Is this legal?

I'm thinking of changing the .ini file to change what it says when I use a macro button (e.g. calling targets). What I'm wondering is, is this legal, or can it get me banned for hacking (even though it has no gameplay effect)?

Also, if I put an emote in the .ini file, will it work? For example, if I put "/point" for the target-calling macro, will I actually do the point emote or will I just say "/point"?

-_-

I'd ask someone at ANet or read the EULA. It probably says something about how altering isn't allowed.

Personally, I'm wondering what INI file he's talking about. I just looked in my Guildwars folder and I don't see an INI file in there. Of course, that could also be just because I'm running on the downloaded version from the guildwars website back when they did the GWE

Everything in Guild Wars gets streamed into a .DAT file. There is no .INI file unless you're opening up the .DAT file. In that case it probably is against the EULA.

I wouldnt try it, why do u want to change it anyways just to look smart to other ppl, if it has no effect to the gameplay whats the point anyways, why risk it? what is the purpose? is that just what u do for fun?

Also, if they detect a change to the .dat file, it'll stream down a new one. So it'd not do much good anyway.

EULAs of this sort are of questionable legality, and are on even worse moral standing.


You'd probably just get a warning anyway, but you might not want to risk it. It depends how much the 50 bucks for the game means to you.

If you were punished for it, they would just be being jackasses though. Unless you changed it to something racist or otherwise offensive.

Pop

It doesn't HURT anything either.

Dyes don't do anything for game play, but black dye sells for over 3p.


Poppinjay

Questionable legality? They own the servers, they can kick you off if they want.

Not illegal but Defiantly against EULA... so basically forget it... It took several hours on the phone to get some accounts reactivated with them, which A-Net did Amazingly... So don't risk it... just play as normal. A-net is tightening their banning process down... Technically speaking any change of the ini can be conceived in two ways.. one a bot , the other is a mod to the game. both will get your account flagged... so THIS should be enough to be considered a warning of such...

They are of questionable legality for several reasons. Here are just 3.

#1. The user never sees the agreement until AFTER the game is bought and paid for. This coupled with the fact that stores seldom take returns on games and getting a refund would be a real hassle, makes it an agreement made under duress.

#2. Contracts made my people under 18 are not binding, and you don't have to be over 18 to buy the game.

#3. There is no telling who pressing the okay button for the agreement. It might not be the purchaser. He or she might be drunk and unable to sign a contract. Maybe the purchasers child installed the game for him (see #2) or any number of other circumstances.

I am aware that courts are often upholding these agreements but doing so is in error, harmful to the economy, has no moral foundation, and is largely influenced by the fact that politicians are company-friendly because they get money from corporations, and thus the judges they put into office (when they are appointed) also favor corporations over people.

The moral problems with this are much more numerous. I talked about them in another post, so will not repeat them here.

Poppinjay

I had to wait to reply, so I could stop laughing. Where did you get your law degree so as to be able to second guess the courts? Last I heard, they interpret the law. But, thanks for a good laugh.

berryesw, I like the way you countered his points with real arguments. /sarcasm

'Last I heard, they interpret the law'

--------------------------------------

I think you are missing the point of what Poppinjay was saying. Let me put it this way if a court in say Iran had someone's hand removed for theft of bread then it is ok because the court said so because 'they interpret the law'

It is the the lay persons responsibility to interpret the law as well and we must not all submit to to a judge as they are infallable otherwise why would we have appeal courts?

I personaly agree with Poppinjay most judge's will side with the government as from what i under stand of the American judicary, and i may be wrong, they are apointed by the executive (that being at the moment Mr. Bush) and therefore judges will be pro government.

On the case of the EULA it has never been used in a court so no one would know what would happen as 'virtual' actions are quite controversial at the moment. I think that a case using the EULA would stand a much greater chance in Korea than the US due to the culture differance surrounding games.

But as i see it the CSR's at guildwars are not going to be baning you for something like that as it does not give you any real advantage i have had friends talk to CSR's at SOE about things like client armour image hacks which they even featured as the screenshot of the day once on the SWG home page so they are in no hurry to enfource the EULA as you are someone who could buy the expansions and they are not going to ban loads of people for minor infractions as after all they need the mony to survive.

I agree with Berry 100%. PoopinJay is claiming what the courts are doing is wrong. Well, that may be his opinion, and he has a right to it, but the courts decide the law. If they say it's illegal to do something, guess what... Second guessing the courts on an issue this minor wont get you anywhere, you dont have to like it, you do have to deal with it.

A contract is a two way street. If you don't hold up your end of the deal (as in playing fair, abiding by the rules, and in some cases paying a monthly subscription) then they have the right to withhold service. This agreement is all that lets you play. If you are underage or otherwise were unable to legally accept the agreement, then the service can and will be canceled for you.

The outside of the box has a warning saying that agreeing to certain conditions/argreements must be met to play the game.

If the person still buys it, they can't play it unelss they do agree to it. Yes, they've been upheld in the courts. And yes, due to the target audience, mostly children ages for games, the partens are assumed to be allowing the play of the games.

If the person can't legally agree to the contract... then they can't legally play the game either.

But it's NOT a contract. IT's an agreement. Thus the term.

For software they're usually assuming the first definition, not the second one.

1. An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant.
2. Law.

a. A properly executed and legally binding contract.
b. The writing or document embodying this contract.

By law... a contract must say that it's a binding contract on it. An agreement says that it's an agreement. You agree to play by their rules, they agree to let you play.

But before buying the game, the labeling on the game box expressly says that to play you must agree to certain terms. Guess what... you open it, install it and then click on OK... you're agreeing to those terms.

furthermore, on point 1. The Rules of Conduct and the Terms of Agreement are both available on the website, as such, you have full access to them without ever opening the game.

5k from what i see, trader goes for 5 111 last time i checked