Support NeoGAF

[Lostconfused]

Then use hacks that let you play offline, I'd be shocked if they didn't exist. Don't use cheap half-assed trainers/hacks that still connect you to battle.net.

I guess I will have to if I ever want to do something like that. My point was that this shit really does bother me rather than I am trying to jump on some bandwagon to hate on the game.

 

[dimb]

The fact that you, as a consumer, are OK with this radical shift in the way consumer rights have worked for centuries is deeply disturbing, to say the least.

There is no radical shift. If you don't want to play online just click "play as guest". There could not be a more simple solution.

You can play SC2 whenever you want. It's really not a big deal.

 

[V_Arnold]

The fact that you, as a consumer, are OK with this radical shift in the way consumer rights have worked for centuries is deeply disturbing, to say the least.

Is it rude towards you if I say I want to throw up reading this?
That we are at a point when if Blizzard creates a near-perfect game, one that is already enjoyed by millions of players, and is basically a new e-sport in the making right now as we speak, and people are still wanting to bring out the consumer right card is baffling, to say the least.

NOBODY forces you to buy this product. This product however, is one of the BEST games in the last few years. If you do not want to be entertained, if you only enjoy stuff you are able to hack freely, you still have the freedom to NOT buy this product. Terms of usage is not something new, especially not in 2010, in an online era, where basically every SCII session is played on Blizzard's property (THEIR servers), using THEIR intellectual property (their game). I do not see how any consumer could have a right to hack their game, offline or online.

Breaking your toys at home is one thing, hacking games and/or attempting to go online with it is another.

 

[Lostconfused]

Is it rude towards you if I say I want to throw up reading this?
That we are at a point when if Blizzard creates a near-perfect game, one that is already enjoyed by millions of players, and is basically a new e-sport in the making right now as we speak, and people are still wanting to bring out the consumer right card is baffling, to say the least.

NOBODY forces you to buy this product. This product however, is one of the BEST games in the last few years. If you do not want to be entertained, if you only enjoy stuff you are able to hack freely, you still have the freedom to NOT buy this product. Terms of usage is not something new, especially not in 2010, in an online era, where basically every SCII session is played on Blizzard's property (THEIR servers), using THEIR intellectual property (their game). I do not see how any consumer could have a right to hack their game, offline or online.

Breaking your toys at home is one thing, hacking games and/or attempting to go online with it is another.

This really belongs in a different thread. One that's about used games, crazy court rulings, consumer rights and the first sale doctrine.

 

[WanderingWind]

The arguments for this have really started to shift back toward the "well, they must have been doing something online." They were not. Stop saying that, because it's simply not true, and if your argument is so so weak that you feel you have to include it to hedge your bets, so to speak, you may need to rethink your position.

 

[faceless007]

There is no radical shift. If you don't want to play online just click "play as guest". There could not be a more simple solution.

Actually there could be a more simple solution: not having to click "play as guest" but having to sign in if you want to go online. You know, the way games have worked for decades.

But that's besides the point: If I buy something, it's fucking mine and yes, I should be able to do whatever I want with it like a fucking Lego kit (besides break the law obviously); I really think anyone who disagrees with this principle is fundamentally anti-consumer and I hope this mindset dies in a fire. Now if there's an additional service component to a product on top of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be terms on the service, but if I have to agree to those terms in order to use the offline product in the first place, and if my use of the offline product is tied to obedience to those terms (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case, but I'm very worried about the precedent it sets), then the company can go fuck themselves.

 

[tiff]

Oh and can we please stop with the horrible attitude of ''I dont care about achievements so nobody else should either'' - People put a lot of time and effort into games like this to unlock rewards so why should all that be undermined by people looking for quick and easy access?

You want that sweet new armour or portrait? Earn it.

so "I dont care about achievements so nobody else should either" is horrible, but "I care about achievements so everybody else should" is fine? i don't see why the enjoyment you derive from working hard to unlock rewards has to be devalued by people who don't really care to earn shit in video games.

 

[Somnid]

The arguments for this have really started to shift back toward the "well, they must have been doing something online." They were not. Stop saying that, because it's simply not true, and if your argument is so so weak that you feel you have to include it to hedge your bets, so to speak, you may need to rethink your position.

You have to connect online for Blizzard to ban you.

 

[Minsc]

Actually there could be a more simple solution: not having to click "play as guest" but having to sign in if you want to go online. You know, the way games have worked for decades.

