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

kiralon

New member
Apr 18, 2010
25
0
0
Wat happens when you dont care about the online part of the game, some of my fav matches in games had cheats used in them to even up the game. Most cheats i or my friends have used have been to
1. Get through the game to watch the cut scenes
2. Or most often give the player a chance in the start game. Most rts's on insane difficulty rely on the fact that players have limited resources so when playing against a "hard ai" all they have to do is up the resourcing of the ai to make it harder. Whereas i like a hard middle to end game, being crushed by hordes at the start of the game bores me, but getting crushed by hoards of high level/tech units is waaay more fun.
If you dont believe me try
Supcom Forged Alliance with blackops, experimental wars and reds unit pack mods against 7 ai's teamed together using the sorian aix ai routines. If you dont give yourself resources at the start of the game you dont make it to the middle and end game.
Or Homeworld 2 ex against 5 ai teamed up.

Yes he should have his achievements removed, but suspending (which is a prelude to banning) is just $#%&^$%# stupid when playing single player.

or better still, just put a watermark on the pics saying this guy cheated to get them, and still give him the option to earn them properly to remove the watermarks.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
Heard one propaganda conspiracy theory, heard them all. I refer back to my first reply to your post. This isn't exactly rocket science, here.
You have your terminology incorrect there. A conspiracy theory is an unproven idea that there is a conspiracy, the inference commonly being that there is little evidence or the evidence requires large leaps of faith. When there is absolute proof of the truth of the matter readily available and in plain sight it's called a conspiracy.

HellsingerAngel said:
I'm sorry, but this is a tad silly, especially the bolded bit. I'm very skeptical that Blizzard has the technology to do this, or would even apply it considering their track record for being reasonable individuals. I think some solid proof is in order and the number of hours it takes for the system to de-activate, if you don't mind? I want to try this myself just to see if you're correct, because if you are, I'd gladly join this rally against Blizzard. However, I don't see that happening.
Under the circumstances are you going to join the rally against Blizzard?
John Funk said:
Really? Because I just logged into my Guest account without signing into my Battle.net account just fine. They can still do the campaign.

They just can't do any of the multiplayer, which they were trying to cheat in the first place. After having been warned. By CheatHappens as well as Blizzard.

Perfectly fair, perfectly acceptable. End of story.
Wait, were YOU one of the people banned in this way? Because given an offline account can't connect as a guest that's the only way it would be relevant that you can sign in as a guest. I can't and all I've got is inconsistently connected Internet, I'm pretty damn sure they can't. If they can still play Single player then I'd say this is an alarmingly extreme reaction and certainly disproportionate but not out and out draconian. As it stands well, does this mean if I mod Fallout New Vegas I can expect to be banned for it? Probably not because it's MS not Blizzard but if MS follow suit...
 

Ross Fixxed

New member
Sep 10, 2010
35
0
0
Let me start by saying I'm rubbish at online games, and whilst I don't take myself playing them seriously I am aware that players around me sometimes do. It's a 'club' I choose to go into (Xbox Live) and will abide by their rules while there.

If I log on to COD say, and the guy ahead of me is level 40, and has a hard to unlock sniper tag, I will assume he's good, and that he's a mean sniper. With nothing said I will adapt around a superior sniper and play accordingly. If I go on to SC2 and see a portrait that is way beyond my skills I'll assume that player earned it by skill and/or hard work at the game. Someone cheating their way to it invalidates that and cheapens the community (albeit in a small way).

Part of the fun online is that everyone has played the SAME game, shares the bits your love, the frustrating bits etc, and you are playing using your level of skill to win. (In my case COD is the nicest getting killed simulator I've played o_O )

Just because you don't take something seriously doesn't mean the others don't and just because you don't care about the community doesn't mean that nobody should. You just have to play Borderlands and watch the other 3 players run off at full speed to grab weapons that their charter can't even use to see how easily playing online goes into the dirt. Any downloaded cheat that in any way affects your online account should be dealt with by a game company to not cheapen it for everyone else.

They're called achievements for a reason, and while some are funny Simpsons Game spoiler:
Pressed Start Button
... some are pointless, and while it mostly doesn't mean much to me, it can be a matter of pride to many and a sense of ... achievement really. A strong consistent community is really important, don't join a club if you don't like their rules and members.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
Ross Fixxed said:
They're called achievements for a reason, and while some are funny Simpsons Game spoiler:
Pressed Start Button
... some are pointless, and while it mostly doesn't mean much to me, it can be a matter of pride to many and a sense of ... achievement really. A strong consistent community is really important, don't join a club if you don't like their rules and members.
That would be fine if not joining the club was a discrete option. If you could just not sign up for B.Net, play offline single player and Blizzard left you alone that would be fine. But you can't, play SC2 you've got to join this club and follow these rules if you don't they don't kick you out of the club they destroy your game. For those of us who gaming is about playng games and not boasting about your epeen it's a dangerous precedent.
 

