My problem with this comes from the selling of the hacks.
Someone else trying to make money off my product, thats where I have an issue.
Someone else trying to make money off my product, thats where I have an issue.
Blizzard is suing hackers
- Thread starter SpcyhknBC
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Arehexes said:
The metaphore wasnt the point, but I knew you'd argue it so I may as well response to how your new data fits into it: ...after the rape they found pot in his car during the arrest. Translation: One area's law about nudity had nothing to do with Blizzard suing over hacking, debate that elsewhere. The state he was in when arrested is beyond blaming them for. As for the "sue because of ruining multi-player," you dont sue for consequences, you sue for actions that lead to those consequences (That is the Guilty/Not Guilty aspect of the law), ruining multi-player and thus hurting thier product (and ultimately thier sales) would constistute the damages (which determines fines/jail time/other punitive actions. Moreover, thier countries of origin have little to do with this if Blizzard's copyrights are international (which I believe they are if they provide server coverage to multiple countries).
To put a cherry on the top, in reguards to one of the accused being nude in his home and charged, many places, including here in the United States (where I reside) have "Indecent Exposure" laws, largely to protect minors. These laws vary in degree and detail, but one that is common is the "plain sight" clause. This means that exposing yourself in plain sight of the public, even in one's home, the exposure is "public." Close your blinds and you'll be fine.
I doubt it. There would be no reason to do it aside from if they want to qualify for the "Biggest Douche" championships. If anything, mods help sell games, as it convinces people to buy the game because of its longevity. I would say that this is a step forward, because it would convince hackers to stop, or at least do it with more subtlety and without breaking the game so much. Remember, game development studios are in the business to make money, and alienating a harmless portion of their market is not a good idea, ethically or in a business sense.Nevyrmoore said:
Me, my collection of Baldur's Gate mods, and my playable Temple of Elemental Evil disagree with this lawsuit. Hacking can definitely make a game better.
These hackers are still dicks, though.
These hackers are still dicks, though.
1. Blizzard isn't banning "single-player cheaters", they are banning all cheaters. When Warden detects that some software is tampering with the protected game's memory, it doesn't really care what you're doing at the time. It just flags you and keeps observing and judging. Silently. And then you get banned.
2. Online achievements for singleplayer being "earned" via trainers is the exact same thing as that outrage about exploits in Halo Reach a few weeks ago. It's about prestige. It should take some work to get that Kerrigan portrait or whatever.
3. The lawsuit isn't just about hacks, it's also about the hacks being sold. Probably mostly because they were sold. If they were free, it'd get to lawsuit stage later than this, if at all. Trainers are bad, mmkay, but selling them is a crime.
4. The line between "mods" and "hacks" is quite blurry when it comes to multiplayer games, but singleplayer mods are in no danger. As long as they are free, of course, and don't modify the game client of multiplayer-capable games.
5. Activision and Kotick have nothing to do with anything. Forget they ever existed. Think about waffles instead.
That said, I'm with Blizzard on all the banning and suing. They should do it more often.
2. Online achievements for singleplayer being "earned" via trainers is the exact same thing as that outrage about exploits in Halo Reach a few weeks ago. It's about prestige. It should take some work to get that Kerrigan portrait or whatever.
3. The lawsuit isn't just about hacks, it's also about the hacks being sold. Probably mostly because they were sold. If they were free, it'd get to lawsuit stage later than this, if at all. Trainers are bad, mmkay, but selling them is a crime.
4. The line between "mods" and "hacks" is quite blurry when it comes to multiplayer games, but singleplayer mods are in no danger. As long as they are free, of course, and don't modify the game client of multiplayer-capable games.
5. Activision and Kotick have nothing to do with anything. Forget they ever existed. Think about waffles instead.
That said, I'm with Blizzard on all the banning and suing. They should do it more often.
Yes, there is a difference. And without the hacking efforts of TeamBG and Circle of Eight there would be no mods for Baldur's Gate, and The Temple of Elemental Evil would still be a buggy, unplayable mess.Xzi said:
The hackers in this lawsuit are dicks for selling hacks that can affect competitive online play. That does not make hacking in general bad. And don't get me started on the whole copyright law issue. Derivative works have always been a part of our culture, and any attempt to stop that lessens us. If Blizzard had made this about a few guys making money at the expense of Blizzard(by damaging multiplayer with cheats) then I would support them wholeheartedly. But they decided to go for the easy win and make it about copyright infringement and unless these guys were actually pirating the game itself, I would never support that sort of suit.
