them. "It's a conspiracy!" "They're in on it!" Et cetera.
You breaks the rules, you takes your chances. You breaks the rules in a fashion that likely breaks the law, and you ups the stakes.
No I haven't read the last three pages.
No I am do not a cheat in multiplayer, and I rarely cheat in single player. It is the principle of the thing. Also, first its single player cheats, then it is mods. If I cannot customize my game, the way I wish to, then what am I spending my money on?
This time it was Starcraft, next time the developer's content will not be enough.
In Jedi Knight II, there were several options for adding new saber techniques, and new costumes.
-----------------------------------------
Did the article mention selling the code? That is an interesting area... Do people sell plugins for Internet Explorer, or Microsoft Office?
Did the cheat programs use any proprietary code? If so, then Blizzard is justified.
No, read the article again, as Iscin, and blakfayt pointed out on page one, those cheats are for single player games.lacktheknack said:
No I am do not a cheat in multiplayer, and I rarely cheat in single player. It is the principle of the thing. Also, first its single player cheats, then it is mods. If I cannot customize my game, the way I wish to, then what am I spending my money on?
This time it was Starcraft, next time the developer's content will not be enough.
In Jedi Knight II, there were several options for adding new saber techniques, and new costumes.
-----------------------------------------
Did the article mention selling the code? That is an interesting area... Do people sell plugins for Internet Explorer, or Microsoft Office?
Did the cheat programs use any proprietary code? If so, then Blizzard is justified.
Those who created the trainers had to reverse engineer some of the SC2 code which is actually in violation of the law. Not only that, but they are modifying a game, and making a profit off of it, which is a massive no-no both legally, and in the modding community.Iscin said:
Sorry, but the cheat makers have no feet to stand on.
Yeah, I gave a longish reply to someone else about how these specific cheats affect multiplayer.Monster_user said:
Hacks/mods have screwed pretty badly with the Diablo II online experience. Now, Diablo II was built back in 2001 when companies couldn't assume people would have a really good internet connection, so Diablo II tends to save a lot of data to your computer instead of the server, at least temporarily (this is why items can still be duplicated), but I am glad that they're trying to stop the issue with their newer games.
I don't see any problem with cheating in single-player though. Hell, Starcraft I actually had cheats for you to use in single-player.
I don't see any problem with cheating in single-player though. Hell, Starcraft I actually had cheats for you to use in single-player.
From what I can tell, Blizzard didn't win the WoW Glider case by copyright infringement, they won it by the fact that WoW Glider causes users to violate the EULA/ToS violation (possibly unknowingly).
What's interesting with this cases, is that instead of going with that method, they appear to be going with the "online cheaters make us look bad, and people won't buy our games because of it" approach. Which is weird, because they'd probably have to make the case that they've lost a certain number of sales based on it. This might make more sense due to many of the creators living outside of the U.S., since EULAs & ToS aren't even strictly enforceable in the U.S. I think in Canada it's easier to sue if there are real damages. Still, how much could they get? SC2 doesn't have a reputation for boat loads of cheaters. $69.99 * 100 lost sales? Not really worth the court costs.
As a side note, the act of reverse engineering a game, which breaks a EULA, is a pretty minor issue. If we're talking about 1 person reverse engineering their copy, and breaking their EULA... It's basically a zero-dollar violation. Big woop-dee-doo if you figured out how to change Jim Raynor's name to Jim Gaynor or how to spawn a hundred tanks.
EDIT: Modding/Cheating offline is probably still a violation of the EULA/ToS, but I'd imagine disabling the game for that would make the EULA/ToS unenforceable in the courts view.
What's interesting with this cases, is that instead of going with that method, they appear to be going with the "online cheaters make us look bad, and people won't buy our games because of it" approach. Which is weird, because they'd probably have to make the case that they've lost a certain number of sales based on it. This might make more sense due to many of the creators living outside of the U.S., since EULAs & ToS aren't even strictly enforceable in the U.S. I think in Canada it's easier to sue if there are real damages. Still, how much could they get? SC2 doesn't have a reputation for boat loads of cheaters. $69.99 * 100 lost sales? Not really worth the court costs.
As a side note, the act of reverse engineering a game, which breaks a EULA, is a pretty minor issue. If we're talking about 1 person reverse engineering their copy, and breaking their EULA... It's basically a zero-dollar violation. Big woop-dee-doo if you figured out how to change Jim Raynor's name to Jim Gaynor or how to spawn a hundred tanks.
EDIT: Modding/Cheating offline is probably still a violation of the EULA/ToS, but I'd imagine disabling the game for that would make the EULA/ToS unenforceable in the courts view.
Not exactly. Look at DoW, a RTS released in 2004, it was one of the fanboy's of both sides (Warhammer 40k and Starcraft) great wars against each other, it had a system where it would check the version of the game (i.e. if somethigns weren't the same like a mod)and it would block the versions that are modded unless of course the host has the same mod.Stormz said:
Guys, this whole thread saddend me so much i signed up just to post this
Everyone in this thread who is supporting blizzard is helping kill the games industry, not the guys who 'hacked' some single player cheats.
EULAs are nothing but a con, and only worth anything nowadays in the US. EULAs belonging to microsoft and apple have already be proven 'not worth the paper their written on' in my country, and Valve's EULA is next.
When you BUY something, you expect to get the whole product and then be able to do whatever you want with it, weather thats play it, mod it, or bake a cake out it if you really want. Its yours. Now on-line play is different as your connecting to blizzard servers or supported servers so different rules can apply there (thereby not ruining the possibility of sales). So you can still come down hard on the multiplayer hackers, but really - if blizzard coded better and paid more attention to their servers then multiplayer cheaters would have a much harder job. I don't see why MY consumer rights should be harmed because of THEIR poor coding and server security.
These EULAs effectively mean you're only RENTING the game, and the company can choose to remove your access to it at any time for any reason, everyone apart from the pants-on-head-retarded can see that this is fucked up, and not fair on the consumer.
Hopefully someone in the US will see sense and these EULAs will die the death that they should have back in the 90's
Everyone in this thread who is supporting blizzard is helping kill the games industry, not the guys who 'hacked' some single player cheats.
EULAs are nothing but a con, and only worth anything nowadays in the US. EULAs belonging to microsoft and apple have already be proven 'not worth the paper their written on' in my country, and Valve's EULA is next.
When you BUY something, you expect to get the whole product and then be able to do whatever you want with it, weather thats play it, mod it, or bake a cake out it if you really want. Its yours. Now on-line play is different as your connecting to blizzard servers or supported servers so different rules can apply there (thereby not ruining the possibility of sales). So you can still come down hard on the multiplayer hackers, but really - if blizzard coded better and paid more attention to their servers then multiplayer cheaters would have a much harder job. I don't see why MY consumer rights should be harmed because of THEIR poor coding and server security.
These EULAs effectively mean you're only RENTING the game, and the company can choose to remove your access to it at any time for any reason, everyone apart from the pants-on-head-retarded can see that this is fucked up, and not fair on the consumer.
Hopefully someone in the US will see sense and these EULAs will die the death that they should have back in the 90's
"How dare you look out for the enjoyment of your legitimate customers Blizzard! HOW DARE YOU!!!"Monster_user said:
Hacks are bad. People that USE hacks are the devil. People who CREATE hacks are... what's worse than Satan? Bobby Kotick? I dunno.
Along with this Blizz oughta incorporate coding in the game paying recognition that someone is using these cheats, and announce it globally in multiplayer. Then the legit players can know right from the start that they are playing with a cheater/dilhole and kick him if it is possible or just leave the cheater/dilhole all alone as a cheater deserves to be.