I tried to like Fable 1 but I just couldn't. It was so vacuous.
Fable 2 was even more 'lite' but I felt it owned it. It was sort of this Collection of mini games and one of the mini games was 'RPG'. Pretty fun in a goofy, empty way.
Except the hub in OoT was fairly big and lead to OTHER fairly big areas, whereas the hub in Fable felt like it lead to the next small path filled with 3 raiders.
I daresay the world in Fable was drastically bigger than OoT's world. OoT's world was wide open, but mostly empty.
I got Fable 2 and TFU: Ultimate Sith Edition for four bucks at a garage sale.
I played through Fable 2. It was horribly mediocre the entire time but I still enjoyed it to an extent. (Not every game has to be a 10, ya know.) But then the ending happened and I was extremely underwhelmed. It's like the game had no plot or gameplay planned past the first 4 hours.
I sold it later for 6 bucks and never looked back.
Also, Ultimate Sith Edition TFU box is damn sexy.
Gibbs on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] I've got a bad case of lovin' you.
Using the Download to XBox 360 button? Not the full game button.
Indeed. Oh well.
Fats on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I just noticed there is a new X-Men game coming out, X-Men Destiny. It sounds neat, but if it is an MMO I am going to be so damn disappointed it won't even be funny. I'm hoping for another X-Men focused Marvel Ultimate Alliance type game.
Blizzard last week filed suit in the Los Angeles US District Court against three programmers, accusing them of creating and selling hacks for Starcraft II in violation of the end-user license agreement, Battle.net terms of use, and copyright law.
According to the suit, "Just days after the release of Starcraft II, Defendants already had developed, marketed, and distributed to the public a variety of hacks and cheats designed to modify (and in fact destroy) the Starcraft II online game experience. In fact, on the very day that Starcraft II was released, representatives of the hacks Web site advised members of the public that 'our staff is already planning new releases for this game.'"
Blizzard is accusing the trio of multiple counts of copyright infringement, and demanding damages and disgorgement of any profits reaped by the distribution and sale of the hacks. The company also accuse the defendants of inducing others to infringe on their copyright, saying, "When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."
"The harm to Blizzard from Defendants' conduct is immediate, massive and irreparable," the suit claims. "By distributing the Hacks to the public, Defendants cause serious harm to the value of StarCraft II. Among other things, Defendants irreparably harm the ability of Blizzard's legitimate customers (i.e. those who purchase and use unmodified games) to enjoy and participate in the competitive online experience. That, in turn, causes users to grow dissatisfied with the game, lose interest in the game, and communicate that dissatisfaction, thereby resulting in lost sales of the game or 'add-on' packs and expansions thereto."
The three defendants named in the suit go by the handles "Permaphrost," "Cranix," and "Linuxawesome," with the former two residing in Canada and the latter in Peru. It's unclear what jurisdiction the court has over the accused, although Starcraft II's end-user license agreement specifically states that disputes would be decided by a court within Los Angeles County. Additionally, among the relief demanded by the developer is a requirement that the defendants pull their programs hosted anywhere within the court's jurisdiction. There are other allged hackers named in the suit--including "Wiggley," "Zynastor," and "Dark Mage," but Blizzard has not included their real identities in the suit.
Blizzard had not responded to GameSpot's request for comment as of press time.
The three defendants named in the suit go by the handles "Permaphrost," "Cranix," and "Linuxawesome," with the former two residing in Canada and the latter in Peru. It's unclear what jurisdiction the court has over the accused, although Starcraft II's end-user license agreement specifically states that disputes would be decided by a court within Los Angeles County.
I love forum selection clauses. I assume Blizzard is located in Los Angelas?
Explain to me how what I assume to be nothing more than a regular trainer falls under copyright infringement? Though I've never written a trainer, I'm pretty sure I have a good enough idea about how they work to know they wouldn't be making a copy of any of the game's protected materials.
The company also accuse the defendants of inducing others to infringe on their copyright, saying, "When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."
Wait, what? It's suddenly illegal to have the whole version of a game in our computer when we're actually playing it? So by purchasing the game, we're only purchasing the right to have a fragment of the game at any one time?
The company also accuse the defendants of inducing others to infringe on their copyright, saying, "When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."
Wait, what? It's suddenly illegal to have the whole version of a game in our computer when we're actually playing it? So by purchasing the game, we're only purchasing the right to have a fragment of the game at any one time?
