If you get an achievement in single player via cheating, you can have your battle.net account and CD key revoked preventing you from playing the game (from what I understand of some of these articles that I'm able to read right now.)
So, even if you play the single player game the way you want, it can force you.
Also, I think the single player achievements are used to determine your space in the multiplayer ladder (which is f'ed up if you ask me.)
Were game assets used in the distributed copy of this app? (I do not see any mention of that in TFA, only that they were selling an application... only that Blizzard is trying the "copy RAM" excuse they used for WoW, but since it's local to the computer, they are not distributing the game... so I see no legal standing as I saw no legal standing in the WoW case.)
I can think of all kinds of ways to "destroy the Starcraft online experience" that don't involve cheats. If you've ever been on XBox Live you'll already know of one.
Legal action would be justified if they sold copies of the game assets, not if they made copies of anything on the machine that the player who bought the copy is on.
To use a car analogy. GM could not sue me if I used my leased car to rob a bank, however, they could sue me if I sold copies of the Chevy Volt.
Never played it as I don't PVP. I game to have fun, not "fight" with other people.
But again, you seem to argue that Blizzard should have to do nothing but litigate the problem instead of building in validation checks. (IE: hey, this map doesn't have a valid CRC check value, that unit is running too fast, etc.)
Technically, the Constitution states that no law shall be made to restrict freedom of speech, but it doesn't guarantee it. The odd part about this whole ordeal though is that the ISPs are wholly or partially protected monopolies so any law that would restrict a person from visiting a website might be construed as a violation of free speech through monopoly protection. This, however, is a law stating that protected monopolies cannot restrict access so it sounds redundant to me.
(ie: I think any company under government protection should be automatically covered by the same restrictions the government has on our rights. So my personal feeling is that companies protected from competition by law should not be able to restrict freedom of speech in any way so neutrality laws would be redundant.)
Then build in more security for the game... put in cheat detection code and report anything that doesn't follow the designed rules of the game. (ie: If the enemy hits you and you don't take damage... what's up? If you somehow get $1 million in game but there's no "accounts receivable" providing that cash... where did it come from?)
If the cheater is smart enough to "cheat" the system is he playing your (their) game or his own game? Because this whole ordeal can boil down to Blizzard suing over the grounds of making a meta-game (cheating without being caught) out of their meta-game (achievements.)
Both instances of this situation boil down to meta-game scenarios. Neither one has any real affect on the content of the game itself, but upon the competitive nature of said game. One party simply changed the rules and didn't get caught. You are trying to use the law to hurt their fun to help your fun.
Argue all you like about sporting competitions, rules and regulations. If an athlete is caught using steroids, they will be banned from the game... until such time though, people will pay all kinds of recognition and "respect" to this person without further inspection. I guess to me it boils down to blaming the player and not the game.
The real problem is that Blizzard provides this service and can ban anyone at anytime if they are cheating. You agree to use their service without violating their TOS, and upon breaking that agreement you should be shut off. Because Blizzard did not build enough security in their game to catch these cheaters they went outside that realm to get someone else to stop it for them. This is where I have the problem. The idea that suing the cheat creators will stop people from meta-gaming the system is simply stupid.
(Personally, I couldn't care less if people cheat. I simply won't play with them if I find out. None of this really matters to me because I don't play PVP but the argument that the law should stop this is asinine.)
The same mentality was going around when the company I work for told people that they basically could be let go for revealing internal operation details on social networking sites.
Some people think that having a Right means you are entitled to have it given to you... thus my signature. (Though, some people have confused it for other meanings...)
I've always wondered why communities don't run their own fiber optic/power cables and provide a several connection points where cable/telecom/electric companies hook into. People in the community can then buy services from any company that is able to connect to any of those access points. Of course it means funding access nodes as well as the cable with tax dollars, but if it encouraged competition in services I would sign on for that.
All connections should permit all legal connections...
Who's in charge of legal connections? By your argument, ISPs should be able to deny you access to organizations that do not comply with the Government's PATRIOT laws. With such a distinction, you cannot have free speech.
That's a question I'd like to know the answer to. Personally, I buy games for fun, and I derive no fun from conflict with other people. Sure, when I was younger it was fun to see my name in a list on screen, but that wears off and I would not come back the next day to make sure it's still there. Also, I wasn't so hung up over it that I would sue someone because they found out that putting a stone on one of the buttons let them fly up the charts easier.
There are at least two easy solutions that don't cloud up the legal system and personal rights issues: 1. Block all achievements from found cheaters from appearing online. 2. Make achievements have more flags. I don't know what achievements are in SC2, but let's say there is one to kill 100 widgets. Instead of a blanket, "100 widgets" rule put a minimum time restriction. ("Hey, that's impossible to kill 100 of these in 14 seconds... the rules of the game make that impossible. Achievement denied.")
