Update: Diablo 3 Cheater Purge Imminent

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

'Blizzard tries their hardest to secure themselves and their customers from cheaters and thieves'

'FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU PIECE OF SHIT COMPANY I HATE YOU AND YOU RUINED MY GAME'

lolwut? Anyone else see the problem here?

draythefingerless:

In actuality you are not considering the whole picture.

1. EULAs are well written and have very few consumer abusing stuff. BY THE WAY, EULAs fall under contracts in the eyes of the law, and contracts are not above the copyright law. If a contract breaks one of your rights as consumer, your right as consumer is upheld over the contract. THING IS BUDDY, EULAs almost never do this, but you perceive it as such because it slightly hassles you.

Oh really, then how come I can (yet again) name and quote the exact law they seem to be breaking?

Read through that and see if you can honestly say they are not breaking these rights. For some reason these apparently don't apply when it comes to software, but they should. We have these protections for everything else, why not here? They're there for a reason.

2.Think about this for a second. In this contract you sign with these games, who comes worse if the contract is not upheld or is abused by omeone? There are simply certain points in a contract where you cant please both sides of the deal, so it falls that one side must be beneficiated over the other. For example, say Blizzard wrote in their EULA they can change the EULA any time they want(BUT AS PER LAW, THEY WILL GIVE YOU A WARNING PRIOR TO CHANGING AND YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO END THE CONTRACT, NO REFUND OF COURSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE WHO PLAY THE GAME, FINISH IT, SUDDENLY SEE A EULA CHANGE AND ASK THEIR MONEY BACK). In this case, if Blizzard gave customers the proof of faith, that is, if we change hte EULA you automatically can ask for a refund if you dont like it. Blizzard can stand to lose hundreds of thousands of moneyz from people who abuse this practice, not to mention the legal hassle it will get into with retailers who suddenly have to refund customers because of sth they had nth to do with. But lets see the alternative, wich is what they have in place. Blizzard holds the right to change it, you can stop accepting, by which you nullify contract and lose the game. How much do you stand to lose? 60 bucks? And you may be thinking oh but blizzard is rich n haz lots of moneyz, well blizzard is the exception, not the rule. they have leeway, most game companies dont. If they stood to lose hundreds of thousands, people get fired. Thats JOBS that get out of the window.

If they change the EULA then we should have the right to a refund. Of course we should. they made this agreement, why should they be able to break it whenever they want with no recourse (by changing it whenever they want), but when we break it we lose everything. It's absurd.

So you see, EULAs arent perfect, but they dont break upon your right as a consumer, and its best things be like this than the alternative, wich puts companies in an even more dangerous risk(and by that jobs and lives depending on those companies).

Do I need to quote it again? These EULAs are literally a carte blanche for companies to do whatever they hell they like to us, while still keeping our money, and giving us no legal recourse whatsoever. They can change them to say anything they want without even notifying us. I think that's a pretty bad situation for consumers to be in, and considering the fact that consumer rights laws even exist I'd say other people agree, or at least they used to when those laws were formed.

faefrost:
Not at all. You are failing to differentiate to separate components in this equation. There is the game Diablo III, and there is the service Battle.net. They make it clear that Diablo III is no longer a truly stand alone game, and that it requires a valid Battle.net account. The Battle.net has no service fee, but it does have very clear rules, and users may be shut down for clearly violating them.

A better analogy would be a theme park such as Disney World, or even a movie theater. They can toss you for misbehaving in violation of the services rules, and no they have no obligation to give you a refund for doing so. Paying your price of admission does not allow you to behave as you wish. And they have no obligation to then arrange things so you can watch the movie or ride the roller coaster in private. This is one of those little rules of reasonable social behavior that seems to have gotten completely lost on the modern "I have a right to do whatever I want" generation.

Once again it is perfectly legal for Blizzard to do this. It would be similarly legal for Steam to do it, SOE to do it, XBox Live to do it and EA Origin to do it.

You're right, it is perfectly legal for all of these companies to do this, but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. We used to have consumer laws protecting us from these practices, and in fact we still do, but for some bizarre reason they just don't seem to apply to software companies.

Disney World can toss us out for behaving in violation of the service's rules, but they cannot just take our money and then deny us access to the park anyway for no reason. Software companies can. They also cannot force us to agree to services after we've already paid and refuse to refund us if we don't agree. They cannot force us to sign a contract that they can change at any time they want for any reason they want without even notifying us. It's illegal, we have laws against it (see above).

