Gil stolen through market board

[MilkieTea]

Do you think that would be grounds for suspension as outlined in the third party software clause in the TOS? Do you think autoclickers have no accessibility utility.?

The 3rd party software clause in the ToS that you agree to upon paying for the game is very clear on what is considered grounds for suspension. That you would consistently argue as though it isn't is indicative of nothing more than your inability (or perhaps deliberate refusal) to read and understand this clause. Despite everyone in this thread clearly, again and again, explaining that said software clause does not indicate a lack of support for accessibility SOFTWARE (which does not mean downloading an autoclicker with intent to disrupt others gameplay by means of setting your autoclicker to click at intervals unable to be achieved by human means, in the background, and losing track of it so much so that you somehow do not see someone setting up their home, and a retainer, in front of you.)

You may not create or use any unauthorized cheats, bots, automation software, hacks, mods or any other unauthorized software or hardware designed to modify the Game and gameplay.

An autoclicker used to run a game in the background while you go about your life, would fall under this, as while it does not modify the game, it modifies the gameplay.

An accessibility software utilized by a person(s) with a disability would NOT fall under said category as it does not, nor is it designed to modify the game NOR is it designed to modify the gameplay. It is instead designed to assist a user in accomplishing TYPICAL gameplay which they otherwise would be wholly restricted from doing so.

TYPICAL gameplay does not include setting it to run in the background.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the differences between the two, and your readiness to conflate the two to support your narrative, indicates an argument of bad faith.

Additionally, you've built up this strawman of a disabled person using an autoclicker for... what reason?

See? Me can big word too and say same thing as can say in tiny word: Disabled people do not exist for you to use as your argument.

[Awha]

Tbh this is kinda moot. If a person is using an auto clicker for accessibility unless they tell people in game and shout from the mountain tops they should be fine and no one will really know.

[Kes13a]

As it happens, I'd say what I generally want to do is play the game and interact with other people fairly and equitably. I mostly trust myself to do this. I imagine a ToS will generally line up with that and can likewise be mostly trusted to represent a fair set of agreements for people to abide by. But let's not pretend these are commandments handed down from god, or moral absolutes argued from first principles, or that unpredicted cases can't arise - and let's not pretend like this thread's decision on what the ToS says is the correct interpretation as a consequence of this thread being in agreement with itself. If there was a subset of players who required a tool excluded by definition due to a disability, that would be better if it were changed - or ignored because the needs of players in that case outweigh the value in obedience to a rule which would consequently exclude them from normal play.

what you are ignoring, is that tools used for accessibility, and not typically used to automate gameplay, they are used to allow gameplay to the same level as someone without a disability.

your argument in this direction is flawed.

use of third party software to gain an advantage over people who are going about their "fair and equitable" gameplay is cheating.

cheating is generally considered by most, aside from yourself and a few others who feel rules dont apply to them, to be bad.

sorry, you have not come up with any applicable examples to convince me that cheating is good for anyone but the cheater.

[Packetdancer]

If your argument is that the housing system is broken... cool, congrats, 100% of the people are in agreement with you, thread ends.

If your argument is that the TOS seem to be written in an overly broad manner, you're correct there, too; that's also deliberate. It is often easier to write a broad TOS and apply it selectively than it is to write one that targets only the specific instances.

If they wrote the TOS in painstaking detail to allow specific types of third party tools (shader injection and accessibility tools, let's say) but to deny others, people would start looking for loopholes in the TOS; ways that they could twist words to justify bots that allowed them to play the game in an automated manner -- to gain advantages over other players, economic or other, potentially without having to be present at all.

And because words are imperfect and people are clever, some would find them. And then Square-Enix would have to rewrite the TOS again each time, etc.

I speak from sad personal experience on this, from my time in the games industry; if you write a very precise TOS, people will find 'clever' phrasing loopholes and force you to constantly rewrite it.

But in saying simply somethiing akin to "use of unauthorized third-party apps is prohibited, and may result in corrective disciplinary measures at the discretion of the publisher", they have complete freedom to enforce as they see fit. No matter what people come up with as a third-party tool to automate playing is going to be potentially covered.

