Blizzard Banning Single Player Cheaters?

[Siyano_v1legacy]

I really don't understand, yes cheating is bad when you use it for multiplayer but singleplayer?
Really? Does preventing a player to receive like 5 or 10 point more on a score that is like in the 1000 (ranking system) really change the effectiveness of good he is in MP.

From what I know I have legitly did several hard achievement in SP and gained about 10 place ... in the bronze division! Woo careful there we have a big issue, I haven't found how many of them really gave point for the MP ranking

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

I can understand that if you cheat in MP = BAN right away, but in SP?
Really?!? From what I found out myself by doing really hard SP achievement against the AI you can get several free rank up in the division, but im in the bronze (because I dont play alot) and maybe gained 13 rank from 99 to 86, big woop? Does it really hurts the MP so much to deserve a ban if you cheated those achievement?

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

douple post sorry delete this

 

[Orry]

To the people who are saying a ban is too harsh: You are aware the article states that they received a 14-day suspension, right?

 

[Atmos Duality]

An mmo is not a single player game. Apples=/=oranges. It is not identical.

Irrelevant. Blizzard licensed their Copyrighted client in WoW, and they licensed the Starcraft 2 Bnet 2.0 client in the same legal manner. You aren't allowed to tamper with the game in RAM. It's right there in the EULA.
Even if they couldn't hold up the EULA (thank goodness for that possibility), we still have the methods and purpose of these hacks to establish.

In fact, your getting it wrong a little. The only reason blizz won that case is cause it affected data being used by blizzard servers. You can do whatever you want with the base game.

First,
Pray tell, how did they catch these "single player hackers" without using online detection methods? Who blew the whistle, if not Blizzard themselves? I'd find it laughably unlikely that Blizzard would ban suspend people strictly on second-hand information after all; if they did, the bad press blitz would be relentless.

So like or not, that means this involves those Blizzard servers.

Second,
Since online content (that is, the Achievements) is effected by this tampering, it sets the precedent that these hacks violate copyrighted material in a similar manner as the Glider-Bot case. These achievements are available to online-players ONLY, even if it uses Single Player content. This establishes that there is some sort of incentive for the players to modify Bnet 2.0 network behavior, because the game normally disables these achievements if you use cheats.

Keep in mind, every single "bot" program I've ever seen runs strictly on the CLIENT SIDE. In order to get the program to run on the server-side, you would have to have access to WoW's hosting program on their servers, and run the program from there.

I'd be amazed if Glider-bot had such access. That would require hacking Blizzard's servers.
Not a small task, and quite illegal on its own without running questionable 3rd party programs.

Further, you can accomplish this hack process entirely in RAM on your own machine, without one bit ever running on the server side of the program, because you are modifying the inputs (client) to create more favorable outputs (server).

And the courts ruled that even this behavior violated Blizzard's program Copyright.
I already posted the quote verbatim. This is merely re-establishing the context.

Third,
I would have even bought the "strictly modding" argument were it not for three key factors:

1) Blizzard provided a very powerful editor with the game for the explicit purpose of adding/modifying game content. They not only authorized it, they encourage their players to use this toolset.
2) Made the single-player game accessible to their audiences. In short: Starcraft 2 should require no trainers because the easiest difficulty is already piss easy. It takes a lot less effort to play/beat the game than installing a trainer, that's for sure.
3) The only realistic reasons I can find to disregard #1 and #2 and hack the game anyway involve cheating to get the online achievements. Which have already been established to follow the same logic as modifying the game for botting. (The incentive in both cases is to give the player a unique advantage they cannot get otherwise)

Before you accuse me of some form of bias, keep in mind, I am all for the modding of games.
I love it. I used to program mods for games myself.

To summarize:
What we have here is a set of hacks that are utterly worthless, save for enabling the player to illicitly/easily acquire online-centric achievements. These hacks accomplish this task by tampering with Copyright-protected software while in RAM (client side only, just like in the WoW vs Glider case).

And yet this is somehow following a different pattern of logic?
I think not.

I fully expect this argument to be waved away again, but that's how I see this.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Break their rules, pay the price. Why even use a trainer?

 

[Exort]

[

But this sets precedent, this means that they CAN ban you for any third party program or mod at all.

and they have a 18 year history of not baning mods.....

 

[deth2munkies]

I have 0 sympathy for idiots that cheat in single player with 3rd party programs. There's no bloody reason for it, the game is rather simple on easier settings, has cheat codes built in that do everything a trainer would, and has no fucking point other than to make it less fun.

Do you also feel that same about people who use mods for other PC games or cheating devices like Gameshark, Action Replay, etc...?