Software companies can do all these things, and I don't know why. I doubt they would do it if it were illegal, but then why do they have the special legal ability to stomp all over the rights we get as consumers for every other industry? It's wrong, and whatever gives them this ability is wrong. Clearly we know it's wrong, because we made these laws in the first place, so why does software get a special free pass?

Lyri:
I'm agreeing with WhiteTigerShiro, you're getting into Orwell territory here with the whole "They're out to get us" part about bans for no reasons.
This may happen very rarely like the case where someone was banned for displaying their orientation as Lesbian (which was reversed I believe) but yes they have that right, no they don't use it.

I've been gaming for several years of my life and I've never been b& from a game for no reason at all, infact I haven't been b& from anything I haven't deserved.
Themis Media owners of the Escapist and it's content probably have a similar clause in their EULA when you sign up and yet here we are unbanned and posting.

If something like that happened for no reason people would know about it and it would be fought against, so far companies have our trust for not abusing that power. Peoples accounts are locks and banned for legit reasons and if you want to play again you better buy another copy and make a new account.

It doesn't matter if it has happened (although it almost certainly has on occasion, at least accidentally). The point is that it is legal for them to do practically whatever they want to us and it shouldn't be. I'm not saying any company is ever actually going to start banning everyone as part of some evil scheme to screw everyone over, but they are (and have been) using these abilities to put consumers in bad positions and earn as much money for themselves as possible, and protecting themselves from legal repercussions when they do something (which should be) wrong. We have consumer rights and laws in order to attempt to stop corporations from being able to create unfair and unethical situations for consumers, but for some reason we seem to have lost (many of) them when it comes to software, and the effects are apparent. We can't just rely on a corporation's good will and susceptibility to PR pressure, because it doesn't always work, and abuses don't always come to the public eye. That's why we have to have these laws in the first place.

...

Sorry if I've missed anyones' quotes by the way, there have been an awful lot of them. (17, I think, and they keep coming when I'm trying to write responses to other ones. This has gotten pretty big.)

Lyri:

Crono1973:

Lyri:

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.

Your first sentence: What the fuck are you talking about? A persons profile?

No see, what media companies want and what they can enforce are different things. Paramount may not want me to show my Star Trek DVD's to an audience but they can't prevent it. If I have 30 people over at my house and we decide to watch First Contact, who can stop me?

Most game companies don't have the kind of control that Blizzard has but just because Blizzard has that control does not make it right. For most companies this kind of control is a wet dream. I don't know how you could even argue that. There have been several stories about devs wishing they could do what Blizzard is doing.

ESCAPIST: REALLY, A FUCKIN CAPTCHA EVERY POST???????

Captcha: that's right

You can just click on my username and view my escapist profile.

The first paragraph is fine because it's home use and you're not having people pay for entrance or considered large enough to be a public screening.

Companies are doing that other than Blizz, it's standard practice. If you mess around in game with third party programmes your account is lock and you have to buy the game again.
It's not uncommon at all.

First of all, you could just answer the damn question and not say "look at my profile". Secondly, your profile says nothing about your location anyway. Thirdly, I really don't care where you live, I was illustrating a point that getting a state issued license is very different from buying a game.

How do they know I am not charging people admission? If I were, what could they do about it? I could just claim I was charging for the Cheetos. Rest assured, if Paramount had the control Blizzard has, they would count heads and the DVD wouldn't play if there were more than say...five people. Ah, the future of Kinect.

When was the last time you heard of Valve doing mass bans? Does Valve ban you from HL2 if you cheat in single player mode?

Lunncal:

draythefingerless:

In actuality you are not considering the whole picture.

1. EULAs are well written and have very few consumer abusing stuff. BY THE WAY, EULAs fall under contracts in the eyes of the law, and contracts are not above the copyright law. If a contract breaks one of your rights as consumer, your right as consumer is upheld over the contract. THING IS BUDDY, EULAs almost never do this, but you perceive it as such because it slightly hassles you.

Oh really, then how come I can (yet again) name and quote the exact law they seem to be breaking?

Read through that and see if you can honestly say they are not breaking these rights. For some reason these apparently don't apply when it comes to software, but they should. We have these protections for everything else, why not here? They're there for a reason.