# 2. Additional License Limitations. The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
1. 2.1 create or use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;
2. 2.2 exploit the Service, a Game or any part thereof for any commercial purpose, including without limitation (a) use at a cyber cafe, computer gaming center or any other commercial establishment without the express written consent of Blizzard; (b) to communicate or facilitate any commercial advertisement or solicitation; (c) for gathering in-game currency, items or resources for sale outside the Game without Blizzard’s authorization; (d) selling or trading Game characters or accounts for the Service and/or a Game; or (e) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling;
3. 2.3 use the Service for any “e-sports” or group competition sponsored, promoted or facilitated by any commercial or non-profit entity without Blizzard’s prior written consent;
4. 2.4 buy or sell for real money or in exchange for in-game currency, items or resources that may be used in a Game outside the Game without Blizzard’s authorization;
5. 2.5 let any third party (except for a minor as stipulated under Section 4 below) use your account on the Service or for a Game;
6. 2.6 use any unauthorized third-party software that intercepts, "mines", or otherwise collects information from or through any Game or the Service, including without limitation any software that reads areas of RAM used by any Game or the Service to store information about a character or a Game environment; provided, however, that Blizzard may, at its sole and absolute discretion, allow the use of certain third party user interfaces;
7. 2.7 modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of any Game or the Service in any way not expressly authorized by Blizzard;
8. 2.8 host, provide or develop matchmaking services for any Game or the Service, or intercept, emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by Blizzard in any way, for any purpose, including without limitation unauthorized play over the internet, network play, or as part of content aggregation networks;
9. 2.9 facilitate, create or maintain any unauthorized connection to any Game or the Service, including without limitation (a) any connection to any unauthorized server that emulates, or attempts to emulate, the Service or any Game; and (b) any connection using programs or tools not expressly approved by Blizzard; or
10. 2.10 disrupt or assist in the disruption of (i) any computer used to support the Service or any Game environment (each a "Server"); or (ii) any other player's Game experience. ANY ATTEMPT BY YOU TO DISRUPT THE SERVICE OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF ANY GAME MAY BE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS.
Blizzard was actually in a lawsuit over similar shit already:
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The 8th Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers. [2]
In February 2002, Blizzard filed a DMCA safe harbor takedown demand against bnetd with their Internet service provider (ISP). Blizzard subsequently filed suit against the developers of bnetd and their ISP in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit alleged copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violations of their games' End User License Agreement (sometimes referred to as a clickwrap license) and DMCA anti-circumvention prohibitions, in what would become an important test case for portions of that law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation mounted a defense, in which defendants denied copying any portion of battle.net or Blizzard games, denied the validity of the battle.net trademark, denied that CD keys are an anti-piracy measure, and denied that bnetd is a circumvention tool.
In September 2004, the court disagreed and granted summary judgement to Blizzard. On appeal, defendants argued that federal copyright law, which permits reverse engineering, preempts California state contract law, upon which the EULA's prohibition on reverse engineering is grounded.
In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision. "Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception [of the DMCA]. The district court properly granted summary judgement in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the operability exception." The appeals court further ruled that bnetd circumvents copy protection in violation of the DMCA.[1]
bnetd developer Ross Combs and EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz criticized the appeals court ruling, claiming the ruling means software and hardware vendors can use a DMCA-EULA combination to prevent otherwise lawful reverse engineering and chill the development of interoperable systems. Blizzard co-founder Mike Morhaime called the ruling "a major victory for our profit margins." An Entertainment Software Association representative also supported the ruling, claiming it reinforces the DMCA's ability to prevent "IP abuse and theft."[2]
As a result of the litigation, the bnetd.org domain was transferred to Blizzard's control pursuant to the consent decree entered during the trial. The domain is now offline but still registered by Blizzard.[3] Although Blizzard won the case, the lawsuit did not stop the continued distribution of bnetd's open source, nor of derivative projects such as PvPGN. Other hosts were quickly set up by third parties in countries where no anti-circumvention legislation equivalent to the DMCA exists.
Couscous on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Explain to me how what I assume to be nothing more than a regular trainer falls under copyright infringement? Though I've never written a trainer, I'm pretty sure I have a good enough idea about how they work to know they wouldn't be making a copy of any of the game's protected materials.
