Blizzard Gives Single Player StarCraft 2 Cheaters a Time-Out, Opens Can of Worms [UPDATED]

[Antari]

As a longtime user of cheats and trainers ... I have to say this one is justified. If you use your trainer to specifically affect online status, even for something as simple as a picture ... Expect to gather some attenion and a whack with a banhammer. It only takes some very simple whatif queries to have alarm bells ringing on their end. When you have an achievement but didn't complete task points they've set for it. Besides achievements today are usually made to be easy to get, you shouldn't need to cheat for them.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

However, you won't ever be prevented from playing your purchased game, you'll always be able to put your disc in your banned console and play the vanilla, un-patched single player game.

...which is different from this scenario how?

The "Play as Guest" button. Click it sometime. Blizzard can't ever take the offline singleplayer away from you.

 

[FalloutJack]

I dunno, boys and girls. Maybe it's not a big deal overall, but I feel that it's a cheap shot. Cheating at a game is practically part of the game and part of the fun. You do it for laughs. It may not be a perma-punishment, but Blizzard shouldn't tell me how to get my kicks in my own home in a way that wouldn't affect anyone. That's like kicking some dude's sand castle over (or at least pissing on it).

Now, I'm not really angered about this (since I prefer their in-game cheats anyway), but the whole achievement thing seems to me a pointless reason to put a guy in the corner. I never found achievements or trophies in these games to be especially important. Merely something to be amused at because of a funny title. Instead of getting bent out of shape, Blizzard shoulda' just done something snarky by also inputting a 'Cheated To Win' trophy for single player. That woulda' been funny as hell.

Because, this is sort of a slippery slope. Not a serious one right now, but you can fall off the maountain with this one in the future. Today, Blizzard chastises a player for using a mod that would gain him an insubstantial reward (undetermined if he was trying to either). Once you do that, you start to believe that you know better than the player, who is god to his own gaming and has the final say on all gaming decisions, like to actually buy your game. Cheating on multi-player has always been not cool. Cheating on single player has always BEEN cool, because it's your own game and who's to complain? Once you start interfering with that, you may as well be controlling the game without the player, and what good is that? If that ever happened, the world of gaming is over.

 

[Blind Sight]

I'm on Blizzard's side on this one, using cheats that don't effect achievements is fine (like the ones that Blizzard actually put in-game) but using those that do is just dishonest. Regardless of whether you care about achievements or not, Blizzard has a right to ban these people.

Gamers need to stop feeling so
self-entitled, this isn't a case of Blizzard just taking your money, they're just trying to ensure that achievements are taken seriously. Totally understandable.

If people wanted to screw around with game code, then just pirate Starcraft 2 (not that I'm suggesting you do so, I'm just saying it's an easy alternative to bitching about Battlenet) and you're free of Battlenet in single player games.

Or just use bloody Guest mode.

See? There's plenty of ways to screw around without effecting achievements, which is what these people should have been doing.

 

[Irridium]

There is "play as Guest" mode. Which is essentially an offline profile where you can't earn achievements/whatever, but you can do all the single-player content.

Frankly, I think they banned them because they expressly warned people that they would be banning people who were using hacks. If you give that warning and don't follow through, well, it makes any further warnings seem much less intimidating.

Huh, didn't know about the guest mode.

And I'm pretty sure when Blizzard said they would be banning people who use hacks, people assumed it was multiplayer, since it seems banning someone for hacking single player crossed no one's mind. I still find it weak they banned people due to getting achievements/pictures they didn't earn, but it wasn't as bad as I thought(banning someone from playing it at all, online or off).

 

[Moriarty70]

If I have a nice car it represents that I used the earned resources (money) for the car. If I have an achievement/picture on my account it also represents that I used the earned resources (time) for those status symbols. If someone can walk in and steal it by hijacking my car or pushing "Alt+3" or whatever for the pictures, then the status goes out the door.

 

[deth2munkies]

Tch, I'm not going to bother listing out my entire argument line from the other thread on this. But I don't really care what Blizzard does to people that intentionally cheat on the game for no fucking reason, ban 'em all.

