Blizzard Banning Single Player Cheaters?

[Lucane]

using trainers is a violation of the EULA, who's to tell that a cheat that modifies game code couldn't easily do so for multiplayer.

Who's to say that your car won't be used to kill someone?

I don't think Car companies care if you want to use thier vehicle for man-slaughter it's already illegal.

 

[ohgodalex]

Ban?
Just remove their achievements/ scores and disable that feature for them. Give 'em a warning too, then. Downright banning someone for single player what-nots is like stealing!

Bolded for fucking emphasis.
Shit.

 

[BeanerBurrito]

If you get achievements, I support this

To all of the people saying that because achievements are earned, banning is legitimate, i ask why not simply remove their achievements?


the way blizzard battle.net games have worked in the past, has been that you own the single player, and battle.net is a privilege that they can take away at any time, that is fair considering that they let you use their servers for free


with blizzard deciding to completely connect starcraft 2 single player to starcraft 2 battle.net, this becomes an issue


blizzard has no right to say what you can and cannot do to their software when it is only affected on your computer, however because of achievements and being required to login to battle.net they have taken away your ownership of the product you bought


it would be like buying something, taking it apart to see how it works, then having the company you bought it from take it away from you because they feel like it

Seriously, achievements mean nothing, they are a simply a way to artificially lengthen gameplay, they do not actually effect the multiplayer in any way, shape, or form, and even if you REALLY love achievements, banning someone because they got theirs by cheating isn't the right thing to do, simply remove their achievements and call it a day, or better yet, work on ways to prevent hacking in the first place

banning for doing anything in single player is completely unwarranted


the only reason this is an issue is because blizzard decided to link single player to their multiplayer in order to prevent piracy, ironically this will cause many people to pirate the game just to be able to use the product they bought in any manner that they wish

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

If the only reason for these mods is to bypass the security that prevents single player games where cheats are used to affect the gamer score and online achievements, I agree with Blizzards decision to block these people. Especially since Microsoft are in talks with games retailers to make the gamerscore and achievements mean something, similarly with Playstation's trophies. Abusing the game to cheat ANY online aspect unless, like in DoW, you are specifically given the option TO allow cheats, is inherently unethical, and damaging to the developers and the unfair to players who put the effort in. Or otherwise chastise them, removing the ill gotten achievements or suspension. I support their decision to take action against them at least.

If they start getting zealous about mods that don't affect any online factors, then that I'd contest, it's up to the player what they do with game (with the exception of decompiling, reverse engineering etc...).

The achievement only affect online factors because Blizzard designed it that way. Think about it.

I must point out that Oblivion had built in cheats (PC version only I think) but most people who play the PC version mod the shit out of it. How should Bethesda react?

Bethesda released the Elder Scrolls Creation Kit with every copy of the game, if they didn't intend that to be used to mod the game, I don't know what they were thinking.

So what you are saying is that you can only mod a game if the developer says it's ok?

It is very difficult to mod a game (without sanctioned modding tools) without breaking the license agreement, in that it would require you manipulating the games code directly, which since as far back as I remember has been illegal. What this means is, anyone who does modify a game without any tools sanctioned by the developer or compatible with the engine (i.e. Aurora), then they're unlikely to be doing it for ethical reasons. So not exactly, what I was at first saying is that any manipulations to the game that affect any online aspect, especially gamerscore and PS levels in this case, should be cause for action being taken against them, since I have it on good authority that these things won't merely be boasting rights for the terminally house bound. If however, you want to mod a game without the aid of any sanctioned modding tools, such as decompilers, you are at risk of more than being banned.

tl;dr? Yeah, it's up the developer what you're allowed to do.

Edit: Don't get more wrong though, I think the developer is within their rights to disallow this, but it doesn't mean I don't think you should if you're not doing anything unethical. Most of Fallout 2's mods are "illegal" but I love them.

 

[Sethzard]

*snip*

The thing is that they agreed to the terms of service, and they then went against their word.

 

[linwolf]

Mods are the single greats reason to play on a PC.
If I were ban from all the games that I have mods for, I would loose 1/3 of my games. I don't care about achievements I just wishes to have fun. Whether this is achieved by give me new units or making the opponent twice as powerful, only I should care about. When Blizzard starts dictating single player they are crossing a line.