But that's besides the point: If I buy something, it's fucking mine and yes, I should be able to do whatever I want with it like a fucking Lego kit (besides break the law obviously); I really think anyone who disagrees with this principle is fundamentally anti-consumer and I hope this mindset dies in a fire. Now if there's an additional service component to a product on top of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be terms on the service, but if I have to agree to those terms in order to use the offline product in the first place, and if my use of the offline product is tied to obedience to those terms (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case, but I'm very worried about the precedent it sets), then the company can go fuck themselves.

Calling online play an additional service to SC2 is pretty :lol It's really the primary service of the game. It's the campaign that is the additional service.

 

[notworksafe]

Actually there could be a more simple solution: not having to click "play as guest" but having to sign in if you want to go online. You know, the way games have worked for decades.

But that's besides the point: If I buy something, it's fucking mine and yes, I should be able to do whatever I want with it like a fucking Lego kit (besides break the law obviously); I really think anyone who disagrees with this principle is fundamentally anti-consumer and I hope this mindset dies in a fire. Now if there's an additional service component to a product on top of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be terms on the service, but if I have to agree to those terms in order to use the offline product in the first place, and if my use of the offline product is tied to obedience to those terms (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case, but I'm very worried about the precedent it sets), then the company can go fuck themselves.

Guess what, the Guest button is the offline portion of the game. In there you can use hacks, cheats, trainers, hex editors, whatever the hell you want to use.

But when you put in your account info and click "Log In", you are using the online service. Don't be stupid and use those hacks etc while playing with your online account and use them to get achievements.

 

[WanderingWind]

You have to connect online for Blizzard to ban you.

You have to connect once every, what, 30 days or something to play, period. That doesn't mean they were using hacks to cheat online, which is what some have implied or out right said. There is a reasonable disagreement counter to the topic, but making up shit on either side isn't it.

 

[notworksafe]

You have to connect once every, what, 30 days or something to play, period. That doesn't mean they were using hacks to cheat online, which is what some have implied or out right said. There is a reasonable disagreement counter to the topic, but making up shit on either side isn't it.

He was using hacks in single player while logged into the online service with his BNet account. He could have just used the Guest account instead, but he chose not to do so. He was stupid and got his account suspended for 14 days. He's probably using those exact same hacks/trainers offline right now without any issue...which he could have just done in the first place and not have had these issues.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

But when you put in your account info and click "Log In", you are using the online service.

My apologies for entering this thread very, very late, but is it safe to assume that the use of the trainer could be detected at the time of logon, and the person could just be denied entry into Battle.Net as opposed to being banned after the fact? If so, that would -- in my mind at least -- mitigate any complaints about the implications of this. Of course, I'm probably missing something here, as this topic is moving very fast.

 

[notworksafe]

I'm not sure about that. I know that WoW uses a program called Warden to detect hacks/cheats but that the hacks have to run for long enough for Warden to determine them to be cheating and not just weird behavior. Not sure how long that is...but it's not so fast that you could be kicked off right away.

 

[WanderingWind]

He was using hacks in single player while logged into the online service with his BNet account. He could have just used the Guest account instead, but he chose not to do so. He was stupid and got his account suspended for 14 days. He's probably using those exact same hacks/trainers offline right now without any issue...which he could have just done in the first place and not have had these issues.

Yes...and? Was he cheating online? No.

 

[Painraze]

My apologies for entering this thread very, very late, but is it safe to assume that the use of the trainer could be detected at the time of logon, and the person could just be denied entry into Battle.Net as opposed to being banned after the fact? If so, that would -- in my mind at least -- mitigate any complaints about the implications of this. Of course, I'm probably missing something here, as this topic is moving very fast.

I'm not sure how this specific hack works, but it's probably quite possible for someone to login to battle.net every 30 days to keep their guest login working and not get caught. Perhaps if there was a way to quickly disable and then enable it after logging back out.

 

[Minsc]

Yes...and? Was he cheating online? No.

And you'd want to play on an online server were people are permitted to use hacks? I don't care if he's cheating in a vs match or not, if he's logged in to battle.net with a hack, then good riddens.

 

[WanderingWind]

And you'd want to play on an online server were people are permitted to use hacks?

...what? Jesus, people. Put down the strawmen and step away from the logical fallacies.

No, as has been said roughly a million times, nobody is advocated allowing cheating in MP matches.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

Yes...and? Was he cheating online? No.

Yes, he was. He was logged in to battle.net using a compromised game client. He was online and cheating. He was cheating online.

