Forbidden Donut

Since a massive amount of achievements are from single player and that directly affects your battle.net profile, I don't think it is unreasonable at all for Blizzard to do this. I certainly don't see this as some big money grab or whatever.

I do, however, wish there were not single player achievements that affect your battle.net profile so that crap like this would be unnecessary.

I think the main concern is that they're probably banning people for using maphacks and such in singleplayer, which could easily be switched on in multiplayer.

And any sort of thing like that violates to EULA obviously and Blizzard sure does like banning people for that. ;p

It makes sense, imo. While you're not really negatively effecting other players experiences you're still "hacking" their game.

That may have something to do with it, but I really think it comes down to the fact that you gain achievements in single player. If you could hack to gain those achievements, then you devalue them for everyone else. When you use a built-in cheat code, it automatically disables achievements for that game. When you use a third-party hack, it doesn't.

Yeah that's true too.

There are in game cheats, and when they are turned on your achievements are turned off. If they can detect these third party cheats well enough to enact a ban, I'd think they could just turn off achievements. If that's the concern.

It is not hard to distinguish between "single player" and "multiplayer" gaming. And because there is a complete lack of that distinction in SCII (because of the other annoying practice in modern PC gaming of forcing you to have an active internet connection to play single player) it's an autoban regardless.

Look, I didn't start this thread as a "let's hate on SCII" thing. It's a "don't mod your copy of SCII at all. ever. Period. Unless you're cool with buying a new copy" thread. That's what was detected by B.net.

Though if you want to make it a "let's hate on SCII" thread I'm game. I'm a bit frustrated at the "meh" response to this. Counterstrike wouldn't exist if this kind of thing were in place and enforced with PC gaming 15 years ago. I happen to think it's a shitty direction for developers to go and I think it's symptomatic of the Bobby Kotick Personality taking over the dwindling number of major developers.

"It makes sense, imo. While you're not really negatively effecting other players experiences you're still "hacking" their game. "

"You're still hacking their game."

"their game."

I'm sorry, but when I pay money for something it ceases to belong to the person I bought it from. Furthermore, if I buy SCII from Gamestop, Blizzard really isn't in any position to make an agreement with the end user. Much like buying used cars doesn't transfer the manufacturer warranty.

The copy of SCII in your computer? That. Is. YOUR. Game. Not Blizzards.

edit: I disagree with the articles assertion that this is a money grab. I just think it's a dick move.

For the record, you can play SCII Single Player without an internet connection. You just don't earn any achievements for any games played offline. If they are willing to turn achievements off for various reasons, I don't see why they couldn't turn them if the program detects unwanted software.

That being said, at the same time I disagree with any form of cheating in general. I don't have much sympathy for the people getting accounts suspended, although banned may be a little harsh. I don't know much about program development, but perhaps taking this stance also hampers the development of SC2 cheats? Hard to test them if you get banned every time you try to run the cheat.

But if their goal is to stop people from using hacks to game achievements, then that isn't really a sufficient deterrent. Blizzard can't possibly stop every single hack out there; they must instead work on a reactionary basis. If they created a plugin system or something where third party developers could add hacks for single player in a controlled manner, then that argument would make sense.



I agree that this practice is annoying, and I wish it were not the route game makers were taking.



I don't think anyone misunderstood your intentions. But since there is little to be said in a discussion format about your warning, we instead decided to discuss the merits of Blizzard's decision here. This is a discussion forum, and we are on the internet. Welcome.



I have a "meh" response to this because I support it 100%. When thinking of an issue, you need to consider the entire circumstance. Given the fact that your multiplayer profile is affected by your single player gameplay, I think it is entirely reasonable to hold both single player and multiplayer to the same standards.

I strongly disagree with Blizzard's decision to make single player affect multiplayer profiles. But they made that decision, and it is now integral to battle.net. Such is life.



What you are trying to imply here is simply false. If you want free reign over the software you buy, then the only solution is open source (and even then you are restricted to the copyrights they place on the software). Starcraft 2, like most mainstream games, is proprietary. If you were to hack away at windows or office, you best believe Microsoft would revoke your licenses if they found out. You own the physical copy of that game, you do _not_ own the software itself. Blizzard does.

That is how all software works. Even open source software (wordpress, drupal) is owned by someone other than the people that use it. If you truly owned the games that you purchased, then you could package them anyway you'd like, claim you are the developer/owner, and sell them. You can't do that for any software out there. You don't even own software in the public domain. In that case, no one owns it, and that's the best you'll ever get.

First off, I happen to think Acheivements are completely pants-on-head retarded, and people who care about them are also pants-on-head retarded. So that may have pretty resounding effects on my opinion.

The problem I have is very simple. Current state of the industry notwithstanding, a business should never have the option to sell you something and then remotely break it when you violate whatever rules they happen to have set forth in legally questionable documents (like EULAs) and then be greeted with nods of "had it comin."

If you crack your computer open and mod it, they don't take it away... and not give you your money back. They simply won't honor the warranty. If you fuck with your car, you void the warranty... not the purchase of your car. With no refund.