Again, the hackers are dicks, but Blizzard potentially damages the gaming community as a whole by portraying hacking as copyright infringement.
Something to be aware of.HandsomeJack said:
The US recently passed some foreign libel laws. Basically, people in another country can't sue us for things posted on the internet.
This is a similar standing, where those countries may protect their citizens from the big bad US corporation.
IIRC, Peru has more a laissez-faire government that is willing to say copyright infringement is not that big of a deal. Canada hasn't passed C-32 yet. So to say that these laws (US laws) should affect them is really stretching the bill by a large margin.
Based on a statement in a lawsuit, why does everyone draw the conclusion that
mods = hacks = bad
Blizzard is not suing the guy who made StarcraftKart (or whatever it was called), they're not suing the guy that made tower defense. They're not suing the people who made DotA.
These modifications were legitimate modifications made for positive reasons, just like the modifications to Oblivion, STALKER etc.
The makers of those mods have, incidentally, not been sued either.
Now, if we look at hacks, or the illegal modification of a game, what is the net result of those?
Simple: to unbalance the game in favor of the user of said modifications.
Assume you were playing Darts at the local pub, the entry fee is 10$. Now, assume you get to stand around 4 meters away from the dartboard, but your opponent for some reason gets to stand 0,5 meters away from it. You find this out the hard way after entering the competition.
You then tell your mates that:
"There's a bunch of cheaters over there, let's go somewhere else."
The owner then loses a bunch of sales due to the cheaters.
This is the situation Blizzard will wind up in, if they just ignore the cheaters (see Mw2).
Hacks are per definition negative as long as they work in such a way that it gives its users an unfair advantage over other legitimate, paying players.
For instance, if someone uses a trainer in SC2 and "earns" the Orlan avatar (defeat 6 AIs on the hardest difficulty), then that instantly devalues an avatar that's supposed to give you bragging rights and a certain amount of prestige, even though people may argue that "it's single-player only" it affects multiplayer.
Compare this to prestige-hacking in Mw2, where they have failed to enforce anti-cheat rules.
Those of you who've played that game knows what I'm talking about, when you see that skull emblem with a "70" next to it, do you think
"Great player"
or
"F**ing hacker"
It's the same thing with the Fall Camo as well, you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate player using it on the PC.
Modern Warfare 2 is a brilliant example of a game where there is NO anti-cheat enforcement in effect, and as such the experience is greatly diminished. If Blizzard did not ban these "innocent single-player cheaters" and sue these "innocent programming heroes of commerce", who mind you, actually made money of software that directly devalued the SC2 experience.
I can't understand how there's so many people who actually DEFEND this sort of thing? Not only that but you also give Blizzard some scathing criticism for enforcing a cheat-free environment?
(With regards to to the "cheat-mods" in oblivion, OP swords, etc. those are still legitimate modifications since they don't affect anyone else's gameplay, or your own prestige in relation to legitimate users)
mods = hacks = bad
Blizzard is not suing the guy who made StarcraftKart (or whatever it was called), they're not suing the guy that made tower defense. They're not suing the people who made DotA.
These modifications were legitimate modifications made for positive reasons, just like the modifications to Oblivion, STALKER etc.
The makers of those mods have, incidentally, not been sued either.
Now, if we look at hacks, or the illegal modification of a game, what is the net result of those?
Simple: to unbalance the game in favor of the user of said modifications.
Assume you were playing Darts at the local pub, the entry fee is 10$. Now, assume you get to stand around 4 meters away from the dartboard, but your opponent for some reason gets to stand 0,5 meters away from it. You find this out the hard way after entering the competition.
You then tell your mates that:
"There's a bunch of cheaters over there, let's go somewhere else."
The owner then loses a bunch of sales due to the cheaters.
This is the situation Blizzard will wind up in, if they just ignore the cheaters (see Mw2).
Hacks are per definition negative as long as they work in such a way that it gives its users an unfair advantage over other legitimate, paying players.
For instance, if someone uses a trainer in SC2 and "earns" the Orlan avatar (defeat 6 AIs on the hardest difficulty), then that instantly devalues an avatar that's supposed to give you bragging rights and a certain amount of prestige, even though people may argue that "it's single-player only" it affects multiplayer.
