PSA: My roadside shop got banned today

lynnk2021, I hope that my assumption is correct that it is not YOUR account that was banned and only you were reminding players here not to violate the TOS.

As per the discussion in the linked reddit thread, emulators have never been allowed. I remember many threads in the now defunct official HD forum mentioning emulators. Those were always followed by a strong warning and/or removal or edit of those threads.

Such reminders are always welcome.

This is a new one for me ..what is an emulator for Hay Day? Please would someone mind explaining?

Here's the definition provided by Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

In other words, some users prefer for whatever reasons to play HD on their PC's instead of phones or tablets.  Emulators allow them to do this which is a violation of Supercell's Terms of Service.  I prefer not to help players find emulators so they'll play on their PCs and break Supercell's TOS.  It's one of my many idiosyncrasies.

While I see the benefits of emulators for visually impaired players, I know emulators also allow organized crime to exploit popular mobile games and launder monies, a major crime in many countries.

Fascinating. Are you aware that Team Clash of Clans and Team Clash Royale created and published PC versions of their mobile games so there's no need to use emulators? It's up to Team Hay Day if they would publish a PC version, IMO.

supercell.com/en/news/clash-games-live-on-pc/

EDIT: Reading Supercell's TOS, I have found no mention that it's permissible to use Tencent's emulator to play Supercell games. Were I to use Tencent's emulator, I should brace myself for repercussions including a permanent ban for violating Supercell's TOS.

I don't see any mention of Tencent's emulator on the official page you linked. Did you mean Tencent created an emulator on their own for some games?

In the other possibility, Google Play Game is in beta, with link for more information from the same news article. In my view, it's not an emulator where you can install whatever you want, but only a selected gams that are published by their producer. Like another platform to play the game the way it is designed, with official support.

Yes, that' also what I had thought as one of the reasons behind the ban for emulators.

When I saw that Tencent itself has created an emulator, I got surprised though Tencent is Tencent. Irrespective, I find it strange to ban emulators by the Tencent owned publishers (e.g., SC), while Tencent itself markets its own emulator either for the games published by those that are directly or indirectly owned by Tencent, or not by owned it at all. It does not make any difference imo. or I am missing aspects that I do not know.

First of all, I apologize for causing confusion in my previous post.  Please let me clarify.

Supercell's Terms of Service states we must not use emulators to play their games.  And there's no mention of an exception such as the Tencent emulator.    

Um, it wasn't me who informed us Tencent is offering an emulator for its games.

justhayday.boards.net/post/54842/thread

BTW, I'm LOL that it's possible for us to play the game telephone unintentionally on a chat forum.

EDIT: I don't know if Google Games is owned by Tencent.

It was me who stated that Tencent has developed its own emulator for particular games (which I did not know until today). It is all over the Internet that one can find easily.

And I do not think no one has referred to Google Play (except a person wrote in their post that: "In the other possibility, Google Play Game is in beta, ...") or no one has claimed that Google play is owned by Tencent (hopefully, I do not see any form of connection between these two companies). I just wrote that some games are allowed to be played by the emulator developed and promoted by Tencent, which I find strange as I wrote.

Tencent is one of the monopolists, and likely the second dominant company in the gaming sector all over the world (for sure, it seems to be the dominant company in certain regions). Accordingly, allowing the games that are published directly or indirectly owned by Tencent (if this is the case which I do not know as I stated) is certainly not fine as such a conduct is liable to create a competitive advantage for Tencent. I am also still not sure to what extent these emulators in general are safe for the players while there is definitely a need for emulators for the players that have difficulties on playing mobile devices.

A company as Tencent (i) which has the economic strength and (ii) which has one of the largest shares in the relevant market (these are the denominators assessed mainly and they go hand-in-hand) cannot make the use of its emulator exclusive to its "own games" (games that are published by those owned by Tencent directly or indirectly), Tencent cannot block the use of other similar softwares on its "own games", or Tencent cannot refuse the other gaming companies from using Tencent's emulator if they wish to do. This is a special responsibility imposed on the largest companies by the competition rules in certain regions. Otherwise, the ink example given above is a very good example to illustrate why there are especially competition rules as the whole market is highly liberalised. The largest company or one of the largest companies (manufacturing printers) will simply undermine or destroy the competition in the market by forcing to use the ink either manufactured by that company or a company that belongs to that company (etc.) both to the detriment of consumers (end-users), customers and ultimately its competitors. 

There are are many examples. For instance, Hilti made its nail guns compatible only with its nails so the manufacturers of other branded nails were put at disadvantage as Hilti is/was the dominant companies in nail gun market (tying), Microsoft incorporated its media player irrespective of whether consumers could delete and replace it with another software (bundling), one of the leading elevator manufacturers (I forgot the name) made its "free maintenance promotion" service on the condition that the "free maintenance promotion" would cease in case it is found that a customer used spare parts manufactured by the other companies and as such. I am writing the names as they are public by the judgments. All these companies are imposed on very heavy fines as they all engaged in illegal exclusionary abuse which could not be justified, and there are many examples. Of course, how the rules look like and how they are enforced are regional = ultimately, in the hands of the competition authorities, and finally the judiciary.

Summary: I personally find it strange, which is the reason why I wrote it, and it was very nice to read different opinions.