Sure, technically third-party tools to help with gaming accessibility would be prohibited under this phrasing as well... but the publisher will never enforce that.

I mean, ReShade and similar tools are technically prohibited under the phrasing of the current TOS. Yet the devs have said outright -- in threads in this forum, even -- that they will never enforce TOS against ReShade and such, and FFXIV is even on the list of officially-supported games for Nvidia Freestyle (Nvidia's variant of ReShade that hooks into the drivers directly) with Square-Enix's blessing. (Though you could argue that in the case of Freestyle, it counts as an 'authorized' third-party tool since FFXIV is on the list of officially-supported games on the Nvidia website.)

They have demonstrated that they are happy to see people find ways to play the game more accessibly, so if you have someone with a macro-driven gamepad or a gaming keyboard with macro keys, they will not care. Unless you are using the software to literally play the game for you, it is not something they're super concerned about.

(And even then, their understaffed NA support team seems unwilling to act on accusations of botting unless they have actual incontrovertible proof of it. Presumably because if they make a mistake, it's even more time involved to reverse it... and see previous 'understaffed' comment. Which is a significant problem, but not immediately relevant to an explanation of the evident intent of the TOS.)

If your argument is, however, that there is zero difference between accessibility tools intended to allow someone to sit there and play the game more easily and tools which automate playing the game entirely (allowing you to walk away and let the game continue to play itself), then I have to agree with others that you're either not reading the thread, or are arguing in bad faith and trying to hold up accessibility as a shield.

Because people have explained, repeatedly, that there is a fundamental difference of intention between "this tool helps me to actively play the game by overcoming some issue that otherwise prevents me from doing so" and "welp, I started this program, time to let it harvest everything in the Diadem for two hours while I go binge Neflix". In one case, you are sitting there actively playing; in the other, you are letting something else play the game on your behalf while you wander off to do other things.

It is, as I tried to illustrate earlier, the difference between cruise control and self-driving cars.

Square-Enix is demonstrably, publicly fine with cruise control. If they can prove you're using the equivalent of a self-driving car, they are not okay with that.

Even if your 'scotch-tape-and-mouse' method you keep bringing up were to work (it wouldn't, for a variety of technical reasons not relevant here), it still comes down to intent. Let's pretend it would work; if you were taping down the mouse button so that you could walk away for two hours and let the game play itself, that would come down to the 'self-driving car' scenario.

If you were taping down the button because you, the person at the keys, are unable to click the mouse button and you use this technique to (somehow) make the game more playable as you are sitting there, actively looking at the monitor and making conscious choices about what you want to do in the game, that is assistive technology. That is, in effect, cruise control, and Square-Enix has demonstrated they're fine with that.

By their own words, they aren't interested in punishing the latter (accessibility) stuff, only the former (the botting).

And the fact that in this hypothetical scenario, you use the same technique to achieve the two goals is almost certainly precisely why the TOS is written so broadly: it allows them to catch the scenarios where a tool that could be useful for accessibility to someone actively playing can also be used by Cheatster "Cheaty" McCheaterson to just play the game on their behalf while they go do something else. And they can let the accessibility case slide while taking action against the fully-automated case.

It's literally one of the reasons that a test for "is this a bot" when someone is displaying seemingly automated behavior is to /tell them and see if they stop/react/respond to you.

So: third-party tools being used to make the game more accessible while you're there and playing actively are alright. Third-party tools which play the game on your behalf without you being there at all are not alright. The difference in what they aim to enforce is not a technological distinction but one of intent.

Or, when you boil it down, one of presence.

Continuing to try to argue it from a technical standpoint ignores that fact.

(And with that, I think I'm out; given the length of this post, I suspect I have said literally everything I can say in this thread.)

[Penthea]

what you are ignoring, is that tools used for accessibility, and not typically used to automate gameplay, they are used to allow gameplay to the same level as someone without a disability.

This is exactly it. Accessibility is about LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. It's not about having more accessibility than an able bodied person.

Using an autoclicker to purchase a house removes the need to stop interacting with the placard when you need to go to the toilet or sleep. Able bodied people need to go to the toilet and sleep. An autoclicker used in this manner makes the user have more advantages than an able bodied person engaging in normal gaming activity. This is why it's cheating and not engaging in accessibility.

