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.
Blizzard has been very upfront for years now that Diablo is not a single player game any longer. It is an online game. It's not loke the EA fiasco's where they blocked play to what were very clearly single player games. Blizz did the due diligence ahead of time on this one, so yeah they can ban you from Battle.net.
While I loathe the always on internet requirements and DRM bullcrap, I fear that this actually comunicates exactly the opposite message from what some are assuming. The internet requirement does not prevent cheaters and botters and hackers from doing their thing. It lets the game runners detect and shut them down hard so they don't influence the economy or impact others game play like they could in previous games.
If someone pays for a product, and doesn't receive that product, they should be refunded. If it was a pure multiplayer game, and there was no option whatsoever for a singleplayer experience (as there actually is in this case) then obviously they can't just block you from the multiplayer and still let you keep the game, but then it is their duty to refund you the price. Like I was saying, it's basic consumer rights, only no-one seems to give a damn about them any more.
Most people do not take video-games as a hobby as far as people like me and you do, and they won't frequent The Escapist or whatever other sites and know this information in advance. They will buy the game, and then they will suddenly be presented with an EULA that says Blizzard can stop them playing this game (that they have already paid for) whenever they want. What if they don't agree with this? It's too bad, no game and no refund.
I'm certain this is illegal when it comes to most other products, and I don't know (or really care) what loophole software companies use to get away with this, but it's bullshit.
I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.
These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.
How about the fact that you don't see the ToS until AFTER you've installed the game and used up the code, and that no one will give you a refund on a PC game.
There is a problem if you can't see the ToS until after you've installed it, but "if you fuck up everyone else's game, we won't let you play anymore" is a perfectly reasonable thing to include in the ToS. I hate online DRM requirements, but what I hate even more is when people who are ruining everyone else's gaming experience (quitting, hacking, using bots, etc.) ***** about being banned. The rest of those consumers are entitled to what they purchased too, and if you're the problem keeping them from doing that, then it seems to me that the game company is merely protecting every customer the cheater has been dicking over in the course of his assholery. Also, if you couldn't predict that "we will ban you from online play if you cheat" was going to be in the ToS, then you must have never played a game with multiplayer before.
The legal loophole for this is that they're not stopping you from using the product you paid for, they're denying you access to their servers, which are privately owned so they can kind of do what they want there.
I mean no disrespect here but you're continually dancing around the same point we've already concluded right now.
They do not have the power to do what they feel like, this is a fallacy and if you fee wronged by a company then you're entitled by consumer law to make a claim against them. Like the kid who was afraid of the outdoors tried to sue Sony for damages for banning his PS3 network access after he was caught doing something.
The end user license agreements are fine and not the boogieman you're trying to portray them as.
Carefully read your service agreements next time- you can no longer file a class-action lawsuit against Sony, and Amazon can remove all of your kindle purchases from your account for no reason and you can't get any of your money back (same with a ton of digital distribution services), just to name a couple. So if giving up your right to sue and not owning what you've purchased is ok with you, then yes, the license agreements are fine and not boogeymen.
Carefully read your service agreements next time- you can no longer file a class-action lawsuit against Sony, and Amazon can remove all of your kindle purchases from your account for no reason and you can't get any of your money back (same with a ton of digital distribution services), just to name a couple. So if giving up your right to sue and not owning what you've purchased is ok with you, then yes, the license agreements are fine and not boogeymen.
They are currently (and ironically) being sued over that claus but you're right they did put that it there yes.
As for Amazon actually doing that, I doubt they would do it to legitimate paying customers without some reason for taking such action but it doesn't surprise me they can.
It's like XBL being suspended and cut off or having a modded console, I'm surprised people are still worried by these clauses of supposed power.
Except a video game isn't a product. Games, for a long time, have been a fusion between a service and a product. When you buy a game, your not actually "buying" the game, you are buying a license to play the game. And license can be revoked.
Few logical people would argue that Blizzard have broken any laws or are at risk of being sued (then again most people who sue aren't logical and most judges don't understand how the internet works).
