It's best to do these things all at once. Let them think for a while that their hack/cheat works undetected. Then bulk bank the lot of them. Makes it so that you have a better chance at stripping all the ill gotten gold out of the market.
However, Warden is broken. It will catch the novice hacks, but the experts who know what they are doing will get away. The best way to get around Warden it to make your hack 64bit exclusive. Warden is confined to 32bit address space because it's a 32bit program. It cant scan anything in memory that is outside of the 4 gig memory barrier.
In depth warden scans also started on patch 1.02 and start at logon with 1.02b. I only know this because I run Linux and evidently if Wine tells warden you have over 4 Gigs of ram it trys to scan it, gets into an infinite loop, and locks up. Effectively crashing the system.
It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.
It's quote possibly legal due to something in their terms of service, you'll have to agree that Blizzard can and will terminate access to your account with use of third party programmes or other like scenarios.
It's basically the same effect you get from cheating in an MMO so I'm perfectly sure it's very legal.
If a person seriously wanted to make money playing an online game and the creators have set it up and advertised you can legally make money through their auction house.
Then using mods and bots is not cheating.
its just an efficient way to get people the produce they want for a cheaper price. A bot can harvest faster then a player can so they have more stock so their prices can be lower
and the consumer is happier.
That is economics
Should we have banned farmers for upgrading equipment from horses?
cause not everyone could afford to buy or knows how to use machinery.
They must be cheating and needed to have their farms burnt to the ground.
Maybe blizzard should have listened to consumers who were upset at the prospect of a real money market as a part of their game. Or maybe this should have been a first player game and not try to force the multi-player aspect onto it so they could make more money. Almost like this was more trouble then they bargained for.
Now I await the news report of a lawsuit over false advertising from professional D3 players who lost money over their accounts being banned.
<-waiting for the inevitable shitstorm when Blizzard casts a tad too wide a net when it comes to bannings. You spent time in the same dungeon with a known cheater. Banned. You have known cheaters on your friends list. Banned. etc.
May as well use my accidental double post to post a further point.
Lunncal said:
Licenses still have to obey the law. Once they've accepted my money for a license (i.e. once I've bought the game), they must provide what was agreed upon or give me my money back. It's just like with other services, if I pay a builder to build me a wall and he doesn't do it then he's legally required to give me my money back. The whole license thing must be part of how they get away with it though, which is ridiculous. We made consumer rights laws in the first place to protect ourselves from these kinds of practices, why then do we not have similar laws for software licenses, or why do they mysteriously not apply?
Licenses can be revoked, driving licenses get revoked all the time because of misdemeanours and you're not going to receive payment for the lessons you took, the car you bought or the filing of the license.
So no, we're not entitled to our money back if we don't adhere to the agreements upon which we signed.
Their problem is that cheaters and bot'ers undermine their little cash cow, the real money auction house. Blizz has no problem with bots in WoW because it doesn't affect their cashflow, it actually boosts it because that's an account paid for.
May as well use my accidental double post to post a further point.
Lunncal said:
Licenses still have to obey the law. Once they've accepted my money for a license (i.e. once I've bought the game), they must provide what was agreed upon or give me my money back. It's just like with other services, if I pay a builder to build me a wall and he doesn't do it then he's legally required to give me my money back. The whole license thing must be part of how they get away with it though, which is ridiculous. We made consumer rights laws in the first place to protect ourselves from these kinds of practices, why then do we not have similar laws for software licenses, or why do they mysteriously not apply?
Licenses can be revoked, driving licenses get revoked all the time because of misdemeanours and you're not going to receive payment for the lessons you took, the car you bought or the filing of the license.
So no, we're not entitled to our money back if we don't adhere to the agreements upon which we signed.
It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.
Legality is grey, but smartness is black and white.
Blizzard said one of the reason with the always-online was to prevent cheaters. People still cheated. These people didn't think that perhaps Blizzard would be really pissed about this. Especially with an IRL money AH. Sadly Blizzard doesn't have the technology to read people's intentions so won't know the cheaters won't use the AH, so the logical step is to ban them.
People who are falsely banned I pity. People who cheated, deserve it frankly for being so damn cocky. They cheated on a game that is meant to be uncheatable, well done, you're now banned.
