Top
40°

Why Blizzard is Dead Wrong for Banning Starcraft II SP Cheaters

Ex: It's a fact: as long as there are games of any style - from StarCraft 2 to Poker - there will be cheaters. As long as there are cheaters, silent watchers with giant banhammers will be ready to wipe them off the playing field. But Blizzard's recent banning of StarCraft 2 gamers for using single-player trainers and cheats is a wild step in the wrong direction for one simple reason.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
RankFTW2981d ago

Blizzard can go screw themselves.

dkblackhawk502981d ago

Whilst I can go and screw that pic....ah never mind...:P

CrAppleton2981d ago

Is this for cheat codes found in the wild or an actual mod of the game?

Saryk2981d ago

I hate cheaters to no end on multiplayer. I would love to see all multiplayer games ban players for cheating. However on a single player game, who cares, worst case is disable their achievements. I have to disagree with the author of the article about owning the software. No one owns the rights of the software besides the developers, true enough. But the owners of the game are the persons who bought it. Does anyone know if there is any documentation stating that single player cheats could lose their accounts?

killyourfm2981d ago

Saryk, all we own is a disc or a set of digital files containing software whose EULA can be changed and adapted at anytime. EULAs for games are getting increasingly complicated. Sometimes we forget that simply playing a game legally binds us to whatever terms are inside.

it sucks, but there it is.

Saryk2981d ago

EULA isn't the end all.

If the EULA stated: If agreed upon you must sacrifice your first born, you think that would hold up in court (OK stupid example)? There are a lot of factors: subject, judge, jury, city court/law, county/parish court/law, state court/law and federal court/law.

As seen below

In legal decisions, U.S. courts sometimes have sided with consumers and other times with vendors. Most famously — some would say "notoriously" — in the 1996 case ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court overturned a lower court's decision, finding that a ProCD product's shrink-wrap license was an enforceable contract. Details of the case are available on the FindLaw site.

Contrariwise, a lower-court case — Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. — found against the enforceability of EULAs. Find more about this case in a Lawnix brief.

Unfortunately, these and similar cases — such as the more-recent Feldman v. Google, Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., and many others — don't involve click-to-accept EULAs for purchased software.

http://windowssecrets.com/2...

However if the EULA is clear about the banning and/or loosing the account for cheating in single player, then I stand corrected. But I find the whole situation totalitarian by Blizzard. These people spent good money for this game to enjoy how they see fit. Now if they were cheating in multiplayer I'd say neuter them.

insomniaradio2981d ago

it's a show of power, a warning to other gamers. Sure, they could have just written a patch and blocked the code or disabled achievements but they wanted to send a message...

This doesn't effect playing as a guest with cheats turned on, does it? Since you're playing offline?

killyourfm2981d ago

No, not to my knowledge anyway.