Seriously, you can get everything those trainers provide through cheats and the galaxy editor EXCEPT achievements, which aren't even that hard to get on their own either. If you want to reskin or screw around with the game (I don't know how far the trainers like to go), you can use the Galaxy editor to do pretty much everything to anything.

*sigh* idiots.

 

[Eric the Orange]

I'm on blizzards side. Only because I think it's frankly pathetic to use "unauthorized cheats" just to get achievements.

 

[Jamash]

However, you won't ever be prevented from playing your purchased game, you'll always be able to put your disc in your banned console and play the vanilla, un-patched single player game.

...which is different from this scenario how?

The "Play as Guest" button. Click it sometime. Blizzard can't ever take the offline singleplayer away from you.

Really? I didn't know that because I don't play SCII, the impression I got from reading some people's reaction to this was that Blizzard broke into their house, stole their game disc and then ran over their dog on the way out.

 

[John Funk]

There is "play as Guest" mode. Which is essentially an offline profile where you can't earn achievements/whatever, but you can do all the single-player content.

Frankly, I think they banned them because they expressly warned people that they would be banning people who were using hacks. If you give that warning and don't follow through, well, it makes any further warnings seem much less intimidating.

Huh, didn't know about the guest mode.

And I'm pretty sure when Blizzard said they would be banning people who use hacks, people assumed it was multiplayer, since it seems banning someone for hacking single player crossed no one's mind. I still find it weak they banned people due to getting achievements/pictures they didn't earn, but it wasn't as bad as I thought(banning someone from playing it at all, online or off).

Okay, but how is it their fault that people *assumed* something, when their warning press release specifically said that they would be banning anyone who was "cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form"? That seems pretty clear-cut to me. If someone makes an incorrect assumption, the egg should be on their face, not mine. (Or Blizzard's, in this case)

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

However, you won't ever be prevented from playing your purchased game, you'll always be able to put your disc in your banned console and play the vanilla, un-patched single player game.

...which is different from this scenario how?

The "Play as Guest" button. Click it sometime. Blizzard can't ever take the offline singleplayer away from you.

Really? I didn't know that because I don't play SCII, the impression I got from reading some people's reaction to this was that Blizzard broke into their house, stole their game disc and then ran over their dog on the way out.

See, the bolded part is where I think a lot of the problems are coming from. People who don't play SC2 and who don't have all the facts cry bloody murder when this is actually pretty damn reasonable.

I earned my profile pictures. I'm proud of them. I like thinking that people go "oh, that's a cool profile picture!" when they see me.

I don't want someone to be able to get them just by hacking the game. That devalues the effort I put into earning them.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

As I say, if you decide to cheat at anything in life, you accept all consequences of your actions and have no real reason to QQ when the banhammer comes for you. Your "right" to cheat isn't a right, nor a privledge to do as you please. Its your right to collect whatever karmatic action happens as a result of your cheating.

 

[Irridium]

There is "play as Guest" mode. Which is essentially an offline profile where you can't earn achievements/whatever, but you can do all the single-player content.

Frankly, I think they banned them because they expressly warned people that they would be banning people who were using hacks. If you give that warning and don't follow through, well, it makes any further warnings seem much less intimidating.

Huh, didn't know about the guest mode.

And I'm pretty sure when Blizzard said they would be banning people who use hacks, people assumed it was multiplayer, since it seems banning someone for hacking single player crossed no one's mind. I still find it weak they banned people due to getting achievements/pictures they didn't earn, but it wasn't as bad as I thought(banning someone from playing it at all, online or off).

Okay, but how is it their fault that people *assumed* something, when their warning press release specifically said that they would be banning anyone who was "cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form"? That seems pretty clear-cut to me. If someone makes an incorrect assumption, the egg should be on their face, not mine. (Or Blizzard's, in this case)

Well how many other companies have banned people due to cheating in single player? Apart from the current situation, I'm going to bet on "none".