There's a difference: AR/Gameshark are cheats that aren't already in the game and can't help you in multiplayer (no matter what you say, you feel a lot worse going against someone with a Kerrigan icon than one that hasn't even beaten the campaign on normal). Mods are a completely different thing, violating the ToS should always result in a ban, but here's the main kicker:

None of those games have integrated support and online multiplayer like battle.net and SC2. If you use a trainer on a Steam game, you'll probably get banned if you're caught as well, and that's the main difference.

So you do see that the problem here is that Blizzard has intergrated single and multiplayer via achievements and that Blizzard is who really caused this problem. After all, people have been cheating in single player games for years and only recently has it become a problem.

While Battle.net has fuckloads of problems, integrating single and multiplayer into the same system is one of its strengths, not weaknesses. If you really want to use trainers/mods to fuck around with the game, USE THE DAMN GALAXY EDITOR.

How about Blizzard not dictate how users play the SINGLE PLAYER game. That's always worked before and mixing single and multiplayer is not a strength, it is a way for Blizzard to gain more control. This time you get a "Guest" account for offline use but next time, they may just make the single player mode online only.

Even single player games have EULAs, so this is not new, just the first major example. That's beside the point though: my arguments aren't so much for games in general as just for SC2. Using a trainer is against the EULA, ToS, and is fuckin stupid as it offers no benefit.

 

[CoreKrogoth]

Yes, you want to play on bnet because the game is designed to be played on bnet. With achievements, friends lists, etc.

Why would you want profile icons, achievements, friends lists, if you aren't going to be online? That's all you get from an "offline profile."

If you buy a game from Steam, you can set it to play without actually logging into Steam. But you won't be able to talk to your friends on steam messenger, you won't be able to get steam achievements, while you aren't logged in. This is the exact same thing.

For all of this I'm going to assume that multiplayer game play isn't ACTUALLY affected by achievements.

Except it's not the same thing as steam. The major difference being that VAC can be enabled or disabled in games. (it gets trickier with games that they didn't make, but the principle is the same)The way Steam handles it is by disabling achievements when you cheat, which is much better than banning people for wanting a little "achieved" icon to show up on their profile that doesn't affecting game play whatsoever. It is also clear when VAC is enabled or disabled.

Yes it is a big loss, and it is right to do so it you try to hack the achievements.
Look if someone hack to get a 100-0 win loss recond in muitlplayer, everyone will agree to ban them why not people that hack for achievement? I understand some people think achievemnt are not important but you are not the only poeple live on this planet.

It's understandable that we aren't the only people on the planet. That's not the issue. The issue is that it's a decision between taking money from people who (knowing the evil Kotick) weren't informed that cheating to get achievements in single player would take their game from them. If you're answer is "well it was in the user agreement" then my question is, "did you read through the WHOLE user agreement first thing?" Honestly I don't think cheating to get achievements DOES justify banning, but then again I also don't think it's in any way alright to claim somebody said something they didn't... so I guess our standards are at a point of contention in several ways. If they cheated against somebody else to gain an unfair advantage (that the two players did not agree on before hand) I say oust them regardless. I still haven't heard a good reason why banning is justified by cheating to gain one's own achievement. This would change if the achievements actually changed multiplayer, but if it does then that adds a whole other layer I wouldn't like about the multiplayer.

Please tell me if you think you have a good argument as to why other people's achievements are hurting your game experience, and not only that, but is essential to your enjoyment of the game. Sorry but the closest I've heard anybody get is, "I like to compare my achievements to others," and that alone doesn't quite cut it I understand you have a very strong opinion of something, but being unreasonable about it and calling everybody that disagrees with you self absorbed and dismissing them is well, self absorbed. So I'm asking you to explain your reasoning as to why it's so crucial important Exort and anybody else that thinks it's pivotal to your experience in a game. Please keep in mind that this is OTHER people's achievements I've already been convinced of the importance of achievements at all in a game.

That argument goes something like this, "I've become so jaded in my gaming that I feel that if I don't have something more to strive towards in a game I'm just not entertained by it." -Bridger
I'm not convinced that this is the case for other people's achievements because even if you have people you want to compare to, but you don't know if they cheated then the way I see it the problem isn't that they could have cheated to gain the achievements. The problem is that the people who you're caring about comparing your achievements to aren't trustworthy in the first place and maybe if they aren't you should reconsider whatever relationship you have with them or that you're being too untrusting of that person.
In the case of comparing it to major sports (which I often do when people offer the argument, "it's only a game") and the testing for performance enhancing drugs, there is a major difference. That difference being: they are competing directly and competitively against each other in every game and when it comes to the same thing in games there should without a doubt be a severe punishment for cheating.

hidden text for the sake of spacing

anyway, back to the primary issue of this topic:
Due to the ability to play as guest, I can see only two reasons why this would have become an issue.