2.Think about this for a second. In this contract you sign with these games, who comes worse if the contract is not upheld or is abused by omeone? There are simply certain points in a contract where you cant please both sides of the deal, so it falls that one side must be beneficiated over the other. For example, say Blizzard wrote in their EULA they can change the EULA any time they want(BUT AS PER LAW, THEY WILL GIVE YOU A WARNING PRIOR TO CHANGING AND YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO END THE CONTRACT, NO REFUND OF COURSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE WHO PLAY THE GAME, FINISH IT, SUDDENLY SEE A EULA CHANGE AND ASK THEIR MONEY BACK). In this case, if Blizzard gave customers the proof of faith, that is, if we change hte EULA you automatically can ask for a refund if you dont like it. Blizzard can stand to lose hundreds of thousands of moneyz from people who abuse this practice, not to mention the legal hassle it will get into with retailers who suddenly have to refund customers because of sth they had nth to do with. But lets see the alternative, wich is what they have in place. Blizzard holds the right to change it, you can stop accepting, by which you nullify contract and lose the game. How much do you stand to lose? 60 bucks? And you may be thinking oh but blizzard is rich n haz lots of moneyz, well blizzard is the exception, not the rule. they have leeway, most game companies dont. If they stood to lose hundreds of thousands, people get fired. Thats JOBS that get out of the window.

If they change the EULA then we should have the right to a refund. Of course we should. they made this agreement, why should they be able to break it whenever they want with no recourse (by changing it whenever they want), but when we break it we lose everything. It's absurd.

So you see, EULAs arent perfect, but they dont break upon your right as a consumer, and its best things be like this than the alternative, wich puts companies in an even more dangerous risk(and by that jobs and lives depending on those companies).

Do I need to quote it again? These EULAs are literally a carte blanche for companies to do whatever they hell they like to us, while still keeping our money, and giving us no legal recourse whatsoever. They can change them to say anything they want without even notifying us. I think that's a pretty bad situation for consumers to be in, and considering the fact that consumer rights laws even exist I'd say other people agree, or at least they used to when those laws were formed.

faefrost:
Not at all. You are failing to differentiate to separate components in this equation. There is the game Diablo III, and there is the service Battle.net. They make it clear that Diablo III is no longer a truly stand alone game, and that it requires a valid Battle.net account. The Battle.net has no service fee, but it does have very clear rules, and users may be shut down for clearly violating them.

A better analogy would be a theme park such as Disney World, or even a movie theater. They can toss you for misbehaving in violation of the services rules, and no they have no obligation to give you a refund for doing so. Paying your price of admission does not allow you to behave as you wish. And they have no obligation to then arrange things so you can watch the movie or ride the roller coaster in private. This is one of those little rules of reasonable social behavior that seems to have gotten completely lost on the modern "I have a right to do whatever I want" generation.

Once again it is perfectly legal for Blizzard to do this. It would be similarly legal for Steam to do it, SOE to do it, XBox Live to do it and EA Origin to do it.

You're right, it is perfectly legal for all of these companies to do this, but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. We used to have consumer laws protecting us from these practices, and in fact we still do, but for some bizarre reason they just don't seem to apply to software companies.

Disney World can toss us out for behaving in violation of the service's rules, but they cannot just take our money and then deny us access to the park anyway for no reason. Software companies can. They also cannot force us to agree to services after we've already paid and refuse to refund us if we don't agree. They cannot force us to sign a contract that they can change at any time they want for any reason they want without even notifying us. It's illegal, we have laws against it (see above).

Software companies can do all these things, and I don't know why. I doubt they would do it if it were illegal, but then why do they have the special legal ability to stomp all over the rights we get as consumers for every other industry? It's wrong, and whatever gives them this ability is wrong. Clearly we know it's wrong, because we made these laws in the first place, so why does software get a special free pass?

Lyri:
I'm agreeing with WhiteTigerShiro, you're getting into Orwell territory here with the whole "They're out to get us" part about bans for no reasons.
This may happen very rarely like the case where someone was banned for displaying their orientation as Lesbian (which was reversed I believe) but yes they have that right, no they don't use it.

I've been gaming for several years of my life and I've never been b& from a game for no reason at all, infact I haven't been b& from anything I haven't deserved.
Themis Media owners of the Escapist and it's content probably have a similar clause in their EULA when you sign up and yet here we are unbanned and posting.

If something like that happened for no reason people would know about it and it would be fought against, so far companies have our trust for not abusing that power. Peoples accounts are locks and banned for legit reasons and if you want to play again you better buy another copy and make a new account.