Compare this to prestige-hacking in Mw2, where they have failed to enforce anti-cheat rules.
Those of you who've played that game knows what I'm talking about, when you see that skull emblem with a "70" next to it, do you think
"Great player"
or
"F**ing hacker"
It's the same thing with the Fall Camo as well, you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate player using it on the PC.
Modern Warfare 2 is a brilliant example of a game where there is NO anti-cheat enforcement in effect, and as such the experience is greatly diminished. If Blizzard did not ban these "innocent single-player cheaters" and sue these "innocent programming heroes of commerce", who mind you, actually made money of software that directly devalued the SC2 experience.
I can't understand how there's so many people who actually DEFEND this sort of thing? Not only that but you also give Blizzard some scathing criticism for enforcing a cheat-free environment?
(With regards to to the "cheat-mods" in oblivion, OP swords, etc. those are still legitimate modifications since they don't affect anyone else's gameplay, or your own prestige in relation to legitimate users)
The problem here is that there are doubtless a number of mods / hacks that the publishers would probably wish to get rid of. For instance, as the law allows me to make backups of my computer software, I like to use NoCD mods to increase the life of my disks by running my games off ISOs (a practice that also lets me make a hardcopy of the disk should it become damaged later on). This may allow for developers / publishers to prevent the use of such software, despite it's use legally.irishstormtrooper said:
There is also the fact that a good portion of mods today have usually been made with the use of programs that allow someone to make them. Then we have mods like the KotOR II restoration mod and the V:TM - Bloodlines unofficial patches that have been made by pretty much hacking the software. Depending on how this case goes, we could find that mods made in such ways could be clamped down on.
Well, I'm afraid that's how the cookie crumbles man. Blizzard took alot of time to make this game and I know I'd hate it if someone else just breezed through it and cheated in multiplayer just to get hollow victories.Arehexes said:
Look, you can keep trying to validate it all you want, but you'll never convince me hacking in this game is okay. Maybe in other games, but not this one.
Also, I heavily agree with Spy_guy up there. He basically said my entire opinion on this issue.
Well explain to me why hacking in any other game (even ones without modding tools given by the dev) is ok but it's bad when you use it to earn a token achievement which has no real value (a guy recently got 500,000 achievement points on xbox live but what can he do with the points?). Explain to me why achievements are enough reason to go up in arms about over this. Should the guys have sold the hacks no. Should hacks be used online, no unless it's a private server and both people consent to it (kinda like with pokemon). I'm just saying you guys need to stop freaking the hell out over hacks, people on this thread say good hackers are good for nothing (at act like it atleast) but those same hacks and mods gave us games like tf2 and counter strike. It even uncovered Namco's secret of Darth Vader being on the disc of SC4 for the 360(which they removed all the videos of on youtube), which was done THROUGH HACKING. And fyi a hack is the same as a mod, because some modding tools 3rd party people give out (like a save file editor) was made by hacking the save file to figure out the values needed to be changed around. And you said Blizzard took a lot of time to make SC2, what about Rock Star who took a lot of time hiding Hot Coffee from the ESRB someone HACKED the game to find it. So yeah a mod and hack aren't the same, but a lot of 3rd party modder tools people make for popular games (even some map makers for rts) where made through hacking. And as to what Spy_guy said,Pendragon9 said:
"These modifications were legitimate modifications made for positive reasons, just like the modifications to Oblivion, STALKER etc.
The makers of those mods have, incidentally, not been sued either."
Problem is they still had to use illegal methods to make them work, it's either hacking is bad or good. You can't say they were legitimate is they had to reverse engineer the files(like a save editor for a game like roller coaster tycoon) and for something like this. Both require hacking files to find which values needed to be changed.
And by the way don't avoid my question for you explain to me how is hacking forcing out standard on your but you telling us how we should play is not? Saying "thats how the cookie crumbles" isn't enough you have enough gall to tell us not to force our way on you but then say we should play YOUR way you better back that up.
Not quite. As I said in the post (the part you didn't bother to quote), Blizzard is also trying to send a message. Stopping the single-player hacking shows exactly how serious they are about this. They will NOT tolerate hackers of any kind.Eponet said:
And really, why do people NEED to be hacking Starcraft 2's single player? The map editor is great, and there's not really any need to "improve" upon it. And Blizzard was kind enough to include cheats to help players who aren't able to beat single-player on their own, so there's no reason to hack that, either.
