The Blizzard Thread.

[DaFox]

http://www.cheathappens.com/article_blizzardbans.asp


This just makes me sick.

In the past they have made connection to the impact of the hack and the action taken. (I.E. you would get banned for using something like a map hack in Warcraft 3, but you could also get banned for using custom campaign hosting tools. :x)

[StingingVelvet]

Wow, I was upset about removing the singleplayer from multiplayer cheaters, let alone singleplayer guys. Crazzzzzzy.

[Abram]

That's pretty disgusting.

I've never wanted to post that Picard-head-in-hand pic before, but I'm pretty close now.

Ban cheaters in MO, of course. But for people that only cheat themselves!? Plus, some SP cheats can be pretty fun. And what's this? they ban SP for MP cheating? Oy.

Boy, am I glad I didn't buy a copy. Reading that article makes me want to pirate it, just out of spite. Maybe World of Warcracfts' success has made them think too highly of themselves.

[DaFox]

But for people that only cheat themselves!? Plus, some SP cheats can be pretty fun. And what's this? they ban SP for MP cheating? Oy.

Really the worst part is how they define cheating too, they don't define it as 'an unfair advantage over another player' like other systems such as VAC or Punkbuster. They define it as 'any third party program'.

Its rather sickening.

[GeneralAdmission]

“playing anything other than an unaltered game client violates the Battle.net terms or use. We strongly recommend that you avoid using any hacks, cheats or exploits.”

Done. I will likely never purchase this game, even in the bargain bin. I happen to take great pleasure from modding games in a variety of ways, from doing FOV fixes to just dorking around for fun, but I ain't playing with Big Blizzard.

[g00seberry]

That's pretty disgusting.

I've never wanted to post that Picard-head-in-hand pic before, but I'm pretty close now.

I'm more than happy to take one for the team here....

[Unknownsock]

The only thing that comes to mind is the achievements, as your constantly connected to Battle.net etc.
But considering the games mechanics, i understand this. Although i do agree, this should be made more obvious.
And wouldn't the better thing to do be, delete the data/achievements whilst cheating? And leave it at that. Maybe a little warning?

What annoys me if is the fact that Blizz have the final say, no questions asked.
Exacly the same with Steam too.

[Paradigm Shifter]

I'm presuming that they aren't banning people for the built-in cheats? (Which disable Achievements if you use them apparently...)

Regardless, this is fairly obviously a money-making exercise: I imagine they think that people banned will go buy a second copy of the game. Which, I think they'll be wrong. I was planning on getting the "StarCraft 2 Battle Chest" or whatever it would be, but I've not bought an Activision/Blizzard game in years due to lack of interest, so seems like that'll just continue with a more defined reason.

I personally don't see what's wrong with cheating in single player, although I obviously see what is wrong with cheating in multiplayer... but Blizzard's response seems rather disproportionate. I could see a case for "single player 3rd party cheating" being detected and disabling Achievements, or something... but banning an account so the game can no longer be played? A great example of the "licensing" of software being used as an abuse of power. Especially since they don't perma-ban WoW cheats.

And I bet if anyone tried to take this to court, Blizzard would bang on about how "memory address injection/modification is a violation of the DMCA" or some such bollocks.

[The_cranky_hermit]

If we accept that they're trying to stop people from earning achievements unfairly, then some kind of punishment is necessary. Cheat detection can't work 100% of the time, so it needs to do something worse than just negate the payoff to discourage cheating.

That said, worrying about singleplayer cheating is just stupid. Who cares about earning achievements fairly, other than the person trying to earn them? Do people really compare their SP achievements to others'?

[Unknownsock]

If we accept that they're trying to stop people from earning achievements unfairly, then some kind of punishment is necessary. Cheat detection can't work 100% of the time, so it needs to do something worse than just negate the payoff to discourage cheating.

That said, worrying about singleplayer cheating is just stupid. Who cares about earning achievements fairly, other than the person trying to earn them? Do people really compare their SP achievements to others'?