Let's say Ford wrote down in some amorphous document that had to be signed AFTER the actual purchase of the car (or else you don't get the keys/wheels) that you would not be permitted to drive over 65 mph, and in the event that you did, the car was subject to repossession at Ford's discretion... would you be saying "that's just how all car purchases work"?

/I thought the internet connection was required for actual authentication Assassin's Creed Style.

I agree with you to some extent. As a software developer, I find your analogy to various different types of hardware to be a bit inaccurate, though.

I absolutely agree with you that a business should not be legally allowed to stop you from doing what you want to do with the stuff you own or use personally. As such, I think it is entirely unreasonable for Blizzard to sue you for hacking their game for personal use (which they don't do). However, I don't think it is unreasonable in the slightest bit that Blizzard says "you are not allowed to use the services we provide at all since we don't like what you're doing with our product". Their game natively requires the use of their services -- services which cost them time and resources. In order to use those services, you agree to their terms of use (which includes not hacking the game).

I don't like that Blizzard requires the use of those services for native single player, but they do, so that's just the way it is.

If you don't like that, jailbreak the game just like people jailbreak their iphones. You are legally allowed to do so for personal use.

I like when game companies use the ban stick. Fuck cheaters, fuck anyone trying to mod the game in a way that violates the eula. Cheating and hacking are the most annoying fucking things in the world when it comes to competitive gaming.

I endorse this post.

Fuck EULA's more.

idk... is cheating bad in SCII? Maybe that would alter my perspective about this seemingly arbitrary crackdown.

Given that, I would also wonder if jailbreaking your copy of SCII *would* be legal. (Or possible? What does that even mean?) It's kind of looking like it wouldn't be.

You hit the nail on the head with the phone comparison. Makes more sense than a car. I buy a phone. It's mine. The phone service isn't, but the phone is. (sort of. contracts etc. the point supposes I own the phone) The phone is capable of a lot more than making calls, but if I use the phone to do any of that stuff they can cancel my phone service. I still have the phone. But it ceases to be a phone. This doesn't take into account the fact that I'm paying for the service as well, which is not the case with B.Net.

I can understand Blizzards sensitivity to the issue. Of course. Cheaters devalue a gaming experience and harm your brand. That's real enough. I also don't like cheaters. They are bad people.

But is something really inherently wrong about buying a piece of software and picking it apart? Selling your hacks and mods? Fuck you. Playing online with hacked software? Fuck you too. Play testing your mod? It's murkier to me than it seems to you folks.

/Goes back to playing dwarf fortress.

Fuck EULA's more.

idk... is cheating bad in SCII? Maybe that would alter my perspective about this seemingly arbitrary crackdown.

Given that, I would also wonder if jailbreaking your copy of SCII *would* be legal. (Or possible? What does that even mean?) It's kind of looking like it wouldn't be.

You hit the nail on the head with the phone comparison. Makes more sense than a car. I buy a phone. It's mine. The phone service isn't, but the phone is. (sort of. contracts etc. the point supposes I own the phone) The phone is capable of a lot more than making calls, but if I use the phone to do any of that stuff they can cancel my phone service. I still have the phone. But it ceases to be a phone. This doesn't take into account the fact that I'm paying for the service as well, which is not the case with B.Net.

I can understand Blizzards sensitivity to the issue. Of course. Cheaters devalue a gaming experience and harm your brand. That's real enough. I also don't like cheaters. They are bad people.

But is something really inherently wrong about buying a piece of software and picking it apart? Selling your hacks and mods? Fuck you. Playing online with hacked software? Fuck you too. Play testing your mod? It's murkier to me than it seems to you folks.

/Goes back to playing dwarf fortress.
//After work of course.

I also just read that Blizzard clarified and is basically calling BS on Cheathappens. They are claiming that the cheats they distribute (at a membership cost, which I didn't realize before and which is EXTRAORDINARILY stupid) are usable (and have been used) in the multiplayer platform and are explicitly designed to avoid detection by either platform.

The lawsuit they are filing was vague on details in the first article I read. It basically said that they were being sued on the grounds of storing too much stuff in ram. Which seemed flimsy. People are, instead, getting sued for *selling* mods and devaluing the multiplayer environment. Making money off of their product/service and devaluing it at the same time. Yeah. They can get sued and hear no complaints from me.

I maintain that I should be able to completely pick apart a piece of software I purchase. Tying the single player experience to the multiplayer experience makes that tricky territory, but that's kind of... their fault.

For people who are into brevity:
It seems these specific cases are likely more fucked up than was originally reported. Or that Blizzard has a fucking phenomenal legal department. But I still think disabling somebody's CD key for moding and playing a game locally should at least be *questioned*.

You know, it's amusing to me as I just went and looked at the "trainer" program their user was using that got him suspended (read: not banned). Ugh, I almost can't even explain the obviousness of the program. What possible use could you have for such a thing? There are legal maps that you can play that would offer such things at no risk. And the whole "trainer" aspect is so ridiculous I'm almost annoyed by it. There are actual maps that people made that are great for training purposes, build order testing and the like. I almost want to go and pick apart that entire garbage article but it would be too much work. I wish I had actually read it to begin with.

edit: ugh, I even read some comments, fuck I hate ignorant people.