Ross Fixxed

New member
Sep 10, 2010
35
0
0
Rack said:
That would be fine if not joining the club was a discrete option. If you could just not sign up for B.Net, play offline single player and Blizzard left you alone that would be fine. But you can't, play SC2 you've got to join this club and follow these rules if you don't they don't kick you out of the club they destroy your game. For those of us who gaming is about playng games and not boasting about your epeen it's a dangerous precedent.
I understand your point, this was where the argument went in circles a little, furthered by the issue not being 100% clear to me. I don't own SC2 so I don't know how the offline mode works. A 2 week ban for using cheats that may affect your online stats is fair however if that is what happened, but from what I can tell it's far from that simple. I've no objection to using cheats like that for an entirely single player only game (say Bioshock) if there are NO online stats affected (e.g. XBL stats).

The fact that the game has cheats already in it, and the fact that they issued warning does weaken my sympathies tbh.
 

HellsingerAngel

New member
Jul 6, 2008
602
0
0
Rack said:
Under the circumstances are you going to join the rally against Blizzard?
Under the circumstances, no. I see no need. They have single player active for 30 days, plenty of time after the ban ends. When a more permanent ban comes out, I may need to reconsider. It depends how Blizzard deals with it at that point. If they keep the offline Guest accounts useable then I see no problem. If they don't, well, then that\s a problem.

As for not having internet, that's your own fault. As I said in the referenced post, it clearly states you need an internet connection to play. They don't have anything about offline mode mentioned, it's just there if you want it, or in this case, need it. If you purchased on online only game, as was advertised, but don't have internet, that's your own fault. I feel kinda bad, but it's still your own fault.
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
I think this is Blizzard's problem created by their own hands because they decided to tie the ability to individualize oneself to achievements.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Jamash said:
JerrytheBullfrog said:
Jamash said:
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.
This is the internet. Of course various douchecanoes are going to act like that. Blizzard aren't evil, you know.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,015
3,881
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
WhiteTigerShiro said:
Worgen said:
and yet you still managed to say nothing, I mean seriously, what is your point with this? you dont say anything

yes yes, blizz has cheats already in the game blah blah blah
Then why do people need to download a trainer unless they're using them to specifically hack their achievements?

being taken seriously doesnt matter at all
Which is easy to say when you aren't part of the crowd that takes it seriously.

it would be less of a vague idea if blizz wasnt effin doing it, this is the first instance of people being banned for cheating in a single player game
That's because they weren't just cheating in the single-player campaign, they were cheating their online account. You don't care about achievements, and that's fine, that doesn't mean everyone doesn't. If some prick is going to write a hack that auto-unlocks all achievements for you to show-off to your buddies, then why did Blizzard even bother putting the effort into writing-up those achievements?

It's really no different than when Valve cracked-down on people for idle-farming for hats. I don't know that they suspended accounts, but they also didn't forewarn that they would do so, either. Blizzard did. And so they did. Warning issued, warning carried-out. Frankly, if you aren't using a "trainer", then you have nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, people who want to use cheats because the campaign is too hard for them, they have already been provided.

Edit: And zomg 4-digit post-count.
the main diffrence is valve didnt suspend any accounts, at first they just deleted the ill gotten gains, then they gave ppl who didnt idle special things, now it seems like they dont care anymore since in the long run it doesnt matter much altho there are a limit to the number of drops you can get a week so after awhile idling is pointless.
the seriousness of ppl taking the game has nothing to do with my point
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
HellsingerAngel said:
Rack said:
Under the circumstances are you going to join the rally against Blizzard?
Under the circumstances, no. I see no need. They have single player active for 30 days, plenty of time after the ban ends. When a more permanent ban comes out, I may need to reconsider. It depends how Blizzard deals with it at that point. If they keep the offline Guest accounts useable then I see no problem. If they don't, well, then that\s a problem.

As for not having internet, that's your own fault. As I said in the referenced post, it clearly states you need an internet connection to play. They don't have anything about offline mode mentioned, it's just there if you want it, or in this case, need it. If you purchased on online only game, as was advertised, but don't have internet, that's your own fault. I feel kinda bad, but it's still your own fault.
The circumstances aren't as you see them. Offline mode is a total non-starter, they'll have no access at all for two weeks. As for my own position Blizzard had stated in no uncertain terms that without an Internet connection you could play for 30 days between connections. This was an out and out lie, you need to connect every few days. If it had been as they had claimed then no problem, as it stands, no game. Is it my fault for believing Blizzard? Well yes, but you can damn well bet I won't be making that mistake ever again.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
I guess what I'm stuck on is that I still don't see how anyone could think they weren't doing something wrong by buying third party cheats for a game and violating its EULA. I don't even care whether or not it's a "victimless" crime, it seems like the only excuses are ones of entitlement or ignorance. Ignorance is pretty inexcusable in this case, and entitlement reads as petulance.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
A sense of entitlement to use the product you paid for is wrong now?