It doesn't matter if it has happened (although it almost certainly has on occasion, at least accidentally). The point is that it is legal for them to do practically whatever they want to us and it shouldn't be. I'm not saying any company is ever actually going to start banning everyone as part of some evil scheme to screw everyone over, but they are (and have been) using these abilities to put consumers in bad positions and earn as much money for themselves as possible, and protecting themselves from legal repercussions when they do something (which should be) wrong. We have consumer rights and laws in order to attempt to stop corporations from being able to create unfair and unethical situations for consumers, but for some reason we seem to have lost (many of) them when it comes to software, and the effects are apparent. We can't just rely on a corporation's good will and susceptibility to PR pressure, because it doesn't always work, and abuses don't always come to the public eye. That's why we have to have these laws in the first place.

...

Sorry if I've missed anyones' quotes by the way, there have been an awful lot of them. (17, I think, and they keep coming when I'm trying to write responses to other ones. This has gotten pretty big.)

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.

significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations.

before you start quoting laws, study them.

What exactly are the parties rights and obligations when it comes to these contracts? And before you say its the things stipulated in the contract, no it isnt. Contracts do not write laws. Go find the laws about your rights as a consumer ok? :) Then we can talk. Also notice the word SIGNIFICANT. A subjective term, usually decided on a case by case basis.
And to top it all off, who told you EULAs are undisputable? I just told you that law is above a contract. And yet you yammered on in ignorance, about how you cant do anything about it. Want proof? Germany made EA change their EULA because it went against their country laws. EA stopped mining data on Origin. Law > Contract. Of course you need a solid case to make that happen. EULA changed. did the changes affect you significantly in a way that justifies you ending the contract? Take it to court then and tell them your case. Wanna know what happens? Game company will refund you. Wont even get to courts. HELL, you might not even have a solid case and youre just being a dick because they changed the grammar. Theyll still pay you so you can quit whining like a baby about it. They just wanna please you and make you stop saying bad things about them.

This aint a civil rights movement youre preaching ok? Relax and dont get worked up about it.

One last thing. I do not know American law very well, but from what ive gathered, its a very shitty law. My sayings are based on the European consumer law, wich is much much better than the american one(I WILL FUCKING DEBATE THIS SHIT TO HELL WITH YOU PEOPLE).

draythefingerless:
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.

significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations.

before you start quoting laws, study them.

What exactly are the parties rights and obligations when it comes to these contracts? And before you say its the things stipulated in the contract, no it isnt. Contracts do not write laws. Go find the laws about your rights as a consumer ok? :) Then we can talk. Also notice the word SIGNIFICANT. A subjective term, usually decided on a case by case basis.
And to top it all off, who told you EULAs are undisputable? I just told you that law is above a contract. And yet you yammered on in ignorance, about how you cant do anything about it. Want proof? Germany made EA change their EULA because it went against their country laws. EA stopped mining data on Origin. Law > Contract. Of course you need a solid case to make that happen. EULA changed. did the changes affect you significantly in a way that justifies you ending the contract? Take it to court then and tell them your case. Wanna know what happens? Game company will refund you. Wont even get to courts. HELL, you might not even have a solid case and youre just being a dick because they changed the grammar. Theyll still pay you so you can quit whining like a baby about it. They just wanna please you and make you stop saying bad things about them.

This aint a civil rights movement youre preaching ok? Relax and dont get worked up about it.

One last thing. I do not know American law very well, but from what ive gathered, its a very shitty law. My sayings are based on the European consumer law, wich is much much better than the american one(I WILL FUCKING DEBATE THIS SHIT TO HELL WITH YOU PEOPLE).

Don't worry about me getting "worked up about it", I wouldn't be posting this stuff if I didn't want to, and I'm perfectly relaxed. I argue because I enjoy it and the responses interest me, I can only assume you are the same (or else we wouldn't be having this conversation).

Now, a "significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations". The developer has the right to change the EULA at any time without notifying you, and it is counted as you agreed to it if you continue using the product and don't send them a written notification telling them you don't. That is as significantly imbalanced as it can possibly be. As in there's literally no way you could write an EULA worse than that, because they have the right to change this one into whatever kind of agreement you think might have been worse.