The only real reason I can think of to hack the game is to get achievements, and if that's the case, they deserve exactly what they got. If you can't get them on your own, without tampering with the game itself, then you don't deserve to have them.
We seem to be talking about vastly different things, you and I.Arehexes said:
Perhaps, I didn't clarify the point of my statement:
Hacking is when you modify a game for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over your fellow players.
What you're arguing for seems to be legitimate modification of game-files in order to produce additional value to the player without reducing the value for another player.
The way I see it, if a mod isn't detrimental it's a non-issue really, isn't it?
If someone wants to edit the memory to get infinite money in a local game of RC:T, then what's the harm in that?
Will it affect leaderboards? No.
Will someone but the cheating player get any effects from this? No.
That brings me to my second point:
I mentioned this in my previous post, but it's a lot of text and it's easy to overlook.Arehexes said:
Case-in-point: Prestige hacking in Mw2
To those of you who haven't heard about Mw2 and have no idea what I'm talking about, let me fill you in for the sake of clarity.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer has a ranking system, i.e. you earn experience, rank up and unlock new weapons. You can also carry out mini-objectives (stick a grenade to someone, for instance) in order to earn ribbons (titles) and emblems.
In addition to that there's also the option to enter "prestige mode" which resets your level and everything, but allows you to unlock new Titles, Emblems and gives you a new ranking symbol. Still with no real impact on gameplay (you will not instantly become more powerful simply for earning one of these).
However due to the fact that the highest rank (10th prestige, lvl 70) is so difficult to reach, because it requires a lot of playtime, it has a certain rarity and as such a certain, if I may say so, prestige surrounding it. Same thing with the other knick-knacks (fall camo, etc).
The developers intended that these badges and symbols of merit would be worn as a sign of dedication and skill in the player. Mind you, it still has no impact on gameplay.
However, prestige hackers use memory editors to give themselves these items and symbols instantly, and the practice is common enough that these items have been severely devalued. For instance, when I see a player with a 10th prestige symbol, I'm supposed to think "oh dear, this one is good", but in most cases I just think "Oh dear, another cheater. Lovely."
Chances are this was not the developers intention, as it clearly destroys a mechanic they inserted into the game for a certain purpose (reward seasoned players).
Using your logic this practice would be completely legitimate, due to the fact that it doesn't affect actual gameplay, you still can't see enemies behind walls, etc.
But, I think you fail to understand, or accept that a game is multifaceted, and that while gameplay certainly is a big part of the experience, the other mechanics play a part as well.
To be perfectly clear, I'll just tie this together with the SC2 situation we have here, and the candidate I have up for show is this one:
Liberty Completionist: Brutal
This is the achievement you get when you complete campaign on Brutal difficulty, it will reward you with the Sarah Kerrigan portrait, which is intended to symbolize your skill. The purpose for this is to give players an incentive to tackle this challenge, and when in an environment where you can be certain it was earned legally will give you substantial bragging rights.
So I'll say it again, hacking is still hacking as long as it gives you an unfair advantage over your peers.
This point was not directly aimed at me, but I still feel the need to answer it.Arehexes said:
Personally I think that you're just arguing for argument's sake here, but I'll still consider it a valid point.
First of all, Pendragon isn't the one who's telling you how to play the game, the developers did when making it. In a way your argument falls apart on its' absurdity based on the fact that you're actively trying to justify these negative modifications with an argument that can be boiled down to "my personal freedom".
Firstly I'd like to point out that the multiplayer environment you play in is not in any way anarchistic, but is in fact a benevolent dictatorship. As such you have no right to play the game in "your own way" by using third party modifications. There are rules in place to ensure a fair competition between players, and to prevent the derailing of the game mechanics.
Compare this to real-world sports, they don't allow you to put spikes on the shoulder pads in NFL, nor do they allow you to bring a gun to a boxing match.
For instance, how would it be if, say Mike Tyson went in the ring with a challenger of clearly inferior skill, and said challenger were to simply shoot him in the gut, then take home the grand prize.
Would that be a fair game? No.
If you see how utterly silly that scenario is, then you'll understand my point; just replace boxing with Starcraft, Mike Tyson with the enemy AI (in the campaign), this challenger with a player, and the gun with a memory editor.
What is the difference here?