If a company puts somewhere in it's 90,000 word EULA you can only view in a postage stamp sized window that they reserve the right to stop you using the product for any reason they feel like then they are perfectly entitled to do so? Even though an EULA is less legally valid than a forged I.O.U.?

What a world.
 

HellsingerAngel

New member
Jul 6, 2008
602
0
0
Rack said:
The circumstances aren't as you see them. Offline mode is a total non-starter, they'll have no access at all for two weeks. As for my own position Blizzard had stated in no uncertain terms that without an Internet connection you could play for 30 days between connections. This was an out and out lie, you need to connect every few days. If it had been as they had claimed then no problem, as it stands, no game. Is it my fault for believing Blizzard? Well yes, but you can damn well bet I won't be making that mistake ever again.
Again, you lack proof. While saying that I have tested this and it indeed does take 30 days for the lock-out to happen, I do have a multi-billion dollar company backing up my claim here. You, on the other hand, have your own voice with no substancial evidence to the contrary. The only possible explination there could be is that you have one of the fabled bugged copies that relinquish authentication with every PC restart, which Blizzard immediately went on record stateing that it was a bug and are patching it. They didn't lie, it's an oversight they admitted to. People make mistakes and they're working hard to fix it, last time I checked. They could have finished with the patch seeing as the article was sometime early September. Honestly, I don't keep up with news on game glitches if mine works properly, but some digging has given me a few articles of things that are messed up. Take the entire region fiasco they had. Not sure if that's fixed either, but at least customer support is working hard to get it all righted.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
HellsingerAngel said:
Again, you lack proof. While saying that I have tested this and it indeed does take 30 days for the lock-out to happen, I do have a multi-billion dollar company backing up my claim here. You, on the other hand, have your own voice with no substancial evidence to the contrary. The only possible explination there could be is that you have one of the fabled bugged copies that relinquish authentication with every PC restart, which Blizzard immediately went on record stateing that it was a bug and are patching it. They didn't lie, it's an oversight they admitted to. People make mistakes and they're working hard to fix it, last time I checked. They could have finished with the patch seeing as the article was sometime early September. Honestly, I don't keep up with news on game glitches if mine works properly, but some digging has given me a few articles of things that are messed up. Take the entire region fiasco they had. Not sure if that's fixed either, but at least customer support is working hard to get it all righted.
Why do you need proof? You already know this is how it works, Blizzard may not have set out to decieve but it's a set matter of fact that you have seen the evidence for that you don't get 30 days connection. Furthermore your position is inconsistent, should I obviously have realised that I need a permanent Internet connection or did Blizzard make some kind of mistake in requiring one. I don't see how both positions are tenable.

As for the matter at hand, no authentication=no guest access. If Blizzard have suspended these guys then that's just what they have to put up with. Your position needs to account for the fact that Blizzard are denying single player access for the game they've bought.
 

kazekagesama23

New member
Feb 4, 2010
9
0
0
Hell, I used the trainer. It was already part of my subscription and it's more convenient than using the in game cheats. Then I found out that it was tied to your online profile and was like "oh snap".

But since I never intend to play multiplayer ever save for friendly matches between me and my buddies, I figured people would look at it and then find out how much I sucked.

Well, if my account does get suspended, whatever. I'll take my lumps with the rest of the blokes. It's not like I play the game all that much anymore anyway, since I've seen and done the entire single player experience.
 

HellsingerAngel

New member
Jul 6, 2008
602
0
0
Rack said:
Why do you need proof?
Because what you're saying is inconsistant to what I've been told and have witnessed. Yes, there's a bug. I'm fairly sure it's been patched out and if not it's the exception rather than the rule. You're saying it's the rule, which is why I want proof of that.

Rack said:
You already know this is how it works, Blizzard may not have set out to decieve but it's a set matter of fact that you have seen the evidence for that you don't get 30 days connection.
Except in a select amount of cases, you do. I want proof otherwise as you seem to think that's not the case.

Rack said:
Furthermore your position is inconsistent, should I obviously have realised that I need a permanent Internet connection or did Blizzard make some kind of mistake in requiring one. I don't see how both positions are tenable.
It says it right on the back of the box that you need a permanent connection. I'm not sure what you don't get about this.