Admittedly, this might not hold up in court (and I certainly don't think it should) but it hasn't been made explicitly illegal yet. Since none of us consumers have the money or the inclination to buy an army of lawyers we just have to deal with it. For all practical purposes it is legal, and if we disobey it we're almost certainly going to be the ones who are punished. Maybe you're right, and some day this will all go to the courts and all the really bad parts of these EULAs will be found invalid, but that hasn't happened yet so we still have to deal with it. I am saying this is wrong and should be fixed as soon as possible, and complaining about it certainly isn't going to do any harm. In fact if everyone complained about it (as I think they rightly should) maybe it could be fixed once and for all.

Oh, and I'm basing my info on UK law. I don't claim to be any kind of expert, though.

Seems that the issues of Diablo 3 all stem from the Auction House. Snow-Storm doesn't want cheaters/hackers/modders because they're a threat to the A-House. This obvious statement makes sense.

Yet, the A House itself never made much sense to me. I'll look into this again to be certain and anyone feel free to correct me, but any item sold in the auction can be found in the game right? Well why not just search for the stuff. A response I was given to that was "Instead spending your own time searching for specific items, you can just buy it and have it right away." True but, right after fighting waves of enemies, bosses and following a story to its end isn't looting and searching for stuff an important mechanic and part of the game? Seems to me that anyone using the auction is paying to not play part of the game. If people are using the auction because that part of the game isn't fun then that sounds like bad game design...or planned design, to have players pay to skip a boring, cumbersome part of the game. Well played Winter-Squall, well played indeed.

Crono1973:
First of all, you could just answer the damn question and not say "look at my profile". Secondly, your profile says nothing about your location anyway. Thirdly, I really don't care where you live, I was illustrating a point that getting a state issued license is very different from buying a game.

How do they know I am not charging people admission? If I were, what could they do about it? I could just claim I was charging for the Cheetos. Rest assured, if Paramount had the control Blizzard has, they would count heads and the DVD wouldn't play if there were more than say...five people. Ah, the future of Kinect.

When was the last time you heard of Valve doing mass bans? Does Valve ban you from HL2 if you cheat in single player mode?

Drop the attitude, it's not my problem you can't see the British Flag under my gender icon in plain sight. Forgive me for crediting you with the intelligence of understanding how the website worked and comprehension of an online profile, I shan't make that mistake again.

They don't do that because it's unreasonable to enforce and monitor, your statement is true you could say you're charging for the cheetos.
That doesn't happen though because it's not all that monitored.

Valve don't ban for cheating in single player because that isn't the issue here. They do ban though if you're being a dick online and causing grief for other players, through whatever means.
Scammers, hackers can all have their accounts locked and their games denied by Valve if they feel it necessary.

Lunncal:
It doesn't matter if it has happened (although it almost certainly has on occasion, at least accidentally). The point is that it is legal for them to do practically whatever they want to us and it shouldn't be. I'm not saying any company is ever actually going to start banning everyone as part of some evil scheme to screw everyone over, but they are (and have been) using these abilities to put consumers in bad positions and earn as much money for themselves as possible, and protecting themselves from legal repercussions when they do something (which should be) wrong. We have consumer rights and laws in order to attempt to stop corporations from being able to create unfair and unethical situations for consumers, but for some reason we seem to have lost (many of) them when it comes to software, and the effects are apparent. We can't just rely on a corporation's good will and susceptibility to PR pressure, because it doesn't always work, and abuses don't always come to the public eye. That's why we have to have these laws in the first place.

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.

Part of me has a hard time caring. I literally stopped caring about anything Blizzard since I was playing WoW and got accused of buying gold two times in two weeks, each carrying a multiple day ban as a penalty. My character had like 100 gold on him. At that point I knew I was in danger of losing my account and there was nothing I could do about it. So, I took the initiative and cancelled my account and just never looked back. I played Rift for a year strait and that never happened.

If you buy Blizzard, you pay the price. And I definitely don't care about D3. I don't like to see gamers get wronged by a company, but until people stop supporting that company things like this are going to happen. I haven't played a AAA title that has come out this year, but I have bought lots of indie games. And I'm having a blast.

LOL! They dont have to refund anyones money because they waited until 30 days after the release to ban people. Just their way of keeping your money and screwing you!

Destal:

Lunncal:

faefrost:

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.

And?

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.

Guessing there is no problem with that?

You know, they wouldn't need to take such a hard line on modders if they didn't force you to be online to play.

Just saying....

Sucal:

Destal:

Lunncal:

And?

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.

Guessing there is no problem with that?

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.) bitch 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.

