I was just checking out my manual as the game installs and was kind of shocked reading the map editor part of the end user license agreement for Starcraft II. Here is the part from the license concerning the editor:

3.) Map Editor. The game includes a program that allows you to create custom levels, maps, scenarios or other materials for use in connection with the game (the "Map Editor"). The following terms are specific to the Map Editor:
A. Map Content: You understand that the content required to create or modify Starcraft II modified maps (as defined below) is included in the Starcraft II game client, and that all such content is owned by Blizzard and governed by this agreement. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL MAPS, LEVELS AND OTHER CONTENT CREATED OR MODIFIED USING THE MAP EDITOR (COLLECTIVELY, "MODIFIED MAPS") ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF BLIZZARD. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, YOU HERE BY ASSIGN TO BLIZZARD ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MODIFIED MAPS, AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL EXECUTE FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS PROMPTLY UPON RECEIVING SUCH A REQUEST FROM BLIZZARD.

I mean seriously... its not a request if you are required to make future versions of a map at Blizzard's request. Basically we are all agreeing to be Blizzard's map making slaves... and they get to keep all of our creative work. At least that is what I'm reading from this. Oh yea there is a B part too but it's not as outlandish, basically though if you wanted to make racist or hateful maps or put unlawful stuff in them then you should read B before you do but otherwise A should cover you. Anyway, this makes me even less likely to want to make maps on Starcraft II I might just stick with Stacraft 1 and finish up some old projects.

Thats just plain wrong. They own your soul by you accepting it.

They can't make you update your map. What are they gonna do, ban you for not updating it? This is just silly.

If they do request you to make a new map they will probably reimburse you for your work, they wouldn't ask you to update a bad map and they will profit from popular maps so they'll want to be nice to the creator

It's the gift that keeps on giving!

Uh, you're not agreeing to do homework assignments at their request or anything like that. They're saying you have to assign to blizzard any other things (besides rights, title, and interest, that is) that they request of you. They own your shit, in other words.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 29 2010, 2:29 am by Tuxedo-Templar.

Slightly off-topic, but is it legal for you to write in a contract such as this "I hereby grant Blizzard permission to slice my fingers off for their amusement" or some crap like that?

This is one of the reasons I'm not buying the game.
Any word on the limitations of number or size of submitted maps?

Lol guys, learn to know the difference between a contract and an EULA. If you break it, you legally just can't play the game anymore. It's not a big deal whatsoever.

They can't prove you made the map with the map editor. You could have written it in a hex editor...

What about if you made games that includes names like "Naruto" or "X-men" with actual unit models based on names like those. Can they make money off of maps like that?

Edit: they probably wouldn't want your map if you did use something liek that I guess. So couldn't you use something like that as a anti-blizzard sort of thing.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/188779354

If you can, do support the thread.

I'm pretty sure this existed in SC1. And I'm also pretty sure that SC1 doesn't have as much potential as SC2 does.

This is seriously a big issue and everyone involved in modding and mapping should be taking part.

Apparently, there's already an indie developer using the editor.

The SC1 editor basically had the exact same license agreement, without the part about updating maps. And I suspect that clause is just so they can hire people off the street that make an awesome map without anyone else at Blizzard being able to bitch about it, because just forcing fans to update a map would be a PR nightmare, while hiring good mapmakers as employees would be a win-win-win.

But let's be serious here, none of you retards are ever going to have that apply to you, so why do you care?

Hydrolisk ...

You are really taking it out of porportion. Sometimes gamers think they deserve more then what they do and i think right now is one of those moments. What? Doesit not make SENSE to you that they would own it? Does it make sense that a person can use someone else work to make money off of it when you only did 20% of the work? I don't see any map with /so/ much user created content that it beats the work put into the engine.

This "BLIZZARD HAS GONE TOO FAAR!!" Is so stupid. Their are SO many uninformed gamers who read other uninformed gamers comments about blizzard and take it as legit news to tell OTHER people why Blizzard 'sucks' so much. It's a cycle. People still believe that they are going to have to pay for 3 full games when when Blizzard said:
Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn’t been determined at this early stage; however, we’ve always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.

http://www.thewarcenter.net/forum/news-125/sc2-trilogy-faq/?PHPSESSID=ivr0i5ok0ftq04fj87dq3hik75

"LOL DERP. WHAT DO YOU MEAN NONE OF THE CAMPAIGN UNITS ARE GOIGN TO BE IN ONLINE? IM NOT PAYING FOR THIS LOL BOYCOTT"

When it's just in multiplayer MELEE and with the use of the editor you would be able to use the campaign units in UMS or something. You would think after all the times peopl have been getting mad a blizzard for something and then blizzard actually fixing it that we would learn to wait on things to see how it goes later on instead of instantly labeling it as a failure and start rageposting.

Also, I doubt this would ever be invoked at least more than once in a blue moon. Even so it would be


I mean, as opposed to who else owning the full rights? You? Gtfo.

You give to blizzard all of your rights to all maps made with the included map editor, and agree that you will give blizzard all of your rights to future maps upon request.

That's all it means. You can't sell your map. If anyone legally owns the map, it's blizzard, who won't sell it either (if they do, LOL then it will be a serious problem, and if you think that the possibility of a serious problem is a serious problem, then you're paranoid).

Also, parts 2 and 3 will be expansions. WoL is a fully fledged engine, and contains all the data for the game already. If they add new units, it will be part of the expansion. Now the question is how they plan to make the multi-player feasible. They justified brood war by adding in 7 units. The next 2 parts have to add in units as well, or else people won't buy them.