Rack said:
As for the matter at hand, no authentication=no guest access.
If they've taken away this privledge (yes, privledge, seeing as you're supposed to be playing online) then nobody has complained about it. Nobody has gone to Blizzard to appeal the ban. No one has taken any action except bitching on the internet to actually put together a case against Blizzard. I think that's proof enough that they know what they did was wrong and they deserve the ban.

Rack said:
If Blizzard have suspended these guys then that's just what they have to put up with. Your position needs to account for the fact that Blizzard are denying single player access for the game they've bought.
They aren't. They said they banned them from Battle.Net. They never said they took away their authentication for the 30 days nor did they ban them permanently and bar access to authenticate. Get your facts straight!
 

Squigie

New member
Nov 20, 2009
39
0
0
John Funk said:
Squigie said:
John Funk said:
[snip]

What about the people who do care? Can you really say that 100% of Blizzard's playerbase doesn't care about the prestige they get? If I really want to get Portrait X which is done by earning achievements A, B and C, and I work my ass off to do that so I can get Portrait X ... and then I find out that people can just CHEAT to get my same reward, and Blizzard does nothing about it - isn't that a bit of a slap in the face to me?

If Blizzard has any interest in preserving the integrity of its reward/incentive system, it needs to make sure it's legitimate. Because just because you don't care about your gamerscore/portraits/achievement score, that doesn't mean that nobody does.
The issue is not whether the punishment fits the crime, the issue is whether the punishment fits any crime. The offenders did not have their achievements and stats wiped, they were not forbidden from earning achievements, and they were not banned from online multiplayer on Battle.net. A ban or suspension from Battle.net is a ban or suspension from Starcraft 2 [http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/14/blizzard-promises-swift-retribution-against-sc2-cheaters/]. That means not only no Battle.net multiplayer (and there is no non-Battle.net multiplayer to begin with), but also no singleplayer at all. No campaign, no skirmish, no US$60 game that you legitimately payed for and should expect the right to do whatever you please with so long as it affects no one else who doesn't wish it.

This is a completely unacceptable action to take for any reason.
Really? Because I just logged into my Guest account without signing into my Battle.net account just fine. They can still do the campaign.

They just can't do any of the multiplayer, which they were trying to cheat in the first place. After having been warned. By CheatHappens as well as Blizzard.

Perfectly fair, perfectly acceptable. End of story.
So now a Blizzard PR rep is telling lies about their product? Or is PC Gamer known for spreading rumors? (Really, tell me if they are. I thought they were pretty okay.) The problem is not what happens right now, the problem is when a player who has been banned has to reactivate their installation or reinstall and finds that their cd-key is worthless. Blizzard had a rainbow of options at varying levels of severity to respond with, but they chose the most extreme, all for the sake of protecting your precious cheevos.

This is an attack on consumer rights and expectations, and yet you support it whole heartedly because you disapprove of the behavior of the victims.
 

Daft Ghosty

New member
Sep 25, 2010
79
0
0
HellsingerAngel said:
Rack said:
Under the circumstances are you going to join the rally against Blizzard?
As for not having internet, that's your own fault. As I said in the referenced post, it clearly states you need an internet connection to play. They don't have anything about offline mode mentioned, it's just there if you want it, or in this case, need it. If you purchased on online only game, as was advertised, but don't have internet, that's your own fault. I feel kinda bad, but it's still your own fault.
You know there was a time I use to read the requirements on the box of a pc game, to make sure my system could run the game. But then I stopped doing that about 7 years ago, when the computers I built for myself were three time more then what was needed. That being said I'm sure people would say ignorance is not a defense from the law. To those people I'd remind them this is a game, not civil law. This is a form of entertainment. One of which we paid money for, and to enjoy it in any way we see fit, that does not harm another person.

On the issue of a online connection. I do have internet, but didn't know about the requirement for needing to be online when I purchased my game. When I picked up the game I did so for solo play. As for you telling people that it is their own fault, that they want to enjoy a game but don't have internet is both thoughtless, and callus, if not just down right rude. Why should someone need to have an internet connection to play a single player game. Blizzard has chose to do this, and it makes little sense. It hasn't stopped hackers from breaking the drm, and for copies popping up on torrent, and news groups. So all this limitation has done is to create the problem which Blizzard now is facing.

Now as for being a online only game. If I had purchased a game that consisted of only online game play (MMOs being a actual online only game) I could understand the requirement. But since the game content includes a single player option, this is where you lose me on the logic, of this being ok. I was not happy with Valve either when Half Life 2 came out. It required a one time connection to the net to unlock the game you had just purchased. In fact it was a bit worse because it took three hours to install and unlock the game. At least SC2 was faster, but it still doesn't excuse the pointless requirement.