 

[notworksafe]

Yes...and? Was he cheating online? No.

He was cheating the achievement system, which is synced online. So yes, his cheats were affecting things online. Blizzard is avoiding the Xbox achievement cheating problems by cutting this junk off right away. Valve's VAC prevents achievement hacks as well, from what I understand...so it's not like this is just Blizzard.

Like I said, if he wanted to hack in cheats there is a way to do that. He chose to go the way where he would get caught...and he got caught.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I'm not sure about that. I know that WoW uses a program called Warden to detect hacks/cheats but that the hacks have to run for long enough for Warden to determine them to be cheating and not just weird behavior. Not sure how long that is...but it's not so fast that you could be kicked off right away.

Well, I'm just not sure how these trainers are supposed to work. A hacked .exe file should be able to be detected at login.

Anyway, I'm just thinking back to Diablo 2 where, after messing around with a widescreen hack, it conveniently just denied me the ability to play on Battle.net's servers. So, if I needed to get back online, it was a simple matter of uninstalling the widescreen mod. But I'm not sure of the specifics involved in these trainers and Blizzard's detection of them.

 

[WanderingWind]

He was cheating the achievement system, which is synced online. Blizzard is avoiding the Xbox achievement cheating problems by cutting this junk off right away.

Like I said, if he wanted to hack in cheats there is a way to do that. He chose to go the way where he would get caught...and he got caught.

For one, stop saying the singular "he." They, because more than one account was banned. Secondly, prove the bolded. We have no information that supports what types of hacks or cheats were banned. Lastly, prove how IF somebody was using cheats to inflate their achievements in single player mode it affects you in any way.

Yes, he was. He was logged in to battle.net using a compromised game client. He was online and cheating. He was cheating online.

No. They were not cheating online. Period.

 

[Somnid]

Yes...and? Was he cheating online? No.

It's a matter of program-aided system abuse, not direct competitive cheating.

 

[notworksafe]

Well, I'm just not sure how these trainers are supposed to work. A hacked .exe file should be able to be detected at login.

Anyway, I'm just thinking back to Diablo 2 where, after messing around with a widescreen hack, it conveniently just denied me the ability to play on Battle.net's servers. So, if I needed to get back online, it was a simple matter of uninstalling the widescreen mod. But I'm not sure of the specifics involved in these trainers and Blizzard's detection of them.

Hm...many WoW hacks are run from outside programs that interact with the WoW files to avoid the detection of a hacked exe. Maybe this is the same thing?

 

[BobsRevenge]

Is it rude towards you if I say I want to throw up reading this?
That we are at a point when if Blizzard creates a near-perfect game, one that is already enjoyed by millions of players, and is basically a new e-sport in the making right now as we speak, and people are still wanting to bring out the consumer right card is baffling, to say the least.

NOBODY forces you to buy this product. This product however, is one of the BEST games in the last few years. If you do not want to be entertained, if you only enjoy stuff you are able to hack freely, you still have the freedom to NOT buy this product. Terms of usage is not something new, especially not in 2010, in an online era, where basically every SCII session is played on Blizzard's property (THEIR servers), using THEIR intellectual property (their game). I do not see how any consumer could have a right to hack their game, offline or online.

Breaking your toys at home is one thing, hacking games and/or attempting to go online with it is another.

To be honest, I saw this kind of shit coming when they announced that the game was basically played within a strict ecosystem entirely controlled by Blizzard. It is the primary reason I don't plan on getting it.

 

[Painraze]

For one, stop saying the singular "he." They, because more than one account was banned. Secondly, prove the bolded. We have no information that supports what types of hacks or cheats were banned. Lastly, prove how IF somebody was using cheats to inflate their achievements in single player mode it affects you in any way.

If hackers are allowed to run wild on awards systems put in place... be it battle.net achievements, xbox live achievements, halo reach armor additions, etc it pretty much renders the entire thing useless. I'm not sure why you are so shocked when a company tries to protect that.

Sure you might think achievements are stupid but obviously many people love them. A lot of those people, however, might not like them anymore if they were easily attained through cheats thus losing all their value.

 

[Snow]

For one, stop saying the singular "he." They, because more than one account was banned. Secondly, prove the bolded. We have no information that supports what types of hacks or cheats were banned. Lastly, prove how IF somebody was using cheats to inflate their achievements in single player mode it affects you in any way.

Just read their forums. They were using this while logged in, which can get you achievements. There is also a fair amount of people on there saying they forgot to turn of the trainers when they went into a multiplayer game, which might be why they don't actually go that in depth with the guys who got a more severe ban.