Accessibility is supposed to enable disabled people to do something by themselves, not have it done for them.

I wish people would stop using disability to make it appear that some forms of cheating have any shred of merit.

[Kes13a]

This is exactly it. Accessibility is about LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. It's not about having more accessibility than an able bodied person.

Using an autoclicker to purchase a house removes the need to stop interacting with the placard when you need to go to the toilet or sleep. Able bodied people need to go to the toilet and sleep. An autoclicker used in this manner makes the user have more advantages than an able bodied person engaging in normal gaming activity. This is why it's cheating and not engaging in accessibility.

Accessibility is supposed to enable disabled people to do something by themselves, not have it done for them.

I wish people would stop using disability to make it appear that some forms of cheating have any shred of merit.

people who condone cheating/botting or try and defend it often use whatever thin ideas pop into their head.. then defend them to death.

[MrMagic]

Once again you've missed the point while doubling down on something tangential.

oh don't worry, I read your little "moot point" bit but I couldn't be bothered at the time stating...

wait for it....

client side mods are still banned.

What part of doesn't modify game files makes you think any mod that gives an advantage is ok and you won't be banned for it? I mean where have you been all these years? I don't see an asterisk in the ToS saying that the mod is fine as long as the SE folder is untouched but it still seems like you haven't read that at this stage.

"- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game."

https://support.na.square-enix.com/f...&la=1&ret=rule

[TurtlesAWD]

An autoclicker used to run a game in the background while you go about your life, would fall under this, as while it does not modify the game, it modifies the gameplay.

A mouse with the capability to read a held click as rapid clicking and a roll of scotch tape can do the same.

An accessibility software utilized by a person(s) with a disability would NOT fall under said category as it does not, nor is it designed to modify the game NOR is it designed to modify the gameplay. It is instead designed to assist a user in accomplishing TYPICAL gameplay which they otherwise would be wholly restricted from doing so.

Powerful enough software to do that would be capable of being turned towards gameplay automation just as the right kind of physical apparatus can. I don't see a relevant difference between customizable enough software and hardware.

TYPICAL gameplay does not include setting it to run in the background.

Sure, that's not what I'm arguing.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the differences between the two, and your readiness to conflate the two to support your narrative, indicates an argument of bad faith.

What I'm saying are the same are the different methods of gameplay automation - I don't think special consideration should be given to software based methods of system circumvention if hardware methods have the same impact. I think players who use either could use both kinds of tools to engage with the game appropriately, and some subset of users opting to use those tools in an unintended way shouldn't spoil it for anyone who needs them.

Additionally, you've built up this strawman of a disabled person using an autoclicker for... what reason?

Inability to interact with a mouse via the standard method. Like I said pages ago, I used to watch a guy with no arms stream counterstrike and in addition to specialized hardware he had additional software as an intermediary between his inputs and the game client. Apparently at one point he got a VAC ban, that VAC ban was later overturned - probably because a rule against that kind of software is best not applied to that scenario. That some subset of users would use that kind of software to cheat the system isn't grounds to exclude that software universally. It's been years so I can't say I remember the specifics of his setup, but this isn't something I just made up, it's based on observations of how other people have played games.

If I bought a breath-based device from quadstick and used it essentially as a hardware based autoclicker in my sleep - assuming I breathe in my sleep, which I generally believe will occur, at least for a while yet - would you then advocate for that input device to be disallowed, regardless of who else it impacts that may have been using it to actually play the game?

[MilkieTea]

Snip.

Disabled People Do Not Exist For, Nor Are, Arguments To Be Made.

[Penthea]

If I bought a breath-based device from quadstick and used it essentially as a hardware based autoclicker in my sleep - assuming I breathe in my sleep, which I generally believe will occur, at least for a while yet - would you then advocate for that input device to be disallowed, regardless of who else it impacts that may have been using it to actually play the game?

This is literally a "this is why we can't have nice things" situation. If enough people abuse something it's going to get removed, which is sad because sometimes that thing brought aid and/or joy to others without abusing it.