Them being stupid dicks doesn't mean that this isn't also a stupid dick situation. There has been more than one incident, as well.

I haven't seen the actual program they were using. If it's really shitty, poorly made, and contains only functionality that is already found in the game... I have to ask... what's there to be upset about?

All of the controlled measures in the game prevent you from receiving achievements.

Maybe it's worth mentioning that I default to the defense of the consumers in almost every scenario, in case y'all didn't notice. You don't play it here, so I don't mention it, but I'm equally annoyed with the direction TF2 is taking, and I've played that game maybe twice. When I first got orange box.

There's this developing school of thought in the big name companies that they can more or less get away with whatever. And despite loud yelling and screaming on the part of their customers, they do it anyway and are rewarded for it.

Getting away from dedicated servers. DRM that occasionally breaks games. Removal of ages old functionality due to "capacity concerns" and then releasing games late anyway. Addition of useless monkey-brain massaging crap like "cheevos". Monthly charges/fees. Micro-payment systems. The industry is stepping away from innovation and clever design and shifting towards the easy dollar. Resurrections of the same 8 games year after year (with exceptions here and there).

To extend Courts answer, they're controlled through the game (aka, not usable in multi-player). Where as these hacks are in use in multiplayer (can attest to having drop hacks used against me and seeing very obvious map hacker replays).

I don't care that they're dicks. I care that that entire article is senseless garbage. I know you don't have the game but I would expect people who actually have the game (maybe the writer of the article doesn't even own the game /shocked) to be able to read that article and just say "wtf is this idiot even going on about?"

It's a common theme for the internet. People are just too stupid to realize that just because someone wrote an article on something it doesn't mean any of it has a basis in reality. Half the comments on the article cement the fact that people just read drivel like this on the internet and take it for truth and comment on it even though they don't own the game and know nothing about how it actually works.

Edit: Just a quick tid-bit. You automatically just to the consumers defense, which is fine - that's your choice. I work in retail and I happen to know all too well about the consumer base of this country (diverse area as well). As such I might err on the side of producers. The amount of times I've heard people trash Sony TVs (just ie) because they bought one and holy shit it broke all Sony products are trash boggles my mind. In general I find most consumers, almost all, are too self-involved to see a big picture that producers have to look at.

It seems as if you assume we all don't see the same thing happening? Just because we happen to support Blizzard's move in this case doesn't mean that we support all of the things that Blizzard has done. I've said repeatedly that I'm unhappy that singly player achievements exist. I'd prefer if the single player game didn't require authentication with blizzard servers and didn't have achievements. In this particular case, you have to accept the reality of the situation (that single player has both of these things) when trying to analyze the merits of Blizzard banning accounts for hacking the game even in single player.

I disagree with so many decisions that Blizzard has made in regard to Starcraft 2. I'm sure the "suits" were influential in making at least some of those decisions, and that is frustrating. I believe some of the decisions they've made (e.g. lack of lan support) are detrimental to the freedom of customers and pro e-sports in general. None of that, however, erases the fact that Blizzard consistently makes the best video games that have ever existed. If Starcraft 2 were mediocre, my frustrations with a lot of Blizzard's decisions probably would overcome my desire to play the game, and thus I wouldn't. However, the game is absolutely incredible to say the least.

On a slightly different note, I get the impression that you are grouping everyone that has had an opinion opposite of yours in regard to Blizzard's actions with Starcraft 2 into some sort of blizzard-loving hive-mind. Some of us disagree with you on some points, others disagree with you on other points. None of us seem to disagree with you on _all_ of your points just as none of us agree with each other on all of ours.

FYI Court: I'm finding that the lack of LAN play is having zero impact on relevant e-sports in regards to SCII. I'm finding there's more tournaments going on than I can follow and this is all through Battle.net mind you as the Tournament Edition SCII hasn't been released yet (allowing LAN play, expensive, etc.)

Am I happy with the Activision merger, no.
Do I think they could have safely implemented LAN play, I'd like the think so (but do I know all the information, no).
Can you play single player offline, yes.
Do I care, not remotely.
Can I see why some people might, of course.
Did I see issues with their initial RealID ideas, yes.
Did I care (even with my unique name), not at all.
Can I understand people caring, absolutely.

Blizzard did in fact, change the RealID system after the consumers released how unhappy they were with it. Do companies always listen to their consumers, no? If they did the god damn world would end.

News alert; you can now only have one Battle.net account linked to a single authenticator (mobile or keychain). People were quick to outrage that this is another money grubbing scheme by Blizzard (Because they're not losing money on those authenticators, right. And those free ones on cell phones, they're really rich now). Keep in mind, in the release for that they announced at the same exact time that this was to stop account hackers from locking out 1000 people from their accounts with a single authenticator. Thereby helping increase security of peoples accounts and making it harder on account hackers.

Here's an interesting interview. The final question is specifically about Blizzard's intentions with cheaters.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/66170