 

[BeanerBurrito]

if you buy a remote control car and replace a wheel, should the manufacturer be able to take it away from you?

if you buy a book and cross out words and put in your own, should the author be able to take it away from you?

if you buy a painting and color all over it, should the artist be able to take it away from you?

if you buy a video game and mod the single player, should the developer be able to take it away from you?


i think it's fair to say that those situations are all exactly the same with different products, correct?

so why should one of those questions have a different answer than the others

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Maybe they have copies of them on thier or some website somewhere or another.

That still isn't acceptable. If you're going to buy a product that has a contract, the person selling you the item needs to provide the contract at the point of sale. If they don't do that, the contract is null and void.

*EDIT* In other words, it's like buying a phone on contract, but the company offering the phone doesn't tell you that you only get 500 free minutes until after you've gone over that.

Well actually it's fine for what your actually buying.Your buying the box(disc,manual,case,etc)like buying a pre-paid phone (case,phone,charger,etc)you bought a phsyical object not the service it provides(which should have what is required to operate/access it on the packaging like internet access and/or a contact phone number.) It's not there fault Stores don't honor full/partial returns on certin opened products like PC games/music discs/DVDs/Blu-rays. Since the data could have been damaged/tampered with/copied with no way to verify if any copies of a specific disc exsist in a way that could be tracked properly without being illegal.

A pre-paid phone doesn't have a contract with it. A pay-monthly phone does, as do video games now. If something has a contract, they NEED to show you up front what is in the contract, so you know exactly what you are buying, and so you can agree to the terms of the contract. If that wasn't a legal requirement, then they could add all sorts of shit to the contract afterwards, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about because you bought the product and you agreed to the contract (you never actually saw).

This is the reason there is very little chance the EULA will hold up in court.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

If the only reason for these mods is to bypass the security that prevents single player games where cheats are used to affect the gamer score and online achievements, I agree with Blizzards decision to block these people. Especially since Microsoft are in talks with games retailers to make the gamerscore and achievements mean something, similarly with Playstation's trophies. Abusing the game to cheat ANY online aspect unless, like in DoW, you are specifically given the option TO allow cheats, is inherently unethical, and damaging to the developers and the unfair to players who put the effort in. Or otherwise chastise them, removing the ill gotten achievements or suspension. I support their decision to take action against them at least.

If they start getting zealous about mods that don't affect any online factors, then that I'd contest, it's up to the player what they do with game (with the exception of decompiling, reverse engineering etc...).

The achievement only affect online factors because Blizzard designed it that way. Think about it.

I must point out that Oblivion had built in cheats (PC version only I think) but most people who play the PC version mod the shit out of it. How should Bethesda react?

Bethesda released the Elder Scrolls Creation Kit with every copy of the game, if they didn't intend that to be used to mod the game, I don't know what they were thinking.

So what you are saying is that you can only mod a game if the developer says it's ok?

It is very difficult to mod a game (without sanctioned modding tools) without breaking the license agreement, in that it would require you manipulating the games code directly, which since as far back as I remember has been illegal. What this means is, anyone who does modify a game without any tools sanctioned by the developer or compatible with the engine (i.e. Aurora), then they're unlikely to be doing it for ethical reasons. So not exactly, what I was at first saying is that any manipulations to the game that affect any online aspect, especially gamerscore and PS levels in this case, should be cause for action being taken against them, since I have it on good authority that these things won't merely be boasting rights for the terminally house bound. If however, you want to mod a game without the aid of any sanctioned modding tools, such as decompilers, you are at risk of more than being banned.

tl;dr? Yeah, it's up the developer what you're allowed to do.

If it were up to the developer what you were allowed to do then Galoob would have lost the case Nintendo brought against them.

You do know how cheating devices work right? They modify the RAM at runtime. That's what mods do as well. Neither overwrites the original game code.

Remind me again who bought the RAM in my computer?

It does supplement or in this case bypass routines in the orginal code. As I said in my edit, if you're not breaking any online regulations, mod however you like. Also it doesn't modify the RAM, it modifies the data stored in the RAM, and that data is the intellectual property of the developer.

 

[BeanerBurrito]

replicating and selling intellectual property is in one category
taking intellectual property and claiming it as your own is also in that category

however using intellectual property that you paid for, and using it the way that you wish, that harms no one, and takes no money away from the owner of the intellectual property, is in a completely different category

 

[Vrach]

Sort of bullshit imo, but:

The thing is. Starcraft 2 has its own inbuilt cheats. However, if you use SC2's cheats, your singleplayer achievements for that campaign are disabled. Using external tools means circumventing Blizzard's rules, not to mention they wouldn't accept 3rd party apps in the first place whatever their purpose.

Unless the ingame cheats are useless compared to trainers, should be ok.