1eople playing single player and using 3rd party cheats were unaware that they would be banned due to using the cheats
2eople that were aware of this and using 3rd party cheats and were playing online to gain an unfair advantage are just trying to cheat their way back into the system.

So Funk or anybody else, do you still think the problem is just snap solved by logging in as guest assuming that the banned persons weren't informed that using a 3rd party cheat in single player and only used it in single player, would ban their account? Let's now add the assumption that some of them were using the trainer not for achievements, but because the cheats that were built into the game didn't do something they wanted to be able to do (such as make your units go MUCH faster) just for laughs. Do these people also deserve to have their game removed?

I certainly don't think it was alright and it confirms that they have truly become Darth Blizard to the Evil Empire's Emperor Kotick. I certainly hope I'm not asking too much of people to be reasonable on this forum.

As to the wide reaching implications of this see Gregori's posts, he's got it down, but just because people seem to read one thing and it goes in one eye and out the other here it is again. The fact that they CAN legally punish people for modding (in courts intent is often disregarded, particularly in cases like these) their product has horrible implications for modders. This means that if they so wanted Exort, they could come after you for making that mod because YOU TOO, by making that mod, violated their copy right. Or am I just wrong in assuming that you didn't get written permission from the developers AND Kotick himself before making that mod?

In this case it was only a temporary suspension, but with Kotick at the helm we can only assume things will get worse to the point of a ban.

"I'm on board the Death star" -Bobby Kotick, Creative Talent presentation, 2010

 

[jumjalalabash]

Anyone who thought this was about the single player is incredibly dumb.

What hackers are doing is testing to see if Blizzard can catch them by deploying their cheats on Single Player, which is still online. Now they want their accounts back so they can continue to develop illicit materials.

Either way, it violates EULA, which they agreed to, so they have no case. Maybe they should have read it before they hit "accept".

I think Blizzard is testing gamers to see how far they can push us into asking permission to play a game we bought.

If we do not agree with EULA, what's our recourse? Have stores changed their policy about open software?

Blah blah blah

That said, if you don't agree with the EULA, you can return the game directly to Blizzard, especially if you got it via digital download. I know a guy who returned his copy of WoW, already opened, when he disagreed with the EULA, but didn't have any play time. Blizzard is one of the more understanding companies about EULAs, so that doesn't really fly.

Yes it does fly. Who pays the shipping? How long does it take to get the refund? Why is it that you must buy the product and open it before finding out what the terms are but then are unable to return it to the store that you bought it from. What other "contract" works that way?

No, EULA's are not legally binding and this is one of the reasons why.

I think you seem to be missing the point on why people are using 3rd party mods. They are not doing it cause the game bum hurts them, they are doing to it to unlock multiplayer benefits. That effects multiplayer even if they are cosmetic differences are still things that were unlocked in ways that were never intended. Blizz has every right to stop people who abuse mods to get benefits they shouldn't get in their games.

 

[Exort]

...and banning people for using a trainer is to scare people off from mods Blizzard doesn't approve of. It is to condition you for what may come next.

I don't know about you but I am not at all looking forward to the day when all games require internet activation and internet check-ins.

It's dick moves like this that will bring that future and there are really only three companies that could pull it off while still having support from gamers, Blizzard, Bioware and Valve. Keep supporting this nonsense and see where it gets you.

Ya know, I bet that someone somewhere suggested that internet activation and check-ins would one day see people banned for cheating in a single player game...and they were probably laughed at.

it is not to scare MOD but cheaters and pirates...

Really Require internet is the DRM for years to come on PC. Look we all know PC is where game got pirate the most (DL and install how hard in that?), that is the major reason less and less low profile company are willing to publish on PC rather on console with much better DRM (yes, steams helps, but really). This is the reason people says PC gaming are dying. PC gaming is basicly rule by two companys Blizzard and Valve because no other company are willing to invest in it. DRM is not nosense, you get pay for your job developer get pay for making games. Really a better DRM can mean better PC gaming future. More company in PC gaming means more choice and completion. Not saying pirating has only done bad thing but I think people generally agree pirates done more bad than good to the industry.

Ok that is my take on DRM, and has nothing to do with the topic, but no I don't think DRM are "dick moves" Xbox360 and PS3 are basicly DRM in a way, yet you don't seem to conside publishing game on them as "dick moves".

Really this is not about people getting ban for cheating in single player it is about hacking the game to get achievement, I can tell you Epeen means a lot to some players. If they don't allow cheating in single player, why build-in cheat code it is hacking for acheivement that got them banned. Also it is a 14 day ban, so you steal a thing get a hand cut off doesn't work there (on you earlier post).

 

[bob1052]

They broke the EULA. That alone is far more than what Blizzard needs to ban someone.

