Poll: Would this be ethical...

[ablac]

It's middle-road.

You gave them your money, you're not getting your product when you want it, so pretty much anyone would say "Why not acquire an illegal version that always works?" It's easy to justify, probably even to the company that made it.

On the other hand, you had plenty of warning that this problem would exist. Thus, the ethical high road is just suffer and wait.

I would disagree, in that the online always stuff is meant to stop piracy anyway. The piracy they are talking about is specifically people pirating rather than buying, since the OP has already bought the game then he shouldnt have to suffer from the anti piracy measures and pirating the game when he has bought it already isnt the kind of piracy they are trying to stop.

Yes he does. EULA.

If he dislikes that, he shouldn't have bought the product. He was warned.

But again, it's arguably unethical on Blizzard's part to do this, which is why I label it middle-road ethics.

I spose breaking the EULA can be considered wrong, and for many parts it certainly is. However I dont think he should have to suffer unnecesarily because of this. I just view it that whilst piracy is wrong its only piracy if you arent paying for what you get, he has paid and so he hasnt done any harm in my eyes and therefore can do as he wishes. In this case he isnt partaking in the piracy its really intended to stop, like I said, so it shouldnt apply to him as he has already bought it. Blizzard lose nothing and he only gains so why not.

 

[Atmos Duality]

A EULA (notice that it's an 'agreement' and not a 'contract') has no legal standing, you did not sign it, hitting the 'accept' button is not the same as placing your physical signature on a document.
Most EULAs are pretty unethical anyway, they tend to amount to 'now we own your ass, you can't sue us even if we put ricin in the box,'

Yeah, we can talk all day long how they are not legally binding. As long as no one files a lawsuit against an EULA you can assume that it is enforceable. Also, hitting the "accept" buttton is the same as signing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

A case where a court enforced a shrink-wrap license, aka the situation we have here.

Shrink-wrap-licenses are not legally enforced everywhere (EU especially); even the United States has a fragmented, inconclusive track record of enforcement.

Though (in the US) most companies who are aware of this (and Blizzard most definitely is) will attempt to station their servers in states/districts that will rule favorably for them and attempt to move any sort of court cases to their jurisdiction (it's currently a messy process).

Enforcement is not guaranteed by, though I've no doubt Blizzard would just stonewall anyone who challenges them into a settlement on their terms anyway.

OT: For all practical purposes, there's nothing ethically wrong about trying to play the game you already paid money for. Legally, perhaps, but not ethically.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Since the internet problem is not Blizzard's fault but yours(Well, actually your ISP's, but still) it would probably not be ethical. But you should do it anyway. Down with the system and all that.

this is the main problem i have with this game..it's involving a 3rd party MAKING it detrimental when it shouldn't be, as you can CLEARLY single player the entire game, or do co op if you wish (as alot of people online tend to do)

honestly it's quite aggravating, I have perfectly fine internet, but for a single player game that you clearly paid for (and not to mention the two prequels that played that way beforehand) you shouldn't be required to be online at all times.

OT: perfectly fine to me, no one is harmed and you paid for the product and you get to use it.

 

[malestrithe]

I would not because my ethics tells me this is wrong. But that's not my decision to make.

You have to decide what to do. You need to figure out what is the best course of action for yourself.

Just be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions if you get in trouble. You might feel its right, but the law tends to say otherwise.

 

[monkey_man]

I say pirating in this situation is like pirating when you lost a disc. You own the game, but for some reason you are unable to play. And you bought the damned game for a lot of money, you supported the devs enough, I say you may pirate it.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

You bought the game. You're playing the game you bought.

Where's the problem here?

Though, legally, you might catch some flack, since it's a game released both physically and digitally, which means the DMCA allowances for having a digital copy of an exclusively physically released media provided ownership of the physical media are going to be...delicate, to say the least. I imagine you would technically need to own the digital copy. But, this is an ethics discussion, and I find this to be morally justified.

 

[drmigit2]

I would wonder why more people did not pirate it to get from the bullshit online only crap. If blizzard wants me to pay for my game then I dont want a giant goddamned handicap on my game. Simple

 

[MrFalconfly]

I find it very hard to apply ethics to economy.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Ethical, yes you bought the game so what does it matter?

 

[TehCookie]

I don't have the strongest of ethics so I'd say yes, but it is illegal and a lot of people think breaking the law is unethical.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

If you knew anything about the game, then you knew it was 'always online'.

If this bothered you, then you shouldn't have bought the game.

I really don't get this argument. It's like saying "If you knew anything about ME3, then you knew it had 'tacked on multiplayer'. If you don't like that then you shouldn't of bought the game. I think buying the game should give you the right to play it, so doing something like this is fine. Also, what if the person wasn't bothered by the DRM, but his internet becomes shitty one day and now he can't play the game. He has every right to be pissed off/play a pirated version.

What?

You don't need to play ME3's multiplayer to play the single player game, so I don't understand the comparison.

You agree to the terms of service when you boot up the game for the first time. Don't like those terms, don't play the game.

I don't agree with their methods, but if people are going to throw money at them, despite draconian DRM, then they're gonna keep doing it.

What if you've payed for the game. You've got an amazing internet connection, one that never goes down. You play say act 1, then BAM something happens that turns off your internet. No game for you, you've wasted your 50 pounds. They didn't know that was going to happen, but due to the crappy DRM they can't play singleplayer without internet. Yeah sure, you can counter this by saying "Well, you buy a car even though the next day you might crash/it get eaten by truckosaurus". But Diablo 3 is very different because it's a game, and it's the companies fault that you can't play SP when your internet's down.

Well that's an issue with your ISP, not the game devs.

Much like saying it's Ford's fault that I can't run my car because my local petrol station has ran out of fuel.