Gotta reverse engineer the code at least a little bit to build those sorts of tools, for one thing. That can be a pretty big no-no. Plus, altering code without permission which could be another violation.
I may not like Activision-Blizzard much, but I hope they nail these guys to the wall. Blizzard dumps all sorts of time, money, and effort into the game and millions of people buy it, then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
Good luck trying to get these guys extradited, though. I could see Canada complying save for the fact that video games are still in a pretty gray zone when it comes to IP and copyrights. And Peru? Yeah right. Activision-Blizzard has a better chance of hiring mercenaries to retrieve the guy than Peru turning him over.
EDIT: Sweet, I was totally right about the altering code AND reverse-engineering stuff. Didn't even have to read the EULA.
Blizzard might as well tilt at windmills. It isn't like suing pirates has ever actually stopped pirates.
They might have a crack at the Canadian guys. The problem with piracy is that finding the pirates is really tough; if Blizzard really knows where these guys are, there's a possibility of something happening. If nothing else, it could help set a very useful, valuable legal precedent for game companies to seek damages done by hackers.
Can't say I'd be particularly unhappy with a future where hacking an online multiplayer game means actual, meaningful punishment.
I may not like Activision-Blizzard much, but I hope they nail these guys to the wall. Blizzard dumps all sorts of time, money, and effort into the game and millions of people buy it, then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
Remember Lewis Galoob Toys vs Nintendo of America? History totally repeats itself.
The company also accuse the defendants of inducing others to infringe on their copyright, saying, "When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."
Wait, what? It's suddenly illegal to have the whole version of a game in our computer when we're actually playing it? So by purchasing the game, we're only purchasing the right to have a fragment of the game at any one time?
Maybe their big plan is to confuse the court into ruling in their favor
then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
You can get it for free online from the developer of the hack, Zynastor, according to a quick google search. They all seem to post on one specific website and forum that you can probably find with a quick google search. The guys seem to have done it for the same reason most hackers who make cracks do it. They really need to get laid. This is going to be a waste of everybody's time so they can feel like they have done something against piracy like the previous bajillion lawsuits against pirates.
Couscous on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I may not like Activision-Blizzard much, but I hope they nail these guys to the wall. Blizzard dumps all sorts of time, money, and effort into the game and millions of people buy it, then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
Remember Lewis Galoob Toys vs Nintendo of America? History totally repeats itself.
That was a whole different era in technology and an entirely different application of altering code. Game Genie altered the code on just the system you were using; hackers put out code which wrecks the games of other people. Pretty sure there's got to be some precedent somewhere which establishes that you don't have any right to alter the property of other people just because you can.
To use the hated car analogy, you're well within your rights to modify your own car (though not necessarily allowed to drive it on public roads after doing so). However, start taking a sledgehammer to cars owned by other people and you face civil and criminal penalties. Hackers are basically taking a digital sledgehammer to a digital product owned by other people which is definitely not okay.
Wait, what? It's suddenly illegal to have the whole version of a game in our computer when we're actually playing it? So by purchasing the game, we're only purchasing the right to have a fragment of the game at any one time?
If by your game, you mean "1. Grant of a Limited Use License. Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, Blizzard hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive license to (a) install the Game on one or more computers owned by you or under your legitimate control, (b) use the Game in conjunction with the Service for your noncommercial entertainment purposes only, subject to the terms of Section 2(c) below; and (c) to make and distribute copies of the Game to other potential users free of any charge for use solely on the Service. All use of the Game, or any copy of the Game, is subject to this License Agreementand to the Terms of Use, both of which must be accepted before the Game can be played."
I look forward to the day when developers sell cheats, and when you buy one, what you get is 2 men in black at your doorstep who take your game away, kick you in the balls, and staple a lawsuit to your butt.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I look forward to the day when developers sell cheats, and when you buy one, what you get is 2 men in black at your doorstep who take your game away, kick you in the balls, and staple a lawsuit to your butt.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
What? Cheating in single-player games is already protected. Why the hell would Blizzard care about people cheating in single-player mode? One of the main contentions is that the hackers did major damage to the online multiplayer portion of the game which millions of people paid to play.
Plus, I'd totally risk the odd warning stapled to my butt if it means hackers get gutted for breaking my damn games.
Also, 370k for just a few days is a pretty good showing for something like the Dead Rising series. Hell, that's pretty damned good. DR1 reportedly sold half a million in the first month; over 300k in just three days is definitely not bad. In comparison, Other M sold less than 200k for the month and that series has been around for ages.
