Blizzard starts Diablo 3 bans for hacking, botting
Blizzard has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo III accounts associated with hacking or botting. Earlier in the day, a post on the game's official site reemphasized the company's stance on cheating.
Blizzard doesn't tolerate cheaters. Or hackers or botters for that matter. To make the point, Blizzard said today that it has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo 3 accounts suspected of taking unfair advantage in the game or exploiting loopholes in the game that violate the terms of service.
Community Manager Zarhym said in a post on the official forums that players were suspended or banned because they were "in violation of the Battle.net Terms of Use for cheating and/or using botting or hacking programs while playing." The post also noted that additional bans could be coming if Blizzard's monitoring uncovers more evidence of cheating.
Blizzard had warned some sort of action was in the offing, reemphasizing it's policy about cheats and hacks in a news post. Reports have been rampant of an exploit in the auction house that allows players to duplicate items, and Blizzard supposedly took servers offline to fix the problem.
With the launch of the real-money auction house coming soon and set to require an authenticator, Blizzard is making it clear that it won't tolerate anyone messing with the in-game economy.
-
John Keefer posted a new article, Blizzard starts Diablo 3 bans for hacking, botting.
Blizzard has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo III accounts associated with hacking or botting. Earlier in the day, a post on the game's official site reemphasized the company's stance on cheating.-
-
-
-
-
-
bullshit, it's always down 5am till 9am PDT, just to fuck with Australian peak playing times.. At least they bring it back at 1am just for a buttfucking lag death reminder.
"Oh look you are standing in shit that will kill you in 500ms, but we won't tell you about it for 400ms JUST to give you enough time to MOVE far enough away from the shit you are standing in so it looks like you are NOT standing in it.. THEN WE KILL YOU.. HAHA". fuckers fuck you fucking blizzard /madbro
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I had just as much fun playing through the beta as I did act 1 of D3, and I appreciate that the overworld tilesets are actually random and not static every time.
I'll still be playing Diablo 3 longer, but I'd say yeah, T2 is a great game.
I don't understand the folks who think there can only be one. -
-
Oh, I'm not mad at all. I think T2 will be a solid game, but it just isn't in the same league as D3, nor should it be. I've already per-purchased T2 because I think it is fun. But please, don't kid yourself into thinking that T2 has more to offer than D3. T2 is a huge bargain for $20, no doubts about it. But it just doesn't have same staying power as D3. Regardless, I will be playing both for a long time to come.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Countdown to banned players banding together for a class action lawsuit because now they can't play the game they purchased AT ALL. And probably winning.
Not that I'm rooting for these asshats. However, banning someone from your online service is one thing. If they can't play well with the community, they can play with themselves. Banning that renders the $60 program you just purchased useless? That's kind of a horse of a different color. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit recently that the plaintiffs won?-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Afaik in Germany EULAs are only part of the contract agreement if the buyer has seen and agreed to it before buying the product from the seller. In Switzerland its the same, EULAs that have not been presented to the consumer before buying a product are legally not binding. STILL its Blizzards product and they can ban people from bnet as they see appropriate, these guys wouldn't stand a chance.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As I mentioned below, stating they would "probably win" was likely overstating it. But with the way a civil suit works in this country, if someone gets one through the door it's really rolling the dice to the initial verdict.
Even if they did get a case to court and won, that's not saying it would stand up on appeal. I'd just not be surprised in the slightest to see "Banned players sue Blizzard and win" in the headlines six months from now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not a lawyer but a lot of how binding a contract is comes down to interpretation in a contract and how legally binding a EULA is, is currently murky. One group tries to claim that breaking a EULA constitutes computer fraud. Other groups are trying to push that a EULA is too one sided.
Perhaps "probably" is overstating it but would you really be surprised if a judge out there somewhere ruled in favor of the banned because he doesn't really get videogames/software/computers/technology?
-
-
-
-
-
-