Lyri:

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.

mrdude2010:
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.

Agente L:

Lunncal:
-snip-

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?

Nexxis:
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.

JerrytheBullfrog:

DVS BSTrD:
So the Pirates are safe then?

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:
ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

Actually, I'd say this kind of vindicates it. Fucking with other people's stuff? You lose your game! No better punishment.

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.

Kinda bullshit if you ask me.

Lunncal:
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 bitch 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.

Lunncal:
*Snip*

It's good to see some sense around here. Keep up the good work. I'd help out, but I've gone through this way too many times before.

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.

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

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?

The.Bard:
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

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

I think they deserved it. Honestly, I can't stand people who cheat,

Lunncal:

albino boo:

Lunncal:

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)

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?

albino boo:
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:
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 bitch 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.

    1. Force connection to a server to play singleplayer

    2. Tell everyone it will help prevent cheaters

    3. Game is hacked, cheated and glitched to high heaven

    4. Ban the hackers

    5. Now no one will ever hack again

Genius!

RaikuFA:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

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.

Considering that they steal from peoples accounts, do you want them to still play?

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?

Clearing the Eye:

    1. Force connection to a server to play singleplayer

    2. Tell everyone it will help prevent cheaters

    3. Game is hacked, cheated and glitched to high heaven

    4. Ban the hackers

    5. Now no one will ever hack again

Genius!

THIS^^^^THIS

They screwed their entire playerbase to deal with this issue, and failed to do that... like everyone predicted.

This is gross incompetence at best, and malicious at worst.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Clearing the Eye:

    1. Force connection to a server to play singleplayer

    2. Tell everyone it will help prevent cheaters

    3. Game is hacked, cheated and glitched to high heaven

    4. Ban the hackers

    5. Now no one will ever hack again

Genius!

THIS^^^^THIS

They screwed their entire playerbase to deal with this issue, and failed to do that... like everyone predicted.

This is gross incompetence at best, and malicious at worst.

Mhm. They made their problem (preventing hackers gaining access to their system) the user's problem (forcing us to be online when we don't want to be, just to play the game we paid for) and still messed it up. We're left with a hack and cheat riddled game and DRM no one likes.

Sucal:

Destal:

Lunncal:

And?

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.

Guessing there is no problem with that?

Except you are mistaken. If you call Blizzard Customer support they will indeed give you a refund.

Lunncal:

draythefingerless:

In actuality you are not considering the whole picture.

1. EULAs are well written and have very few consumer abusing stuff. BY THE WAY, EULAs fall under contracts in the eyes of the law, and contracts are not above the copyright law. If a contract breaks one of your rights as consumer, your right as consumer is upheld over the contract. THING IS BUDDY, EULAs almost never do this, but you perceive it as such because it slightly hassles you.

Oh really, then how come I can (yet again) name and quote the exact law they seem to be breaking?

Read through that and see if you can honestly say they are not breaking these rights. For some reason these apparently don't apply when it comes to software, but they should. We have these protections for everything else, why not here? They're there for a reason.

2.Think about this for a second. In this contract you sign with these games, who comes worse if the contract is not upheld or is abused by omeone? There are simply certain points in a contract where you cant please both sides of the deal, so it falls that one side must be beneficiated over the other. For example, say Blizzard wrote in their EULA they can change the EULA any time they want(BUT AS PER LAW, THEY WILL GIVE YOU A WARNING PRIOR TO CHANGING AND YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO END THE CONTRACT, NO REFUND OF COURSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE WHO PLAY THE GAME, FINISH IT, SUDDENLY SEE A EULA CHANGE AND ASK THEIR MONEY BACK). In this case, if Blizzard gave customers the proof of faith, that is, if we change hte EULA you automatically can ask for a refund if you dont like it. Blizzard can stand to lose hundreds of thousands of moneyz from people who abuse this practice, not to mention the legal hassle it will get into with retailers who suddenly have to refund customers because of sth they had nth to do with. But lets see the alternative, wich is what they have in place. Blizzard holds the right to change it, you can stop accepting, by which you nullify contract and lose the game. How much do you stand to lose? 60 bucks? And you may be thinking oh but blizzard is rich n haz lots of moneyz, well blizzard is the exception, not the rule. they have leeway, most game companies dont. If they stood to lose hundreds of thousands, people get fired. Thats JOBS that get out of the window.