I look forward to the day when developers sell cheats, and when you buy one, what you get is 2 men in black at your doorstep who take your game away, kick you in the balls, and staple a lawsuit to your butt.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
What? Cheating in single-player games is already protected. Why the hell would Blizzard care about people cheating in single-player mode? One of the main contentions is that the hackers did major damage to the online multiplayer portion of the game which millions of people paid to play..
Well they cared enough to ban people from the single player game for using trainers in the single player game.
Yes, I've heard the bit about the achievements and how Blizz says they're related to the multiplayer. In that case, they could have just wiped them. Or even ban them from multiplayer, which would be pretty extreme, but not as extreme as banning the single player section as well.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I look forward to the day when developers sell cheats, and when you buy one, what you get is 2 men in black at your doorstep who take your game away, kick you in the balls, and staple a lawsuit to your butt.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
What? Cheating in single-player games is already protected. Why the hell would Blizzard care about people cheating in single-player mode? One of the main contentions is that the hackers did major damage to the online multiplayer portion of the game which millions of people paid to play..
Well they cared enough to ban people from the single player game for using trainers in the single player game.
Yes, I've heard the bit about the achievements and how Blizz says they're related to the multiplayer. In that case, they could have just wiped them. Or even ban them from multiplayer, which would be pretty extreme, but not as extreme as banning the single player section as well.
Except there's no evidence outside of that one guy's report. I don't get why people put so much trust into hackers when they report things like this that also just so happen to support their position. Just like how the Wii Homebrewers lied about the anti-homebrew patch bricking Wiis left and right, this one-time report of one guy getting banned (not even perma-banned) for using trainers in single player is probably a load of gooseshit.
And Blizz has already used the unlawful RAM copy deal with WoW Glider and won, so I can see it working here as well. The main basis for the argument is that by breaking the EULA the hackers are no longer legally allowed to copy the game code in RAM and thus they're violating copyright.
At a financial presentation, English materials from which can be seen here, the company listed the following targets for its big fiscal 2010 releases:
* Monster Hunter Freedom 3 (PSP): 3.6 million * Dead Rising 2 (PS3/X360): 3.0 million
* Lost Planet 2 (PS3/X360): 2.2 million
* Marvel VS Capcom 3 (PS3/X360): 2.0 million
A negligible amount for Japan, and about a million each for Europe and NA for this year(assuming roughly NA=EU sales-wise, assuming it will sell over 600k in NA after its first month seems to really be stretching it as it is) still leaves you with much less than 3 million. I don't think the public NPD monthly data goes back to Dead Rising's release in August 2006 so there isn't much in the way for comparison there. It appears to have sold less than a million as a 360 exclusive that year in the NA judging by the top ten software list for that year.
Blizzard was actually in a lawsuit over similar shit already:
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The 8th Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers. [2]
In February 2002, Blizzard filed a DMCA safe harbor takedown demand against bnetd with their Internet service provider (ISP). Blizzard subsequently filed suit against the developers of bnetd and their ISP in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit alleged copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violations of their games' End User License Agreement (sometimes referred to as a clickwrap license) and DMCA anti-circumvention prohibitions, in what would become an important test case for portions of that law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation mounted a defense, in which defendants denied copying any portion of battle.net or Blizzard games, denied the validity of the battle.net trademark, denied that CD keys are an anti-piracy measure, and denied that bnetd is a circumvention tool.
In September 2004, the court disagreed and granted summary judgement to Blizzard. On appeal, defendants argued that federal copyright law, which permits reverse engineering, preempts California state contract law, upon which the EULA's prohibition on reverse engineering is grounded.
In September 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the lower court's decision. "Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception [of the DMCA]. The district court properly granted summary judgement in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the operability exception." The appeals court further ruled that bnetd circumvents copy protection in violation of the DMCA.[1]
bnetd developer Ross Combs and EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz criticized the appeals court ruling, claiming the ruling means software and hardware vendors can use a DMCA-EULA combination to prevent otherwise lawful reverse engineering and chill the development of interoperable systems. Blizzard co-founder Mike Morhaime called the ruling "a major victory for our profit margins." An Entertainment Software Association representative also supported the ruling, claiming it reinforces the DMCA's ability to prevent "IP abuse and theft."[2]
As a result of the litigation, the bnetd.org domain was transferred to Blizzard's control pursuant to the consent decree entered during the trial. The domain is now offline but still registered by Blizzard.[3] Although Blizzard won the case, the lawsuit did not stop the continued distribution of bnetd's open source, nor of derivative projects such as PvPGN. Other hosts were quickly set up by third parties in countries where no anti-circumvention legislation equivalent to the DMCA exists.