 

[WanderingWind]

If hackers are allowed to run wild on awards systems put in place... be it battle.net achievements, xbox live achievements, halo reach armor additions, etc it pretty much renders the entire thing useless. I'm not sure why you are so shocked when a company tries to protect that.

Cutting out the part where you put words in my mouth. I never said achievements were useless or stupid, thanks.

Now, as to the bolded, how? Just because somebody else cheated to get the same achievements I have on my Live and Battle.net accounts, doesn't mean I didn't earn mine.

Just read their forums. They were using this while logged in, which can get you achievements. There is also a fair amount of people on there saying they forgot to turn of the trainers when they went into a multiplayer game, which might be why they don't actually go to in depth with the guys who got a more severe ban.

...and if you went online and played against somebody with cheats, of course you deserve a banhammer smackdown. Nobody is arguing against this.

 

[Minsc]

...what? Jesus, people. Put down the strawmen and step away from the logical fallacies.

No, as has been said roughly a million times, nobody is advocated allowing cheating in MP matches.

It's not a strawman, once you log in to battle.net with a compromised client, Blizzard has no way of knowing your intentions, and while you might be trustful I'm not. It is not fair to their paying customers to have hacking and cheating, so they have to actively fight it. How do they know what you or your compromised client is capable of? All they know is you're breaking the rules, and are playing on unlevel ground from everyone else. Battle.net seems to be a community where cheating and hacks are not allowed, if you don't like that, don't go on Battle.net.

 

[thetrin]

Good.
It is 2010, stop messing with trainers, using any kind of hacks. Game integrity is more important than an easy way out.

(And if Blizzard have included manually accessable achievement-off type cheats, let us face it: the majority of the gamers would be incapable of the basic decision making in the early game, and would just blindly mass even more than needed. They would never learn macro and micro, and that is not a good way to jumpstart an RTS community.)

Good lord :lol

Your post is the very definition of nerd rage.

It's not a strawman, once you log in to battle.net with a compromised client, Blizzard has no way of knowing your intentions, and while you might be trustful I'm not. It is not fair to their paying customers to have hacking and cheating, so they have to actively fight it. How do they know what you or your compromised client is capable of? All they know is you're breaking the rules, and are playing on unlevel ground from everyone else. Battle.net seems to be a community where cheating and hacks are not allowed, if you don't like that, don't go on Battle.net.

You realize they can tell where exactly people are cheating, right? They don't need to ban people playing single player because it spins out of control later, or some other silly argument.

 

[Painraze]

To be honest, I saw this kind of shit coming when they announced that the game was basically played within a strict ecosystem entirely controlled by Blizzard. It is the primary reason I don't plan on getting it.

I find it odd that you would want to miss out on a great game simply because you are scared of Blizzard. What do you think is going to happen? Is this some sort of principle? Why can't you just play the game and enjoy it for what it is?

 

[-COOLIO-]

For one, stop saying the singular "he." They, because more than one account was banned. Secondly, prove the bolded. We have no information that supports what types of hacks or cheats were banned. Lastly, prove how IF somebody was using cheats to inflate their achievements in single player mode it affects you in any way.



No. They were not cheating online. Period.

technically he was cheating online, if he pulled is ethernet cable this could not have happened. you might want to argue that he wasnt cheating competitively.

 

[Londa]

loving this melt down. TBH, if you are going to cheat expect to be caught.

 

[WanderingWind]

It's not a strawman, once you log in to battle.net with a compromised client, Blizzard has no way of knowing your intentions, and while you might be trustful I'm not. It is not fair to their paying customers to have hacking and cheating, so they have to actively fight it. How do they know what you or your compromised client is capable of? All they know is you're breaking the rules, and are playing on unlevel ground from everyone else. Battle.net seems to be a community where cheating and hacks are not allowed, if you don't like that, don't go on Battle.net.

...good god. Look, once again. I am only speaking about single player. Single player. Not multiplayer. Single. Alone. Starcraft masturbation. By yourself. Not against another person.

technically he was cheating online, if he pulled is ethernet cable this could not have happened. you might want to argue that he wasnt cheating competitively.

Semantic hairsplitting, and one that has been mentioned several times over. I agree though. Just for clarification, I am not arguing against multiplayer cheating bans.

 

[thetrin]

If hackers are allowed to run wild on awards systems put in place... be it battle.net achievements, xbox live achievements, halo reach armor additions, etc it pretty much renders the entire thing useless. I'm not sure why you are so shocked when a company tries to protect that.