MMOs can ban accounts. Means you need to buy a new key. This is nothing new. I guess this is proof that Diablo 3 is a sort of RPG-MMO.
Why not?
They work under the exact same principle, if you're found breaking the rules of use then it can be revoked.
It's a little misinformed because people believe that they have bought that copy of Call of Duty as a product and not the license to use it but the point stands.
Are you going to finish your explanation as to why I am incorrect or just leave it as an a vague question?
Licenses still have to obey the law. Once they've accepted my money for a license (i.e. once I've bought the game), they must provide what was agreed upon or give me my money back. It's just like with other services, if I pay a builder to build me a wall and he doesn't do it then he's legally required to give me my money back. The whole license thing must be part of how they get away with it though, which is ridiculous. We made consumer rights laws in the first place to protect ourselves from these kinds of practices, why then do we not have similar laws for software licenses, or why do they mysteriously not apply?
If pay to go into a club, start a fight, you will get thrown out and you wont get a refund. If you go to the movies shout at the top of your voice for half an hour, you will get thrown out and you wont get refund. Whats the difference?
I wish you guys who bang on about EULAs being illegal and unfair would just get together and go to court instead of posting. Why don't you guys just put you money where you mouth is, otherwise people might be forgiven for thinking your all mouth and no trousers.
May as well use my accidental double post to post a further point.
Lunncal said:
Licenses still have to obey the law. Once they've accepted my money for a license (i.e. once I've bought the game), they must provide what was agreed upon or give me my money back. It's just like with other services, if I pay a builder to build me a wall and he doesn't do it then he's legally required to give me my money back. The whole license thing must be part of how they get away with it though, which is ridiculous. We made consumer rights laws in the first place to protect ourselves from these kinds of practices, why then do we not have similar laws for software licenses, or why do they mysteriously not apply?
Licenses can be revoked, driving licenses get revoked all the time because of misdemeanours and you're not going to receive payment for the lessons you took, the car you bought or the filing of the license.
So no, we're not entitled to our money back if we don't adhere to the agreements upon which we signed.
Oh, sorry, didn't realise you'd edited your second post.
I don't think this argument makes any sense at all. "License" in the sense of a driving license is legally (and just in general) a very different thing from software licenses or any other kind of commercial license, because it's to do with safety and it's controlled by the government. Consumer rights laws don't apply to driving licenses because we don't buy them, we earn them in order for the government to grant us the legal right to drive. Admittedly you end up paying lots of money for this, but it's not the same thing.
If you pay a corporation for a license to use their product, whether that's software or anything else, then you have lots of legal rights as a consumer meant to protect you from unfair practices. Rights that for no clear reason, you just don't get when buying software licenses. They have been loopholed out of existence somehow, and allow software companies to seemingly get away with whatever the hell they like. I don't know why that is, but it pisses me off, and I think it's incredibly unethical. We have those rights for a reason, but software gets a free pass to screw us over in ways that are illegal for every other industry, and I don't even know what it is that apparently grants them this special protection.
Why not?
They work under the exact same principle, if you're found breaking the rules of use then it can be revoked.
It's a little misinformed because people believe that they have bought that copy of Call of Duty as a product and not the license to use it but the point stands.
Are you going to finish your explanation as to why I am incorrect or just leave it as an a vague question?
I don't know what state you live in but here in North Dakota we don't buy our drivers license, it is issued free of charge. We do pay $10 for the administrative fee of making the physical license but it is nothing like BUYING a video game.
It may be a wet dream of publishers to SELL you a product and retain full control over it and it may be that Blizzard has managed to pull that off but it is by no means comparable to a state issued license.
Sooner or later this kind of shit is going to go to court and we will find out once and for all if we are BUYING or RENTING.
Oh, sorry, didn't realise you'd edited your second post.
I don't think this argument makes any sense at all. "License" in the sense of a driving license is legally (and just in general) a very different thing from software licenses or any other kind of commercial license, because it's to do with safety and it's controlled by the government. Consumer rights laws don't apply to driving licenses because we don't buy them, we earn them in order for the government to grant us the legal right to drive. Admittedly you end up paying lots of money for this, but it's not the same thing.