If they change the EULA then we should have the right to a refund. Of course we should. they made this agreement, why should they be able to break it whenever they want with no recourse (by changing it whenever they want), but when we break it we lose everything. It's absurd.

So you see, EULAs arent perfect, but they dont break upon your right as a consumer, and its best things be like this than the alternative, wich puts companies in an even more dangerous risk(and by that jobs and lives depending on those companies).

Do I need to quote it again? These EULAs are literally a carte blanche for companies to do whatever they hell they like to us, while still keeping our money, and giving us no legal recourse whatsoever. They can change them to say anything they want without even notifying us. I think that's a pretty bad situation for consumers to be in, and considering the fact that consumer rights laws even exist I'd say other people agree, or at least they used to when those laws were formed.

faefrost:
Not at all. You are failing to differentiate to separate components in this equation. There is the game Diablo III, and there is the service Battle.net. They make it clear that Diablo III is no longer a truly stand alone game, and that it requires a valid Battle.net account. The Battle.net has no service fee, but it does have very clear rules, and users may be shut down for clearly violating them.

A better analogy would be a theme park such as Disney World, or even a movie theater. They can toss you for misbehaving in violation of the services rules, and no they have no obligation to give you a refund for doing so. Paying your price of admission does not allow you to behave as you wish. And they have no obligation to then arrange things so you can watch the movie or ride the roller coaster in private. This is one of those little rules of reasonable social behavior that seems to have gotten completely lost on the modern "I have a right to do whatever I want" generation.

Once again it is perfectly legal for Blizzard to do this. It would be similarly legal for Steam to do it, SOE to do it, XBox Live to do it and EA Origin to do it.

You're right, it is perfectly legal for all of these companies to do this, but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be. We used to have consumer laws protecting us from these practices, and in fact we still do, but for some bizarre reason they just don't seem to apply to software companies.

Disney World can toss us out for behaving in violation of the service's rules, but they cannot just take our money and then deny us access to the park anyway for no reason. Software companies can. They also cannot force us to agree to services after we've already paid and refuse to refund us if we don't agree. They cannot force us to sign a contract that they can change at any time they want for any reason they want without even notifying us. It's illegal, we have laws against it (see above).

Software companies can do all these things, and I don't know why. I doubt they would do it if it were illegal, but then why do they have the special legal ability to stomp all over the rights we get as consumers for every other industry? It's wrong, and whatever gives them this ability is wrong. Clearly we know it's wrong, because we made these laws in the first place, so why does software get a special free pass?

Lyri:
I'm agreeing with WhiteTigerShiro, you're getting into Orwell territory here with the whole "They're out to get us" part about bans for no reasons.
This may happen very rarely like the case where someone was banned for displaying their orientation as Lesbian (which was reversed I believe) but yes they have that right, no they don't use it.

I've been gaming for several years of my life and I've never been b& from a game for no reason at all, infact I haven't been b& from anything I haven't deserved.
Themis Media owners of the Escapist and it's content probably have a similar clause in their EULA when you sign up and yet here we are unbanned and posting.

If something like that happened for no reason people would know about it and it would be fought against, so far companies have our trust for not abusing that power. Peoples accounts are locks and banned for legit reasons and if you want to play again you better buy another copy and make a new account.

It doesn't matter if it has happened (although it almost certainly has on occasion, at least accidentally). The point is that it is legal for them to do practically whatever they want to us and it shouldn't be. I'm not saying any company is ever actually going to start banning everyone as part of some evil scheme to screw everyone over, but they are (and have been) using these abilities to put consumers in bad positions and earn as much money for themselves as possible, and protecting themselves from legal repercussions when they do something (which should be) wrong. We have consumer rights and laws in order to attempt to stop corporations from being able to create unfair and unethical situations for consumers, but for some reason we seem to have lost (many of) them when it comes to software, and the effects are apparent. We can't just rely on a corporation's good will and susceptibility to PR pressure, because it doesn't always work, and abuses don't always come to the public eye. That's why we have to have these laws in the first place.

...

Sorry if I've missed anyones' quotes by the way, there have been an awful lot of them. (17, I think, and they keep coming when I'm trying to write responses to other ones. This has gotten pretty big.)

Your words reminded me of when Sony changed the PS3 to disallow Linux. In that particular case, refunds were eventually given to those who wished it and purchased it before a certain date.

So you're banned from ever playing a game you paid $60 for? Hot damn!!! The Escapist Stamp of Terribad Ideas should be here... Unless I'm wrong.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here