 

[WOPR]

Ahh!

okay to put it in short

guy cheats to get achievements he didn't earn
guy gets caught
guy gets 2 week punishment (note: HE STILL HAS HIS GAME!)
guy whines and cries
guy gets spotlight for something ridiculous

He cheated to get achievements, your achievements determine your online "rewards"
your rewards determine some of your online multiplayer stats

because of the way SC2 is built; cheating in single player, is like cheating in multiplayer
(just less visible)

 

[Loonerinoes]

Gamers need to stop feeling so self-entitled, this isn't a case of Blizzard just taking your money, they're just trying to ensure that achievements are taken seriously. Totally understandable.

Agreed. But I just think that the mass-banhammerings and such that they dish out because of these understandable motives are seriously something that could be done with by now. I've seen quite a few people get suspended for bogus reasons and this system of theirs is by no means perfect and winds up hurting plenty of individuals who genuinely did not intend harm for the sake of the many and leaving the elitists proudly proclaim how Blizzard 'owned' the evil cheatorz.

I'm not saying their motives and them wanting the achievements to mean something are wrong. It isn't and they definitely should take action against those who try to exploit this for multiplayer. It's just that the methods they use most certainly can result in collateral damage, especially when they whip out the ole banhammer of doom. Then again, with a customer base that pretty much dwarfs every other damn game on the planet, who's to say they can't afford to sacrifice tens of thousands of 'cheaters' in order to maintain an appearance of being 'tough on cheats' in the public, eh?

 

[John Funk]

There is "play as Guest" mode. Which is essentially an offline profile where you can't earn achievements/whatever, but you can do all the single-player content.

Frankly, I think they banned them because they expressly warned people that they would be banning people who were using hacks. If you give that warning and don't follow through, well, it makes any further warnings seem much less intimidating.

Huh, didn't know about the guest mode.

And I'm pretty sure when Blizzard said they would be banning people who use hacks, people assumed it was multiplayer, since it seems banning someone for hacking single player crossed no one's mind. I still find it weak they banned people due to getting achievements/pictures they didn't earn, but it wasn't as bad as I thought(banning someone from playing it at all, online or off).

Okay, but how is it their fault that people *assumed* something, when their warning press release specifically said that they would be banning anyone who was "cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form"? That seems pretty clear-cut to me. If someone makes an incorrect assumption, the egg should be on their face, not mine. (Or Blizzard's, in this case)

Well how many other companies have banned people due to cheating in single player? Apart from the current situation, I'm going to bet on "none".

Microsoft has banned/suspended people for cheating their gamerscore before. Just recently, Bungie did something similar in Halo Reach [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103985-Bungie-Turns-15-000-Halo-Reach-Cheaters-Into-Noobs] - yes it was multiplayer, but it was essentially the same thing (they were attempting to game the system for cosmetic/prestige rewards).

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Essentially, all this crying comes off as people complaining about something they haven't taken the trouble to understand.

1.) Blizzard warned everyone back in September [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103464-Blizzard-Warms-Up-Banhammer-for-StarCraft-II-Cheaters] that it would be banning anyone who was "cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form."

2.) This isn't even a permanent ban. It's a two-week suspension.

But even if 1.) and 2.) WEREN'T true... frankly, it'd still be pretty justified.

The way SC2 is set up, the major incentive reward (other than victory for victory's sake) is the different portraits you can unlock for your account. So that when someone sees you, they go "ooh, he's won 500 games as Zerg" or "ooh, he's done all the super-hard achievements on the super-hardest difficulty." If Blizzard has any vested interest in preserving the integrity of its system, as Microsoft does with its gamerscore, for instance - and it DOES - then it needs to take action on people who cheat it. Otherwise the people who earn said rewards fairly end up feeling like, "Well why did I try to do this when I could have just cheated?"

As I understand the matter, the only difference between the cheats that the people who got suspended were using and Blizzard's already-implemented in-game cheats is that the Blizzard cheats disable achievements and the third-party hack does not. Ergo, the only reason to use the third-party hack is... to get achievements. You wouldn't do it if that wasn't your entire goal in the first place.