From what I remember of bnetd, they were setting up unauthorized servers for the Warcraft 3 beta, something Blizzard had a definite interest in stopping. The implications of their case, however, are a bit .
then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
You can get it for free online from the developer of the hack, Zynastor, according to a quick google search. They all seem to post on one specific website and forum that you can probably find with a quick google search. The guys seem to have done it for the same reason most hackers who make cracks do it. They really need to get laid. This is going to be a waste of everybody's time so they can feel like they have done something against piracy like the previous bajillion lawsuits against pirates.
What, exactly, does the hax these haxx0rs made do? Is it a trainer? Does it break the DRM? Does it allow connection to a faux Battle.net?
I look forward to the day when developers sell cheats, and when you buy one, what you get is 2 men in black at your doorstep who take your game away, kick you in the balls, and staple a lawsuit to your butt.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
What? Cheating in single-player games is already protected. Why the hell would Blizzard care about people cheating in single-player mode? One of the main contentions is that the hackers did major damage to the online multiplayer portion of the game which millions of people paid to play..
Well they cared enough to ban people from the single player game for using trainers in the single player game.
Yes, I've heard the bit about the achievements and how Blizz says they're related to the multiplayer. In that case, they could have just wiped them. Or even ban them from multiplayer, which would be pretty extreme, but not as extreme as banning the single player section as well.
Except there's no evidence outside of that one guy's report. I don't get why people put so much trust into hackers when they report things like this that also just so happen to support their position. Just like how the Wii Homebrewers lied about the anti-homebrew patch bricking Wiis left and right, this one-time report of one guy getting banned (not even perma-banned) for using trainers in single player is probably a load of gooseshit.
And Blizz has already used the unlawful RAM copy deal with WoW Glider and won, so I can see it working here as well. The main basis for the argument is that by breaking the EULA the hackers are no longer legally allowed to copy the game code in RAM and thus they're violating copyright.
“If a Battle.net account is banned, a player will no longer have access to the single and multiplayer content.”
Squigie on
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
As for getting banned from SCII single player, well, that's what you get for buying a game which requires constant internet verification to play. It's really not that hard at all to avoid putting yourself in that situation.
Ninja Snarl P on
0
PaperLuigi44My amazement is at maximum capacity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
So today co-workers asked me questions about the Jungle with genuine enthusiasm.
Posts
Fable 2 was even more 'lite' but I felt it owned it. It was sort of this Collection of mini games and one of the mini games was 'RPG'. Pretty fun in a goofy, empty way.
Still showing up as free for me.
I daresay the world in Fable was drastically bigger than OoT's world. OoT's world was wide open, but mostly empty.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Doesn't let you buy it, though. "This item is not available for purchase from Xbox LIVE Marketplace on the Web."
I played through Fable 2. It was horribly mediocre the entire time but I still enjoyed it to an extent. (Not every game has to be a 10, ya know.) But then the ending happened and I was extremely underwhelmed. It's like the game had no plot or gameplay planned past the first 4 hours.
I sold it later for 6 bucks and never looked back.
Also, Ultimate Sith Edition TFU box is damn sexy.
I've got a bad case of lovin' you.
Indeed. Oh well.
Wait, what? It's suddenly illegal to have the whole version of a game in our computer when we're actually playing it? So by purchasing the game, we're only purchasing the right to have a fragment of the game at any one time?
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
You agreed to be Blizzard's bitch in §5, ¶3.
Gotta reverse engineer the code at least a little bit to build those sorts of tools, for one thing. That can be a pretty big no-no. Plus, altering code without permission which could be another violation.
I may not like Activision-Blizzard much, but I hope they nail these guys to the wall. Blizzard dumps all sorts of time, money, and effort into the game and millions of people buy it, then these assholes come along and not create tools to break the game, they sell the hacks.
