So... no HD texture mods? The game certianlly can use them BADLY. You can see the pixels in the blood for crying out loud!
No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.Waaghpowa said:I'm speaking specifically in the case of Blizzard. Blizzard is ok with mods seeing as there are whole sites devoted to Starcraft 2 mods, editing tools and here. So we can deduce, based on that, that the TOS refers specifically of unauthorized 3rd party software that alters game experience and service.
Did you realize that is an official blizzard page? Like hosted by Activision official? It at least guarantee freedom from bans from those community and in hose dev mods, as well as a dev kit for mod developing and hosting your mod themselves if its popular enough.Zachary Amaranth said:No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.
Sorry.
Sorry, but unless you believe that Blizzard is attempting to lure people into getting banned, there would be no reason to supply the required Dev tools to make mods.Zachary Amaranth said:No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.Waaghpowa said:I'm speaking specifically in the case of Blizzard. Blizzard is ok with mods seeing as there are whole sites devoted to Starcraft 2 mods, editing tools and here. So we can deduce, based on that, that the TOS refers specifically of unauthorized 3rd party software that alters game experience and service.
Sorry.
Beat me to it.Tanakh said:Did you realize that is an official blizzard page? Like hosted by Activision official? It at least guarantee freedom from bans from those community and in hose dev mods, as well as a dev kit for mod developing and hosting your mod themselves if its popular enough.
*Headdesk*Tanakh said:Did you realize that is an official blizzard page? Like hosted by Activision official? It at least guarantee freedom from bans from those community and in hose dev mods, as well as a dev kit for mod developing and hosting your mod themselves if its popular enough.Zachary Amaranth said:No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.
Sorry.
Yeah, I do, but they aren't suicidal mate, they are a company made to make money and that wont.Zachary Amaranth said:*Headdesk*
Yes, I realise that. Again, that doesn't mean impugnity, so that changes nothing. Oh look, official site. Oh look, official EULA that still reserves the right....
No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.Sangnz said:On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.
You sign a contract with EA saying "I will not do these things, and I understand if I do them that you can disable my access to the game." It's not like the EULA's are hidden in some super secret link on the websites, and all are easily accessible before you buy the video game, as well as after you buy the video game.Adam Jensen said:No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.Sangnz said:On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.
Except it HAS been taken to court NUMEROUS TIMES in the United States (Microsoft vs Harmony Computers, Novell vs Network Trade Center, among others) though outside of the US their enforcement is questionable at best.Adam Jensen said:No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.
That's what happens when you make a silly comment in the rush to be the first to respond.Lagao said:Stop quoting me. I get it.