You shouldn't have bought a car if you knew you would possibly run out of fuel and be pissed about it. And you have no right to be pissed, because you knew it could happen.

Kind of stretching it a bit there

What I mean, is if that something bothers you so much that you're willing to break the law for a video game, then something needs to change.

Throwing money at Blizzard doesn't tell them that their DRM sucks.

The whole point is that the law is so stupid because what he's doing isn't unethical in any sense.

 

[Mad World]

Yes - I would say that it's ethical.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

If you knew anything about the game, then you knew it was 'always online'.

If this bothered you, then you shouldn't have bought the game.

I really don't get this argument. It's like saying "If you knew anything about ME3, then you knew it had 'tacked on multiplayer'. If you don't like that then you shouldn't of bought the game. I think buying the game should give you the right to play it, so doing something like this is fine. Also, what if the person wasn't bothered by the DRM, but his internet becomes shitty one day and now he can't play the game. He has every right to be pissed off/play a pirated version.

What?

You don't need to play ME3's multiplayer to play the single player game, so I don't understand the comparison.

You agree to the terms of service when you boot up the game for the first time. Don't like those terms, don't play the game.

I don't agree with their methods, but if people are going to throw money at them, despite draconian DRM, then they're gonna keep doing it.

What if you've payed for the game. You've got an amazing internet connection, one that never goes down. You play say act 1, then BAM something happens that turns off your internet. No game for you, you've wasted your 50 pounds. They didn't know that was going to happen, but due to the crappy DRM they can't play singleplayer without internet. Yeah sure, you can counter this by saying "Well, you buy a car even though the next day you might crash/it get eaten by truckosaurus". But Diablo 3 is very different because it's a game, and it's the companies fault that you can't play SP when your internet's down.

Well that's an issue with your ISP, not the game devs.

Much like saying it's Ford's fault that I can't run my car because my local petrol station has ran out of fuel.

You shouldn't have bought a car if you knew you would possibly run out of fuel and be pissed about it. And you have no right to be pissed, because you knew it could happen.

Kind of stretching it a bit there

What I mean, is if that something bothers you so much that you're willing to break the law for a video game, then something needs to change.

Throwing money at Blizzard doesn't tell them that their DRM sucks.

The whole point is that the law is so stupid because what he's doing isn't unethical in any sense.

It's unethical in that it doesn't combat the problem.

Granted, on an individual basis, it matters very little, but how many sales would Blizzard have lost if all the people who hated the DRM decided not buy the game?

 

[Evil Smurf]

this is very similar to jailbreaking iOS stuff. You payed for it, you (think) you can do whatever you want to it. You may be correct or not, are you better however then the people at the corporation you are rebelling at? They will make all sorts excuses to grab your money: DLC, online passes, ect. Can you really oppose people who will act out side the law, if you have done it yourself? Maybe you torrented music.

Piracy will always exist because often legitimate actions can be awkward. Is it ethical? It all depends in what you think is right and wrong. Illegal? Very

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

If you knew anything about the game, then you knew it was 'always online'.

If this bothered you, then you shouldn't have bought the game.

I really don't get this argument. It's like saying "If you knew anything about ME3, then you knew it had 'tacked on multiplayer'. If you don't like that then you shouldn't of bought the game. I think buying the game should give you the right to play it, so doing something like this is fine. Also, what if the person wasn't bothered by the DRM, but his internet becomes shitty one day and now he can't play the game. He has every right to be pissed off/play a pirated version.

What?

You don't need to play ME3's multiplayer to play the single player game, so I don't understand the comparison.

You agree to the terms of service when you boot up the game for the first time. Don't like those terms, don't play the game.

I don't agree with their methods, but if people are going to throw money at them, despite draconian DRM, then they're gonna keep doing it.

What if you've payed for the game. You've got an amazing internet connection, one that never goes down. You play say act 1, then BAM something happens that turns off your internet. No game for you, you've wasted your 50 pounds. They didn't know that was going to happen, but due to the crappy DRM they can't play singleplayer without internet. Yeah sure, you can counter this by saying "Well, you buy a car even though the next day you might crash/it get eaten by truckosaurus". But Diablo 3 is very different because it's a game, and it's the companies fault that you can't play SP when your internet's down.

Well that's an issue with your ISP, not the game devs.

Much like saying it's Ford's fault that I can't run my car because my local petrol station has ran out of fuel.

You shouldn't have bought a car if you knew you would possibly run out of fuel and be pissed about it. And you have no right to be pissed, because you knew it could happen.

Kind of stretching it a bit there

What I mean, is if that something bothers you so much that you're willing to break the law for a video game, then something needs to change.

Throwing money at Blizzard doesn't tell them that their DRM sucks.

The whole point is that the law is so stupid because what he's doing isn't unethical in any sense.

It's unethical in that it doesn't combat the problem.

Granted, on an individual basis, it matters very little, but how many sales would Blizzard have lost if all the people who hated the DRM decided not buy the game?

You could argue that but you and I both know that he wasn't asking the question "Was I unethical in buying this game?" He was asking if it was unethical for him to play the game that he paid full price for because of the stupid measures implemented by Blizzard.

 

[BrionJames]

You paid for their product, who cares how many copies you have? the pirated version probably runs like ass anyway. To hell with Blizzard for doing this stupid always-online bullshit anyway.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I actually have this conundrum as well.
I was thinking of purchasing some EA games and using cracks to avoid Origin.

 

[FoolKiller]

Piracy is Piracy, regardless of motive.

That's actually weak logic. You assume that piracy is unethical regardless of motive. That's like saying killing someone in self defense is the same as premeditated murder.

Personally, I think if you've given money to the company and want to play single-player, then go for it. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Also, in Canada, you are allowed to have an archival copy for your own use.