Another option is that they do the extremely nice thing and price them at $20-$30 for just a campaign. Granted, that's $100-120 for the entire thing, but I'm fine with that. If they do add content, they might even just update the original WoL, so that all of the new data is available to online play, regardless of campaign installations.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 29 2010, 3:16 pm by rockz.

It makes sense that I would own it because I'm the one that broke my back over creating a map, inserting sounds, changing portraits, changing the UI, changing the unit data, etc. I'm seeing this as Blizzard having created a tool, mappers using the tool, and then the mappers being forced to give away what effort they've put into making custom files to Blizzard who created just the engine. I compare this to Company creating Screwdriver, Carpenter using Screwdriver, and then Carpenter being forced to give Product to Company.
If I did 20% of the work, then I should own that 20%. The fact that Blizzard is saying that even if I did 99% of the work 100% still belongs to them is what irks me. That, and the abusability of the clause.

???? What is this? Both Brood War and StarCraft are sold for the same price. wut? Same deal with WarCraft 3, Diablo 2, and their expansion packs. wut? Has there been a price difference? Lemme check...
Since I already have the D2 Battlechest and same with SC, I can only look at WC3 and it's expansion. Lo and behold, both are $19.99.
What did the expansions do? Add missions, add a few new units, cinematics, etc. Exact same price despite it being an expansion, and 75-80% of the game is still the same. Honestly, this is not such a big issue for me.
Besides that, I never even complained about the pricing, so I have no idea why you brought it up (I was aware of that, anyway). Still, it's funny how the price is "undetermined." I take that as "they'll all be $60." However, if they're released at anything lower, I wouldn't be surprised either. Honestly, this pricing issue I could care less about, but I'm putting my chip on that it'll be the same price.

I have no idea what is this (again)

The current clause is unreasonable in that even custom files appear to be at risk. This is what is bothering me most.

So I dunno why you just brought up a bunch of arbitrary topics that are months old. That stuff was worth talking about when SC2 was first announced and shit, but not so much now.

NOW, TO SYPHON.

Yea, pretty much the same for SC1 except for a more powerful game engine, more powerful tool, a premium map marketplace (still dunno where this is going, I would like details on how this is going), etc... Not like any of that stuff matters, except when they all come together in the same game. It has a ton of potential for abuse, just like forks. I doubt that they'd force someone to slave away on a map, and what you're suggesting is probably viable, but the clause could use some work to apply more specifically to such situations.
As it is now, it's an umbrella clause, which is a pretty good poker face, IMO. They could be hiding nothing, or they could be hiding something.

Let's be serious here, none of you examples of mediocrity would ever get murdered, so why should you care if murderers were or were not punished, and to whatever extent, right?

Good job being a dick.

I brought up those topics to make a point


o rly? so then why don't we...



? I don't see any map with /so/ much user created content that it beats the work put into the engine.


They are letting you use their engine.


If you really did that much work compared to blizzards part (the engine) then the jokes on you because then you are probably using the wrong engine. Anyways if thats the price they are giving of letting us use the engine then cool because they aren't going to "LOL WERE GONNA TAKE ALL THE MAPS SO THAT OUR DEVS CAN PLAY THEM AND YOU CAN'T" or whatever misconception you are imagining. Don't forget about PR. I think we should just forgot about this topic and wait for official statements regarding your 'concerns'.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 29 2010, 3:29 pm by MadZombie.

The faster we label it as a failure, the faster that Blizzard knows we hate it.

Just like what happened to original SC2 graphics from way back (I can't tell the difference, but something happened apparently) (same with D3, something happened apparently), and Real ID.

Hell, everyone was so fast when Real ID came up that it figuratively exploded upon itself, sucked back into the maws of Blizzard (in Hell).

Since you bought the battle chests, it's clear you haven't been playing blizzard games more than a decade.

Starcraft sold for $50 (I got it for $30 on some special deal). Brood War sold for $30.
Diablo II sold for $60. Lord of Destruction sold for $30.
I forget how much Diablo and hellfire were.
WC3 was $60. Expansions were either $40 or $30.
I think WoW was $40, and each expansion was the same. However, considering this is about a pay 2 play MMORPG, I consider it different from standard games.

$60 for an expansion is absurd. If they do charge that much, it will be astounding.

It can't be 60. Only 59 or below since they claimed it would be "expansion price" and not "full price". Implies it will cost less but yea they still haven't thought about the price so who knows. Would be lulz if they priced it over 60 and said "Well we said we weren't gonna price it the same price as wings of liberty :coolface:"

Okay, that's cool rockz. Thanks for clarification. But, you know, that was before the Activision-Blizzard merger.

EDIT: that would be lul MZ

They wouldn't make an official statement if there wasn't any concern in the first place. But, see it this way: if I overreact and get everybody to overreact REALLY quickly, then they'll have no choice but to make an official statement, otherwise suffer negative PR. And then once they do, they can't go back on their word, or they suffer negative PR.

You know, I was going to make an example of an analogy regarding me and Hitler, but I guess not. Took us 19 posts to get to Hitler, BTW.

Anyway, what I'm trying to do is force Blizzard PR into a corner for the good of the StarCraft community.

EDIT:
If they actually price HotS higher I'd expect a really crazy campaign with 50 missions, 400 cutscenes, and 42 cinematics, and 360 extra side missions.