Ok, so... you like achievements. Awesome. Why does it matter if I get those achievements in a different way than you?
I'd argue it's simply a personal rights issue. If I get a million dollars by working hard and saving my money and someone gets it by winning the lottery, why should I expect the law to fine the person that won the lottery for my personal ego?
I play games because they should be fun. I do not play games for profit, nor do I get upset if someone has more achievements, or a greater score than I.
Well, they did say Obama was the anti-christ and he will begin World War III in October... or at least according to the current calendar. If you use the "60 day offset" that puts WWIII sometime at the end of this year! Oh Em Gee.
Am I the only one that saw it appear for a split second, then disappear? I was on my PS3 Friday and after I shut down Borderlands, I scrolled over to video and could have swore I saw Netflix flash on the screen for a second then it vanished. I had to do a "digital doubletake" and go back to look, but it was gone.
But, I can close the lid of my laptop and it goes to sleep, open it and it wakes up. I don't have to write wpa-supplicant files by hand, worry about wireless drivers, or anything else. I can watch my DVDs, I can watch internet videos if I want to (as much as I bitch about youtube culture and whatnot, there are occasionally things worth watching that happen to live inside of an embedded flash player), my battery life doesn't suck and I spend a lot less time beating my head against the wall due to "not quite 100% compatible" issues.
Frankly, I don't think I'm alone in a rather large section of professional Unix people who want at least one personal machine that they don't have to fight with all the time.
I don't fight with my Ubuntu laptop at all and I do all that you just said. (Wake/Sleep/DVDs/Wifi/Youtube/battery life)
Desktop Linux is dead, WTF, yet another journalist that fails grasp open source...
Stopping you there because that's all you had to say.
I wonder if this guy thinks that if he posts that article, it will suddenly go away. I read it and he tries to sound apologetic, but it's still pretty sensational writing in assuming that these past three years were it's last hope for ever becoming mainstream.
Slashdot Mirror
If you get an achievement in single player via cheating, you can have your battle.net account and CD key revoked preventing you from playing the game (from what I understand of some of these articles that I'm able to read right now.)
So, even if you play the single player game the way you want, it can force you.
Also, I think the single player achievements are used to determine your space in the multiplayer ladder (which is f'ed up if you ask me.)
Were game assets used in the distributed copy of this app? (I do not see any mention of that in TFA, only that they were selling an application... only that Blizzard is trying the "copy RAM" excuse they used for WoW, but since it's local to the computer, they are not distributing the game... so I see no legal standing as I saw no legal standing in the WoW case.)
I can think of all kinds of ways to "destroy the Starcraft online experience" that don't involve cheats. If you've ever been on XBox Live you'll already know of one.
Legal action would be justified if they sold copies of the game assets, not if they made copies of anything on the machine that the player who bought the copy is on.
To use a car analogy. GM could not sue me if I used my leased car to rob a bank, however, they could sue me if I sold copies of the Chevy Volt.
Never played it as I don't PVP. I game to have fun, not "fight" with other people.
But again, you seem to argue that Blizzard should have to do nothing but litigate the problem instead of building in validation checks. (IE: hey, this map doesn't have a valid CRC check value, that unit is running too fast, etc.)
Technically, the Constitution states that no law shall be made to restrict freedom of speech, but it doesn't guarantee it. The odd part about this whole ordeal though is that the ISPs are wholly or partially protected monopolies so any law that would restrict a person from visiting a website might be construed as a violation of free speech through monopoly protection. This, however, is a law stating that protected monopolies cannot restrict access so it sounds redundant to me.
(ie: I think any company under government protection should be automatically covered by the same restrictions the government has on our rights. So my personal feeling is that companies protected from competition by law should not be able to restrict freedom of speech in any way so neutrality laws would be redundant.)
Then build in more security for the game... put in cheat detection code and report anything that doesn't follow the designed rules of the game. (ie: If the enemy hits you and you don't take damage... what's up? If you somehow get $1 million in game but there's no "accounts receivable" providing that cash... where did it come from?)
If the cheater is smart enough to "cheat" the system is he playing your (their) game or his own game? Because this whole ordeal can boil down to Blizzard suing over the grounds of making a meta-game (cheating without being caught) out of their meta-game (achievements.)
Both instances of this situation boil down to meta-game scenarios. Neither one has any real affect on the content of the game itself, but upon the competitive nature of said game. One party simply changed the rules and didn't get caught. You are trying to use the law to hurt their fun to help your fun.