Sure you might think achievements are stupid but obviously many people love them. A lot of those people, however, might not like them anymore if they were easily attained through cheats thus losing all their value.

You do realize people game achievements all the time, right? just because you're not hacking the game, and merely looking for a glitch or a simple spot in the game to do something repeatedly doesn't make it any less "gaming" the system.

 

[notworksafe]

...good god. Look, once again. I am only speaking about single player. Single player. Not multiplayer. Single. Alone. Starcraft masturbation. By yourself. Not against another person..

But you are speaking of one case in many. As was stated, some took the hacks online in MP. Some used them to get achievements. Some (probably) used them in offline guest mode. This alone shows that there are many use cases for these hacks. Blizzard has no idea what you will do with these hacks. so they are taking the easy route and suspending (not banning) accunts that that used the hacks while online with BNet (in SP or MP).

 

[Felix Lighter]

Now, as to the bolded, how? Just because somebody else cheated to get the same achievements I have on my Live and Battle.net accounts, doesn't mean I didn't earn mine.

It's impossible to prove that you earned yours legitimately and a big part of achievement systems is the ability to show others what you accomplished.

 

[Shanadeus]

BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU

I guess since this in their tos, you wouldnt complain since you agreed to it?

Banning someone surely needs to be proportional? Why not just ban him from achievements? Lock it down so he cant get any ever?

Instead his account is banned, he cannot play the game in single player or multiplayer, all for getting some stupid accouterments with a trainer.

And the TOS is only applicable so long as the actual laws in society doesn't say otherwise.
I don't know what it's like in the US but the above would not fly in Europe.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I find it odd that you would want to miss out on a great game simply because you are scared of Blizzard. What do you think is going to happen? Is this some sort of principle? Why can't you just play the game and enjoy it for what it is?

Yes, its some sort of principle. The shit is offensive. I'm not paying $60 for a game to be told how I can play it. Its really that simple. $40? Maybe. For $60 I want some goddamn freedom. Its strange that this tends to be reversed. You generally pay more to get weak shit like MW2's MP and AC2's retarded DRM crippling.

I have a shitload of great games to play, so I have no problem skipping one that would make me feel like I'm compromising with a company to allow me to play it. Its really insulting to me.

 

[Alex]

I fail to see how this is any sort of controversy to anyone who actually understands what happened and doesn't just want to act offended for the sake of acting offended.

Don't connect to servers with hacked up files or trainers, this isn't some insane new concept to anyone with a fucking brain in their skull.

Lastly, prove how IF somebody was using cheats to inflate their achievements in single player mode it affects you in any way.

Because the developer runs a pretty extensive profiling and achievement system and doesn't want it filled with hacked up bullshit? Even as someone who hates achievements/trophies, I support that.

You can stay offline if you want to mess with that stuff, letting anyone connect to your servers with modified files for any reason just starts a bad precedent.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

...good god. Look, once again. I am only speaking about single player. Single player. Not multiplayer. Single. Alone. Starcraft masturbation. By yourself. Not against another person.

Semantic hairsplitting, and one that has been mentioned several times over. I agree though. Just for clarification, I am not arguing against multiplayer cheating bans.

You are unwilling to accept that the single player has a valuable online component, though, which is why the single player is a controlled environment and cheating in that environment renders bans. If you want to cheat outside of that environment, there are a wealth of options available to you that will not result in bans. You can do it offline-only through the guest login. You can use the in-game cheats. Or you can use the included, robust map editor to change the game to your liking.

 

[JoeMartin]

Achievements are the worst fucking thing to happen to gaming.

 

[Painraze]

Now, as to the bolded, how? Just because somebody else cheated to get the same achievements I have on my Live and Battle.net accounts, doesn't mean I didn't earn mine.

It takes away any competition that might evolve from gaining achievements. For your own personal satisfaction it might still be okay but when you start to do comparisons the whole system breaks down if its compromised.

 

[notworksafe]

Yes, its some sort of principle. The shit is offensive. I'm not paying $60 for a game to be told how I can play it. Its really that simple. $40? Maybe. For $60 I want some goddamn freedom. Its strange that this tends to be reversed. You generally pay more to get weak shit like MW2's MP and AC2's retarded DRM crippling.

I have a shitload of great games to play, so I have no problem skipping one that would make me feel like I'm compromising with a company to allow me to play it. Its really insulting to me.