Also to give their actions context, there are many, many cheats in the single player built in. The only reason to use third party cheats is to carry over the prestige gained from achievements (which get disabled when cheating, normally) into the multiplayer game. Cheating with third party mods in single player is effectively cheating multiplayer.

 

[Lucane]

snip

How does this have anything to do with punching a guy you just bought a car from? Noone - noone - is hurt by someone getting the single-player achievements without the pain in the ass that comes from it. If anything, the hacker is hurt by not getting the satisfaction of actually doing shit with his own blood and sweat. That's it. Nobody cares about achievement points; I know I don't, after seeing most (and by that I mean 99.99%) of the people who play either:
A) Are retarded; or
B) Don't give a shit about achievements themselves.

Blizzard seems to care.

 

[John Funk]

For all of this I'm going to assume that multiplayer game play isn't ACTUALLY affected by achievements.

It is if Blizzard wants their presentation to have any integrity. If they want the special player icon that you get for doing every achievement on the hardest difficulty to be special, rare and unique, then that is their right. If they want to be able to say to the players who do it legitimately, "This is your reward for being super-awesome, you get to show it off to everyone," then they need to enforce that integrity.

Except it's not the same thing as steam. The major difference being that VAC can be enabled or disabled in games. (it gets trickier with games that they didn't make, but the principle is the same)The way Steam handles it is by disabling achievements when you cheat, which is much better than banning people for wanting a little "achieved" icon to show up on their profile that doesn't affecting game play whatsoever. It is also clear when VAC is enabled or disabled.

And when you activate the actual in-game cheats in SC2, it disables any achievements.

There's really no ambiguity here. As I understand it, the only difference between the third-party trainers they were actually using and Blizzard's built-in in-game cheats, is that the official cheats disable achievements and the trainers do not. They were only cheating to get the achievements/profile icons, which, as I've said before, Blizzard has a vested interest in preserving the integrity.

It's understandable that we aren't the only people on the planet. That's not the issue. The issue is that it's a decision between taking money from people who (knowing the evil Kotick) weren't informed that cheating to get achievements in single player would take their game from them.

There was a press release about a month or so back where Blizzard clearly warned people that cheating in any mode of the game would qualify you for a ban. Multiplayer and single player.

What more can they do other than issue a warning, and then follow through?

So Funk or anybody else, do you still think the problem is just snap solved by logging in as guest assuming that the banned persons weren't informed that using a 3rd party cheat in single player and only used it in single player, would ban their account? Let's now add the assumption that some of them were using the trainer not for achievements, but because the cheats that were built into the game didn't do something they wanted to be able to do (such as make your units go MUCH faster) just for laughs. Do these people also deserve to have their game removed?

Yes. That solves it completely. If you want to cheat/hack the game/do whatever, do it while you aren't logged in, and playing as Guest. But when you're logged in and playing under the Bnet system, Blizzard is well within its rights to preserve the integrity of its system and do whatever it wants.

As to the wide reaching implications of this see Gregori's posts, he's got it down, but just because people seem to read one thing and it goes in one eye and out the other here it is again. The fact that they CAN legally punish people for modding (in courts intent is often disregarded, particularly in cases like these) their product has horrible implications for modders. This means that if they so wanted Exort, they could come after you for making that mod because YOU TOO, by making that mod, violated their copy right. Or am I just wrong in assuming that you didn't get written permission from the developers AND Kotick himself before making that mod?

Are you ignoring the mod tools that Blizzard provides for both WoW and SC2? Modding the game is different from hacking it. Or would you like to refer to Blizzard's successful lawsuit against the WoW botting program?

 

[bob1052]

The way some of you talk about the EULA (which I'll bet most of you don't read anyway) Blizzard could put anything in there and you guys would say "they have every right cause it's in the EULA".

So what if they put in there "We reserve the right to ban you if you are a Democrat". It's ok I guess, it's in the EULA.

There's really nowhere left to go with this. Keep supporting this nonsense and see what tomorrow brings.

They have the right to ban you if you are a Democrat regardless of if its in the EULA. They can ban you for any reason, or for no reason given. If you honestly believe you have any rights on a companies servers you are absolutely wrong.

Also: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-20100416

 

[Jodan]

so you dont get acheivments big deal

 

[Snotnarok]

You cheat, you break the EULA which you have to agree too before you finalize your ownership of the game then guess what you do, you get banned. And that's what you get to do you get to be banned because you broke the agreement.

Game Genie is the biggest thing I've seen here, here's the thing, there's single player and there's single player with achievements with a game that's online. You're using 3rd party cheats to alter your game files, how do you know this isn't touching multiplayer files? Or should blizzard go on the good word of the cheating community.

In game cheats disable achievements, 3rd party cheats don't, 3rd party cheats break your agreement with the EULA and that's the facts. Break contracts an you have to accept the consequences.