Argue all you like about sporting competitions, rules and regulations. If an athlete is caught using steroids, they will be banned from the game... until such time though, people will pay all kinds of recognition and "respect" to this person without further inspection. I guess to me it boils down to blaming the player and not the game.
The real problem is that Blizzard provides this service and can ban anyone at anytime if they are cheating. You agree to use their service without violating their TOS, and upon breaking that agreement you should be shut off. Because Blizzard did not build enough security in their game to catch these cheaters they went outside that realm to get someone else to stop it for them. This is where I have the problem. The idea that suing the cheat creators will stop people from meta-gaming the system is simply stupid.
(Personally, I couldn't care less if people cheat. I simply won't play with them if I find out. None of this really matters to me because I don't play PVP but the argument that the law should stop this is asinine.)
At first I thought this LEGO machine actually made LEGO blocks... which would have been far cooler.
How do you remain standing? One must be rolling on the floor...preferably laughing rather than crying.
The same mentality was going around when the company I work for told people that they basically could be let go for revealing internal operation details on social networking sites.
Some people think that having a Right means you are entitled to have it given to you ... thus my signature. (Though, some people have confused it for other meanings...)
I've always wondered why communities don't run their own fiber optic/power cables and provide a several connection points where cable/telecom/electric companies hook into. People in the community can then buy services from any company that is able to connect to any of those access points. Of course it means funding access nodes as well as the cable with tax dollars, but if it encouraged competition in services I would sign on for that.
All connections should permit all legal connections...
Who's in charge of legal connections? By your argument, ISPs should be able to deny you access to organizations that do not comply with the Government's PATRIOT laws. With such a distinction, you cannot have free speech.
And that "n00b" will find that competing at that level will not be conducive to fun and will likely be eliminated from any waged competition early on.
I still fail to see the issue here besides that fact that you may have to play an easy game now and then.
But does it need legal action? Why not disable the achievements for known cheaters?
what's the point with scoring in the first place?
That's a question I'd like to know the answer to. Personally, I buy games for fun, and I derive no fun from conflict with other people. Sure, when I was younger it was fun to see my name in a list on screen, but that wears off and I would not come back the next day to make sure it's still there. Also, I wasn't so hung up over it that I would sue someone because they found out that putting a stone on one of the buttons let them fly up the charts easier.
There are at least two easy solutions that don't cloud up the legal system and personal rights issues:
1. Block all achievements from found cheaters from appearing online.
2. Make achievements have more flags. I don't know what achievements are in SC2, but let's say there is one to kill 100 widgets. Instead of a blanket, "100 widgets" rule put a minimum time restriction. ("Hey, that's impossible to kill 100 of these in 14 seconds... the rules of the game make that impossible. Achievement denied.")
Ok, so... you like achievements. Awesome. Why does it matter if I get those achievements in a different way than you?
I'd argue it's simply a personal rights issue. If I get a million dollars by working hard and saving my money and someone gets it by winning the lottery, why should I expect the law to fine the person that won the lottery for my personal ego?
Who really cares though?
It's a game.
I play games because they should be fun. I do not play games for profit, nor do I get upset if someone has more achievements, or a greater score than I.
How will you get my letter?
Well, they did say Obama was the anti-christ and he will begin World War III in October... or at least according to the current calendar. If you use the "60 day offset" that puts WWIII sometime at the end of this year! Oh Em Gee.
Lucky you.
Just the link alone makes me wonder... Does MS have a secure site for office365?
Am I the only one that saw it appear for a split second, then disappear? I was on my PS3 Friday and after I shut down Borderlands, I scrolled over to video and could have swore I saw Netflix flash on the screen for a second then it vanished. I had to do a "digital doubletake" and go back to look, but it was gone.
troll.
Pot, meet kettle.
But, I can close the lid of my laptop and it goes to sleep, open it and it wakes up. I don't have to write wpa-supplicant files by hand, worry about wireless drivers, or anything else. I can watch my DVDs, I can watch internet videos if I want to (as much as I bitch about youtube culture and whatnot, there are occasionally things worth watching that happen to live inside of an embedded flash player), my battery life doesn't suck and I spend a lot less time beating my head against the wall due to "not quite 100% compatible" issues.
Frankly, I don't think I'm alone in a rather large section of professional Unix people who want at least one personal machine that they don't have to fight with all the time.
I don't fight with my Ubuntu laptop at all and I do all that you just said. (Wake/Sleep/DVDs/Wifi/Youtube/battery life)
Desktop Linux is dead, WTF, yet another journalist that fails grasp open source...
Stopping you there because that's all you had to say.
I wonder if this guy thinks that if he posts that article, it will suddenly go away. I read it and he tries to sound apologetic, but it's still pretty sensational writing in assuming that these past three years were it's last hope for ever becoming mainstream.