Do you play anything on Xbox Live, Steam, or PSN? Because they have similar rules when it comes to using hacks while connected online.

EDIT: Don't forget any MMO ever as well. You aren't allowed to hack those while online either.

 

[brain_stew]

Fucking achievements.

 

[faceless007]

Is it rude towards you if I say I want to throw up reading this?

Not at all, since your post made me want to throw up too.

It doesn't matter how awesome a game Blizzard made; they could make a game that gives you blowjobs while predicting the next winning lottery tickets for you and it would still be a consumer product subject to the same consumer protection laws every other product is and any attempt by companies to undermine that with draconian EULAs should be rejected swiftly. You seriously think "consumer rights" are subservient to getting an awesome game? And people wonder were the perception comes from that gamers are such immature, easily swayed fanboys who hold allegiances to corporations. You probably think DRM is awesome too.

I do not see how any consumer could have a right to hack their game, offline or online.

Really, I want to reply to this but I'd probably get banned. If you had just said "online" I wouldn't have a (big) problem with it, but since you included "offline" as well, fuck. that. What part of "it's mine" don't you understand? The ability to hack, reverse engineer, mod, create derivative works and remix something are all constitutionally-protected rights that no company should be able to undermine with 20 pages of legalese. It doesn't matter how good a game it is, that doesn't make Blizzard an exemption from consumer rights laws.

Your stance is even more draconian than Blizzard's since (for the time being, at least) they've restricted their attention to people gaming part of the online service. You would have them police the offline as well. No, just no.

 

[Painraze]

Yes, its some sort of principle. The shit is offensive. I'm not paying $60 for a game to be told how I can play it. Its really that simple. $40? Maybe. For $60 I want some goddamn freedom. Its strange that this tends to be reversed. You generally pay more to get weak shit like MW2's MP and AC2's retarded DRM crippling.

I have a shitload of great games to play, so I have no problem skipping one that would make me feel like I'm compromising with a company to allow me to play it. Its really insulting to me.

Funny, I've been playing SC2 for months and Blizzard has never once told me how I should play the game. What freedom are you given in other games that you don't have here?

 

[WanderingWind]

But you are speaking of one case in many. As was stated, some took the hacks online in MP. Some used them to get achievements. Some (probably) used them in offline guest mode. This alone shows that there are many use cases for these hacks. Blizzard has no idea what you will do with these hacks. so they are taking the easy route and suspending (not banning) accunts that that used the hacks while online with BNet (in SP or MP).

Okay, and we're not talking about the people who competed unfairly with cheats. They deserve death. Harsh enough to get the point across that I do not support multiplayer cheats? We're talking about the people banned from a game they purchased who are unable to play the game. And no, Guest doesn't work unless you've set it up online in advance. Something I just tried. Luckily, I don't use hacks or anything and can still go online to get my ass kicked by some 14 year old if I want...

It's impossible to prove that you earned yours legitimately and a big part of achievement systems is the ability to show others what you accomplished.

It's also impossible to prove that your brother didn't earn them, or you bought the account, or you used a glitch, etc. Either way, how does somebody having more achievements or a better score affect you?

 

[Minsc]

...good god. Look, once again. I am only speaking about single player. Single player. Not multiplayer. Single. Alone. Starcraft masturbation. By yourself. Not against another person.

You just don't like the fact that the single player game has been made in to an online component as well as an offline one. You can do whatever you'd like in the offline mode, but when you log in to battle.net, you're signing in to an account where you agree to follow all the same set of rules as everyone else. Battle.net provides a level playing field, and if you don't want that, don't use battle.net.

You are arguing against there being a system where the playing field is level, and your abilities are tested in an environment that is as closed as they can make it. They don't want to allow hacks and cheats because that undermines the equality battle.net brings to the table, even in SP.

 

[Painraze]

It doesn't matter how awesome a game Blizzard made; they could make a game that gives you blowjobs while predicting the next winning lottery tickets for you and it would still be a consumer product subject to the same consumer protection laws every other product is and any attempt by companies to undermine that with draconian EULAs should be rejected swiftly. You seriously think "consumer rights" are subservient to getting an awesome game? And people wonder were the perception comes from that gamers are such immature, easily swayed fanboys who hold allegiances to corporations. You probably think DRM is awesome too.

I guess some people just want to enjoy good games. I've spent well over 200 hours on a game I only paid $60 for. My investment seems pretty good from a consumer standpoint. You keep fighting the good fight though... let us know how that works out.