This isn't about, "Oh, what if you just want to hack the game to make your units move really fast or play around with things?" You can do that in the offline Guest mode, which isn't attached to your profile (which means you can't get achievements). The fact that they were doing this logged in, with a trainer that specifically let you cheat to get achievements, shows that they went into this with a purpose.

They were trying to game the system, and Blizzard dropped the hammer - as it had explicitly warned people it would. This is completely justified.

You can cheat/hack the offline game as much as you want. They can't ever take your offline mode away from you. But the moment you start intentionally trying to mess with the entire multiplayer system of incentives and rewards, you get what's coming to you.

Edit: Oh, and Logan is totally right that the CheatHappens site has a vested financial interest in making this story seem like the Big Bad Wolf vs. the Valiant Underdog. They're selling hacks to the game, and they can't do that if Blizzard is banning people for it. Remember what happened the last time somebody did that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86562-Blizzard-Clobbers-Glider-Bot-Maker-In-Court]?

John, I do love how you put this into the clear cut no-bullshit way that you do. I agree 100%

If a game wanted you to cheat, it would let you cheat. if the develloper tells you WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS SHIT! Then it won't. don't cry and complain

This is a flash back to Halo: Reach. People were finding a way to reset credit-earning acheivements. Obviously cheating to get more credits right? Well when Bungie started to reset people back to their pre-cheating ways, how many people bitched say ing "You never told us this was cheating!" and "This is wrong? We're not allowed to do this?"

EDIT: Congrats on the ninja John, you sneaky bastard

 

[Jodah]

Essentially, all this crying comes off as people complaining about something they haven't taken the trouble to understand.

1.) Blizzard warned everyone back in September [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103464-Blizzard-Warms-Up-Banhammer-for-StarCraft-II-Cheaters] that it would be banning anyone who was "cheating or using hacks or modifications in any form."

2.) This isn't even a permanent ban. It's a two-week suspension.

But even if 1.) and 2.) WEREN'T true... frankly, it'd still be pretty justified.

The way SC2 is set up, the major incentive reward (other than victory for victory's sake) is the different portraits you can unlock for your account. So that when someone sees you, they go "ooh, he's won 500 games as Zerg" or "ooh, he's done all the super-hard achievements on the super-hardest difficulty." If Blizzard has any vested interest in preserving the integrity of its system, as Microsoft does with its gamerscore, for instance - and it DOES - then it needs to take action on people who cheat it. Otherwise the people who earn said rewards fairly end up feeling like, "Well why did I try to do this when I could have just cheated?"

As I understand the matter, the only difference between the cheats that the people who got suspended were using and Blizzard's already-implemented in-game cheats is that the Blizzard cheats disable achievements and the third-party hack does not. Ergo, the only reason to use the third-party hack is... to get achievements. You wouldn't do it if that wasn't your entire goal in the first place.

This isn't about, "Oh, what if you just want to hack the game to make your units move really fast or play around with things?" You can do that in the offline Guest mode, which isn't attached to your profile (which means you can't get achievements). The fact that they were doing this logged in, with a trainer that specifically let you cheat to get achievements, shows that they went into this with a purpose.

They were trying to game the system, and Blizzard dropped the hammer - as it had explicitly warned people it would. This is completely justified.

You can cheat/hack the offline game as much as you want. They can't ever take your offline mode away from you. But the moment you start intentionally trying to mess with the entire multiplayer system of incentives and rewards, you get what's coming to you.

Edit: Oh, and Logan is totally right that the CheatHappens site has a vested financial interest in making this story seem like the Big Bad Wolf vs. the Valiant Underdog. They're selling hacks to the game, and they can't do that if Blizzard is banning people for it. Remember what happened the last time somebody did that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86562-Blizzard-Clobbers-Glider-Bot-Maker-In-Court]?

This 110%. If people really want to cheat they can do it in offline mode. The main point of SC2 bragging wise are the achievements. By cheating they are getting the achievements without earning them.

 

[Thaius]

Yeah, I agree completely with their actions. If the single-player game has no effect on the player's status, standing, or performance online, then obviously they should be able to use whatever cheats they want. But considering they could easily cheat (and probably have) to get recognition they did not earn, I absolutely understand, agree, and support these actions.