That said, if I was in their shoes, I'd have gone with a different system. Make basically a "Mod" section and allow people to add a cheat trainer as a mod. These mods are only allowed in single player and do the same as the built in cheats - prevent achievements and all that stuff.

Nets the same result, minus the (likely rightfully) pissed off fans. The extra work is negligible, it's just acknowledging/noting the presence of a third party program (doesn't offer any support, any checking of what's involved etc.) and has two simple clauses of "disallow in multiplayer" and use the same code as you do with normal cheats of "when in use, stop achievements/etc."

 

[linwolf]

It does supplement or in this case bypass routines in the orginal code. As I said in my edit, if you're not breaking any online regulations, mod however you like. Also it doesn't modify the RAM, it modifies the data stored in the RAM, and that data is the intellectual property of the developer.

The design of chair also have a intellectual property owner but no one can fault me for breaking it and using the piece as firewood.

 

[himemiya1650]

People with the single player portraits are not that intimidating. Also without trainers, it makes achievement grinding long and boring, like normal grinding. I don't think I would of done a second play through without one.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Blizzard just blink twice if Activision is hiding behind you.

 

[Krantos]

I think companies need to understand something.

No one cares about Gamerscore.

Ok, maybe that's not entirely true, but let be honest, it's an arbitrary and meaningless number that has no bearing on anything. It's not an show of prowess (those 1000 AP from barbie's horse adventure really mean you're epic...). No one is impressed by it. It's even possible to glitch them (Somehow I unlocked 14 achievements at once in a game, many of which were multiplayer achievements, while playing the single player campaign. I'm still not sure how that happened).

If this article is true, then Blizzard needs to be feeling ashamed of themselves.

 

[Lucane]

Maybe they have copies of them on thier or some website somewhere or another.

That still isn't acceptable. If you're going to buy a product that has a contract, the person selling you the item needs to provide the contract at the point of sale. If they don't do that, the contract is null and void.

*EDIT* In other words, it's like buying a phone on contract, but the company offering the phone doesn't tell you that you only get 500 free minutes until after you've gone over that.

Well actually it's fine for what your actually buying.Your buying the box(disc,manual,case,etc)like buying a pre-paid phone (case,phone,charger,etc)you bought a phsyical object not the service it provides(which should have what is required to operate/access it on the packaging like internet access and/or a contact phone number.) It's not there fault Stores don't honor full/partial returns on certin opened products like PC games/music discs/DVDs/Blu-rays. Since the data could have been damaged/tampered with/copied with no way to verify if any copies of a specific disc exsist in a way that could be tracked properly without being illegal.

A pre-paid phone doesn't have a contract with it. A pay-monthly phone does, as do video games now. If something has a contract, they NEED to show you up front what is in the contract, so you know exactly what you are buying, and so you can agree to the terms of the contract. If that wasn't a legal requirement, then they could add all sorts of shit to the contract afterwards, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about because you bought the product and you agreed to the contract (you never actually saw).

This is the reason there is very little chance the EULA will hold up in court.

Well Starcraft 2 isn't monthly though, anyway just becuase I buy a copy of SC2 doesn't mean I'm the intended user they'd have to verify that at time of purchase like when you buy a contract phone(fill out/sign the contract at time of purchase) so you could buy a dozen copies of SC2 and keep them yourself or give them away (doing that with a contracted monthly phone would likely be a breach of contract.)

 

[Lucane]

using trainers is a violation of the EULA, who's to tell that a cheat that modifies game code couldn't easily do so for multiplayer.

Who's to say that your car won't be used to kill someone?

I don't think Car companies care if you want to use thier vehicle for man-slaughter it's already illegal.

It doesn't matter if they care, it matters what they do and if they took away your keys....

My point is, if you aren't cheating in multiplayer, then banning you on the assumption that you might is wrong.

It's more like you bought a car and punched someone working in the car-lot and they ban you buying there again or just entering the area (as yourself if you go in desguise[different account] who's to know it's you.)

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

It does supplement or in this case bypass routines in the orginal code. As I said in my edit, if you're not breaking any online regulations, mod however you like. Also it doesn't modify the RAM, it modifies the data stored in the RAM, and that data is the intellectual property of the developer.

The design of chair also have a intellectual property owner but no one can fault me for breaking it and using the piece as firewood.