Legal issues aside, still seems like a dick move for Blizzard to perma ban people for modding or cheating in single player mode. Sure there's the always online crap and real money shit, but that was Blizzard's issue, all they've done is intentionally limited the ability for the player to enjoy their game all in the name of getting more cash from them.
I used to love Blizzard, hell I still love Blizzard, but fuck all this money grabbing bullshit, I really don't like where they have been going as of late.
So, if a hacker hacks someone else's account and uses it to do botting, cheats, etc, then does that person's account get banned while the actual hacker is free to move on and continue what they're doing with another hacked account?
So, if a hacker hacks someone else's account and uses it to do botting, cheats, etc, then does that person's account get banned while the actual hacker is free to move on and continue what they're doing with another hacked account?
This kind of thing puts every potential buyer at risk. What's important though is that Blizzard get richer, keep repeating that to yourself when you get frustrated.
Last I checked there were still no fully working pirate servers for D3. So I don't think they're even playing it yet. At least, if they are it's a shitty barely working version.
draythefingerless said:
ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.
Yet these hackers/cheaters paid the same price for the game as the legit players did.So don't they have a right to play the game as they see fit? Oh that's right you don't own the game you just paid the 60$ to use it as it can be taken away at any time if Blizzard see's fit to.
As for the part about there being no singleplayer campaign for Diablo, it's beside the point. If they wish to ban you from the multiplayer portion and there is no singleplayer portion then they should give you a full refund. You've paid for a product and suddenly you're not getting it.
If it's a purely multiplayer game like WoW you do not deserve your money back for getting banned. It's like going to a theme park. The park has rules and if you do not abide by those rules you can be kicked out with zero refund. Same goes for an MMO, you bought disks and a key that grant you access to their virtual theme park. If you violate their rules then security will show you the door because you are disrupting their business. They owe you nothing.
Now with a game like Diablo 3 which has both multiplayer and single player modes, the smart thing to do would be to just ban your account from playing with other people. Blizzard has, however, opted for the full nuclear option of just flat out banning you from using your game. It's crappy I know, but they still don't owe you anything since your game became unplayable through completely preventable actions that you as a user chose to do. This doesn't even require a ToS to be read, it's an understood rule that if you cheat in a multiplayer game then you best be prepared to possibly face the banhammer. In this case though I think if people ***** enough about the single player version being tied to bans Blizzard may eventually patch that out.
Still though, if you knowingly buy a single/multiplayer hybrid game with crappy DRM like the always online model then it shouldn't come as a shock when equally crappy actions of community moderation occur. I'll be honest that it still shocks me, with all the pissing and moaning about it that occurred pre-release I'm surprised people still bought it knowing they'd probably be subjected to such ass-hattery. As someone on the fence it was just the idea of having my game shutdown because of Tuesday server maintenance that deterred me from wanting to ever buy it; especially since I had no interest in the multiplayer aspect of it.
So, did they give those people access to a singleplayer only component? No? So why are people still defending Blizzard in this series of ridiculous farces?
Seriously, this is completely their own doing and is fucking disgraceful. Get your act together, Blizz.
But I thought that one of the reasons Blizzard tried to justify the always-online functionality of Diablo 3 was to prevent modding straight out. Oh Blizzard, I don't think anyone likes you anymore.
It was weird that the were able to get away with this for star craft 2 as nothing much was really affected just their single player experience and a few pointless portrait unlocks. So in this case it makes more sense, as for being unable to play your game. Well that is the sad thing about buying these game "licenses" rather than just owning the game.
Now it's a big deal for them because of the money they might lose from the stupid auction house thing. Of course I don't care if you cheat in single player, I do it to every game worth running through again after Ive finished it but anybody that did not see this coming is pretty stupid.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm not defending cheaters at all (quite the opposite - I mean, cheating on a game where you don't even get money by doing so, how sad do you have to be?) But what if you only play single-player?
Plus, what recourse do you have if things go wrong?
no , its not something your ever going to get rid of, it makes it harder to do , it makes it much rarer and it makes it a lot easier to trace, look at d2 and wow, thats the difference it makes
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.