If you pay a corporation for a license to use their product, whether that's software or anything else, then you have lots of legal rights as a consumer meant to protect you from unfair practices. Rights that for no clear reason, you just don't get when buying software licenses. They have been loopholed out of existence somehow, and allow software companies to seemingly get away with whatever the hell they like. I don't know why that is, but it pisses me off, and I think it's incredibly unethical. We have those rights for a reason, but software gets a free pass to screw us over in ways that are illegal for every other industry, and I don't even know what it is that apparently grants them this special protection.
You earn a license sure but you also pay for it, it's the same with any license that you pick up. You as a holder of that license have an obligation to uphold to your side by using it responsibly and not endangering anyone else with your license.
If I played Diablo 3 hacked and duped items from your account without your knowledge do you want me to keep playing or am I free to use third party programmes to lessen your experience of a game?
The licenses are there to protect the other consumers from people misusing their products and causing problems, so yes those people who hacked, cheated and duped could have their access revoked as per agreed upon sign up.
It's a standard practice.
Crono1973 said:
I don't know what state you live in but here in North Dakota we don't buy our drivers license, it is issued free of charge. We do pay $10 for the administrative fee of making the physical license but it is nothing like BUYING a video game.
It may be a wet dream of publishers to SELL you a product and retain full control over it and it may be that Blizzard has managed to pull that off but it is by no means comparable to a state issued license.
Sooner or later this kind of shit is going to go to court and we will find out once and for all if we are BUYING or RENTING.
I don't live in a state and it takes two seconds to check a persons profile as an fyi.
It's not a licence that requires a test though, it's a license to take home the game and play it without copying and distributing to others. It's also the same with films you take home and buy, there is a license attached to that film that you cannot distribute, play in public or copy.
It's also not a wet dream but a reality for a few companies who put miss use of their products as a reason for them to revoke your access, even Valve and steam will lock you out of your account if you're being a dick.
This isn't new, not even close.
Banning cheaters is legitimate, but since even a single-player session takes place online (To my knowledge. correct if I'm wrong), mean people who payed full price for the game won't be able to play it.
With Battle.Net as it is now, your game is attached to your B.Net account, so once your account is perma-banned you can't play this game even in single-player and your only way of playing again is buying a new game and registering it on a new account. I dislike cheaters and bots in online games too, but it seems like an overkill.
Licenses still have to obey the law. Once they've accepted my money for a license (i.e. once I've bought the game), they must provide what was agreed upon or give me my money back. It's just like with other services, if I pay a builder to build me a wall and he doesn't do it then he's legally required to give me my money back. The whole license thing must be part of how they get away with it though, which is ridiculous. We made consumer rights laws in the first place to protect ourselves from these kinds of practices, why then do we not have similar laws for software licenses, or why do they mysteriously not apply?
If pay to go into a club, start a fight, you will get thrown out and you wont get a refund. If you go to the movies shout at the top of your voice for half an hour, you will get thrown out and you wont get refund. Whats the difference?
I wish you guys who bang on about EULAs being illegal and unfair would just get together and go to court instead of posting. Why don't you guys just put you money where you mouth is, otherwise people might be forgiven for thinking your all mouth and no trousers.
The difference is that software companies reserve the right to stop you from using their product, for literally any reason they want, even if you don't break their terms. The difference is also that they reserve the right to change the terms whenever they want without even notifying you. The difference is that those terms in that "contract" are incredibly unfair to the user and are formed in a way that is supposed to be illegal in my country (I don't know how it is in other places). The difference is that you only even get to see this contract after you've paid your money and lost the right to a refund.
I can even name and quote the most obvious law they seem to breaking. (This is UK law by the way, not sure how it is in other countries, but I assume they have equivalents)
Unfair Terms
5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
...
Effect of unfair term
8.?(1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.
(2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.
Now, for some reason this law apparently doesn't apply when it's games or other software, but why shouldn't it? It applies to everyone else, it's there to protect consumers, but it doesn't apply here. If there is some legal reason why software doesn't "count" then why haven't we made a new law already? We clearly know these practices are wrong.
As for why I don't go to court, it's because I can't go to court. I don't have tons of money to buy expensive lawyers, and I don't know how I'd go about it even if I did. I just think it's messed up, and wish that more people would raise a fuss about such clearly unethical practices.
It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