There are no laws protecting how chairs are used, probably because thousands of jobs and millions of (insert currency) aren't at stake. Much of agreement isn't directly intended for the player, but to prevent other companies reusing code, or stealing the engine, but the law can't apply to some people and not others. Anyone who can open manipulate how a game operates at start-up has the power to distribute open copies of the game. If you somehow stole the design secrets of the carpenter by taking the chair apart, and then tried to sell those ideas as your own, he/she would likely have a case against you there.

 

[sosolidshoe]

First, everyone saying that they "own" the product needs to look up software licensing. You don't own shit.

Secondly, read what this guy says.

Even cheating in single-player using 3rd party methods rather than the usual built-in codes is still using 3rd party software to hack, modify and abuse the game. Wether used in multiplayer or not, I can imagine Blizzard might take issue with people screwing with their magnum opus.

Allowing use of third-party tools to modify their product is a slippery slope. You want to cheat, use the cheats. If you want achievements, don't cheat. I don't see how this is complex.

- J

Don't know about your nation chief, but here we have consumer protection laws, and under those laws once I have purchased a product sold in a commercial retail premises, I own it. A company can include a licensed agreement for services, however there is no way you could justify classing the single-player portion of a game as a service, it's a product. Hence, why they can ban people from multiplayer for breaching a license agreement, as they use Blizzard's servers, but why I am pretty certain it's illegal for them to do so for the singleplayer, because that is entirely present on the disc which was bought over the counter.

I might edit in more here once I catch up with the thread. And now I continue:

EULAs are not legally binding. You can argue this until you're blue in the face, but it's simply fact. They can claim anything they want in the EULA, and you are free to click "accept" without any worries, because if it ever comes to court you will walk out laughing, and they will have nothing to show for it beyond a huge lawyer's bill. Yelling "EULA! EULA!" will not change the fact that Blizzard cannot ban someone from using a product which they payed for, because it is no longer their property, and thus they no longer retain control over it in a legal context.

They CAN ban people for multiplayer cheating, because it is a service which they provide, and a company can define rules for use of a service, and withdraw it at their discretion. I really hope one of the players they banned over this contacts the EFF and takes it to court, we need a legal precedent set so companies stop pulling shit like this.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

If the only reason for these mods is to bypass the security that prevents single player games where cheats are used to affect the gamer score and online achievements, I agree with Blizzards decision to block these people. Especially since Microsoft are in talks with games retailers to make the gamerscore and achievements mean something, similarly with Playstation's trophies. Abusing the game to cheat ANY online aspect unless, like in DoW, you are specifically given the option TO allow cheats, is inherently unethical, and damaging to the developers and the unfair to players who put the effort in. Or otherwise chastise them, removing the ill gotten achievements or suspension. I support their decision to take action against them at least.

If they start getting zealous about mods that don't affect any online factors, then that I'd contest, it's up to the player what they do with game (with the exception of decompiling, reverse engineering etc...).

The achievement only affect online factors because Blizzard designed it that way. Think about it.

I must point out that Oblivion had built in cheats (PC version only I think) but most people who play the PC version mod the shit out of it. How should Bethesda react?

Bethesda released the Elder Scrolls Creation Kit with every copy of the game, if they didn't intend that to be used to mod the game, I don't know what they were thinking.

So what you are saying is that you can only mod a game if the developer says it's ok?

It is very difficult to mod a game (without sanctioned modding tools) without breaking the license agreement, in that it would require you manipulating the games code directly, which since as far back as I remember has been illegal. What this means is, anyone who does modify a game without any tools sanctioned by the developer or compatible with the engine (i.e. Aurora), then they're unlikely to be doing it for ethical reasons. So not exactly, what I was at first saying is that any manipulations to the game that affect any online aspect, especially gamerscore and PS levels in this case, should be cause for action being taken against them, since I have it on good authority that these things won't merely be boasting rights for the terminally house bound. If however, you want to mod a game without the aid of any sanctioned modding tools, such as decompilers, you are at risk of more than being banned.

tl;dr? Yeah, it's up the developer what you're allowed to do.

If it were up to the developer what you were allowed to do then Galoob would have lost the case Nintendo brought against them.

You do know how cheating devices work right? They modify the RAM at runtime. That's what mods do as well. Neither overwrites the original game code.

Remind me again who bought the RAM in my computer?

It does supplement or in this case bypass routines in the orginal code. As I said in my edit, if you're not breaking any online regulations, mod however you like. Also it doesn't modify the RAM, it modifies the data stored in the RAM, and that data is the intellectual property of the developer.

Then maybe you can tell me why Galoob won that case? What did the Game Genie do differently than a trainer?

Have better lawyers than Nintendo? I don't know, I've never even heard of the case.