Go the small claims court,it only cost 200 quid. You will lose, largely because they are multi billion dollar company that is rich enough to hire city lawyers charging £700 an hour to write the EULA's in such a way that they are perfectly legal. Or did you think that they somehow they overlooked your much quoted act. Use your brain, or did you think you are the only person in the world that has ever thought of it?
Go the small claims court,it only cost 200 quid. You will lose, largely because they are multi billion dollar company that is rich enough to hire city lawyers charging £700 an hour to write the EULA's in such a way that they are perfectly legal. Or did you think that they somehow they overlooked your much quoted act. Use your brain, or did you think you are the only person in the world that has ever thought of it?
Look, I realise I would lose, I realise that they must have have litigated their way through some stupid loophole, I'm just saying it's bullshit. The law was specifically designed to stop these exact practices, yet now these companies can do whatever the hell they like to us without recourse.
So why does no-one seem to care?
When people point out how crap this is, how unethical these companies are, how what they're doing is supposed to be illegal, why do they just get swamped by an army of others defending the company and telling them they should accept it as it is?
Frankly, I don't even have £200. I'm not going to go to court on this, because as you've quite rightly said I would be massacred. I just wish people would start realising that these practices are not OK, and maybe we'd eventually get some of the rights we were supposed to already have back.
KeyMaster45 said:
If it's a purely multiplayer game like WoW you do not deserve your money back for getting banned. It's like going to a theme park. The park has rules and if you do not abide by those rules you can be kicked out with zero refund. Same goes for an MMO, you bought disks and a key that grant you access to their virtual theme park. If you violate their rules then security will show you the door because you are disrupting their business. They owe you nothing.
Now with a game like Diablo 3 which has both multiplayer and single player modes, the smart thing to do would be to just ban your account from playing with other people. Blizzard has, however, opted for the full nuclear option of just flat out banning you from using your game. It's crappy I know, but they still don't owe you anything since your game became unplayable through completely preventable actions that you as a user chose to do. This doesn't even require a ToS to be read, it's an understood rule that if you cheat in a multiplayer game then you best be prepared to possibly face the banhammer. In this case though I think if people ***** enough about the single player version being tied to bans Blizzard may eventually patch that out.
Still though, if you knowingly buy a single/multiplayer hybrid game with crappy DRM like the always online model then it shouldn't come as a shock when equally crappy actions of community moderation occur. I'll be honest that it still shocks me, with all the pissing and moaning about it that occurred pre-release I'm surprised people still bought it knowing they'd probably be subjected to such ass-hattery. As someone on the fence it was just the idea of having my game shutdown because of Tuesday server maintenance that deterred me from wanting to ever buy it; especially since I had no interest in the multiplayer aspect of it.
I have no problem with allowing Blizzard the ability to ban people who have clearly and demonstrably broke their rules, but that's simply not the case here. Instead, they have the right to ban anyone they want, any time they please. I'm not saying they're ever going to go out of their way to abuse this, but they don't have to. Particularly with cheating and hacking in games, it's ridiculously easy to shift the blame to others, and it's just as easy to simply make mistakes. If you stop someone from using their product (or receiving their service) which they have paid for, and you don't have any provably legitimate reason to do so, then you are supposed to have to give them their money back. It's standard consumer rights, only they don't seem to exist at all with software.
To use your theme park example, it's more like you pay the £40 to enter the theme park, then the guy at the gates tells you that it's too bad, he thinks you look shifty so you're not going in anyway. No refunds. This would be highly illegal. In fact there's several things Blizzard and other software companies have done which are supposed to be highly illegal, but for whatever reason it isn't when they do it (I've made this point about 5 times now, and don't feel like copying it out yet again, so if you want some specifics just look up at one of my other posts on this thread). I just wish people would stand up to these practices and get the government to fix whatever loophole it is that is being abused, or make new laws to give us back the rights we are supposed to have in the first place.
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.
actually no, because this ruling also takes the bots, and bots are new acount sprouted up to work tirelessly collecting loot and selling it off in this case,
The point being that being able to create a bot that makes REAL LIFE money instead of IN-GAME money with no go between is a bit of a no-no.
But then again, that's what economy is in reality so why would you ban it?
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.