Good luck trying to get these guys extradited, though. I could see Canada complying save for the fact that video games are still in a pretty gray zone when it comes to IP and copyrights. And Peru? Yeah right. Activision-Blizzard has a better chance of hiring mercenaries to retrieve the guy than Peru turning him over.
EDIT: Sweet, I was totally right about the altering code AND reverse-engineering stuff. Didn't even have to read the EULA.
They might have a crack at the Canadian guys. The problem with piracy is that finding the pirates is really tough; if Blizzard really knows where these guys are, there's a possibility of something happening. If nothing else, it could help set a very useful, valuable legal precedent for game companies to seek damages done by hackers.
Can't say I'd be particularly unhappy with a future where hacking an online multiplayer game means actual, meaningful punishment.
Remember Lewis Galoob Toys vs Nintendo of America? History totally repeats itself.
Maybe their big plan is to confuse the court into ruling in their favor
That was a whole different era in technology and an entirely different application of altering code. Game Genie altered the code on just the system you were using; hackers put out code which wrecks the games of other people. Pretty sure there's got to be some precedent somewhere which establishes that you don't have any right to alter the property of other people just because you can.
To use the hated car analogy, you're well within your rights to modify your own car (though not necessarily allowed to drive it on public roads after doing so). However, start taking a sledgehammer to cars owned by other people and you face civil and criminal penalties. Hackers are basically taking a digital sledgehammer to a digital product owned by other people which is definitely not okay.
I mean, we went from selling cheat codes to banning and suing people for cheating in single player games. It seems the natural evolution of the matter.
That would be pretty rad
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
I thought Dead Rising would be a pretty huge seller, the first one seemed to do really well
Milton Bradley came over and raped my dog and then took a dump on the board.
It was actually the high point of the game to be honest.
Metroid's sales don't seem bad. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Wii -- 218,100 for August 2007.
What? Cheating in single-player games is already protected. Why the hell would Blizzard care about people cheating in single-player mode? One of the main contentions is that the hackers did major damage to the online multiplayer portion of the game which millions of people paid to play.
Plus, I'd totally risk the odd warning stapled to my butt if it means hackers get gutted for breaking my damn games.
Also, 370k for just a few days is a pretty good showing for something like the Dead Rising series. Hell, that's pretty damned good. DR1 reportedly sold half a million in the first month; over 300k in just three days is definitely not bad. In comparison, Other M sold less than 200k for the month and that series has been around for ages.
Well they cared enough to ban people from the single player game for using trainers in the single player game.
Yes, I've heard the bit about the achievements and how Blizz says they're related to the multiplayer. In that case, they could have just wiped them. Or even ban them from multiplayer, which would be pretty extreme, but not as extreme as banning the single player section as well.
Except there's no evidence outside of that one guy's report. I don't get why people put so much trust into hackers when they report things like this that also just so happen to support their position. Just like how the Wii Homebrewers lied about the anti-homebrew patch bricking Wiis left and right, this one-time report of one guy getting banned (not even perma-banned) for using trainers in single player is probably a load of gooseshit.
And Blizz has already used the unlawful RAM copy deal with WoW Glider and won, so I can see it working here as well. The main basis for the argument is that by breaking the EULA the hackers are no longer legally allowed to copy the game code in RAM and thus they're violating copyright.
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/05/10/capcom_sales_targets/ A negligible amount for Japan, and about a million each for Europe and NA for this year(assuming roughly NA=EU sales-wise, assuming it will sell over 600k in NA after its first month seems to really be stretching it as it is) still leaves you with much less than 3 million. I don't think the public NPD monthly data goes back to Dead Rising's release in August 2006 so there isn't much in the way for comparison there. It appears to have sold less than a million as a 360 exclusive that year in the NA judging by the top ten software list for that year.
Edit: Found data from Capcom:
http://www.1up.com/news/90-lost-planet-dead-rising
Edit 2:
nevermind:
http://thesilentchief.com/2010/10/04/capcom-expects-dead-rising-2-to-sell-1-8m
http://thesilentchief.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sales.jpg
That is much more reasonable and seems doable.
From what I remember of bnetd, they were setting up unauthorized servers for the Warcraft 3 beta, something Blizzard had a definite interest in stopping. The implications of their case, however, are a bit
What, exactly, does the hax these haxx0rs made do? Is it a trainer? Does it break the DRM? Does it allow connection to a faux Battle.net?
Froma Blizzard PR rep to PC Gamer:
Helllllllllllp.