I think the main problem is Blizz are really trying really hard to push Battle.net.
And as achievements and score etc tie into this so much..

[DaFox]

I'm presuming that they aren't banning people for the built-in cheats? (Which disable Achievements if you use them apparently...)

And I bet if anyone tried to take this to court, Blizzard would bang on about how "memory address injection/modification is a violation of the DMCA" or some such bollocks.

Correct, the built in singleplayer cheats just disable achievements.

The sad thing is that they have already fought for such things; and won. :|

I think the main problem is Blizz are really trying really hard to push Battle.net.
And as achievements and score etc tie into this so much..

Yeah, they claim that they are targeting people who are using trainers to get the achievements easily, The achievements provide you with a score that everyone on battle.net can see. They also unlock character portraits for your avatar.

That being said, its no excuse from completely banning someone from playing the game at all. They could just disable the persons achievements permanently (even that is quite harsh in my opinion.)

[Abram]

:lol: thanks eZ`.

[Tanuki]

I am confused.

You have to use Battle.net for singleplayer?

[Paradigm Shifter]

Yup.

I dunno if there is an "offline" mode... I seem to remember reading somewhere that you could play offline-offline, but it wouldn't let you save, or something daft like that...

...

I like the idea of permanently disabled Achievements, myself. About the only game I really cared about Achievements on was Defense Grid, and that was more because I was totally hooked on that game for ages. There are a heck of a lot of Achievements in say, Just Cause 2, which I've not got because I don't play it with Steam online. Either that or add a "cheater" tag to their Profile, or sommat...

[GeneralAdmission]

Achievements...the most over-hyped, insignificant feature in games. When marketing folks actually list achievements as a game feature I scoff in their general direction.

I am confused.

You have to use Battle.net for singleplayer?

Well the game requires authentication every 30 days, but I don't know exactly how it interfaces with Bnet for SP since I don't (and won't) own the game.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Achievements...the most over-hyped, insignificant feature in games. When marketing folks actually list achievements as a game feature I scoff in their general direction.

Haha, yeah, agree completely.

Well the game requires authentication every 30 days, but I don't know exactly how it interfaces with Bnet for SP since I don't (and won't) own the game.

I enjoyed Starcraft, but obviously I'll have to grasp the story of Starcraft 2 by reading a script that I'm sure someone, somewhere will take the time to type into a text file...

[StingingVelvet]

“playing anything other than an unaltered game client violates the Battle.net terms or use. We strongly recommend that you avoid using any hacks, cheats or exploits.”

Done. I will likely never purchase this game, even in the bargain bin. I happen to take great pleasure from modding games in a variety of ways, from doing FOV fixes to just dorking around for fun, but I ain't playing with Big Blizzard.

Yeah, by this logic I deserve to have my entire Steam account banned for using a trainer on Just Cause 2.

[DaFox]

Yeah, by this logic I deserve to have my entire Steam account banned for using a trainer on Just Cause 2.

I don't think that it is that bad. It's pretty clear cut that the logic says that you should be unable to play Just Cause 2 again without repurchasing.

If you get caught cheating in Starcraft 2 they don't ban your Warcraft 3 CD-Key. They don't ban your World of Warcraft accounts.

[Paradigm Shifter]

[quote]Yeah, by this logic I deserve to have my entire Steam account banned for using a trainer on Just Cause 2.

I don't think that it is that bad. It's pretty clear cut that the logic says that you should be unable to play Just Cause 2 again without repurchasing.

If you get caught cheating in Starcraft 2 they don't ban your Warcraft 3 CD-Key. They don't ban your World of Warcraft accounts.
Given that you can play Warcraft 3 without being signed in to Battle.net, however, makes the point of that a little moot. World of Warcraft? If they ban you from that, they can't charge you $15 a month any more!

[StingingVelvet]

I don't think that it is that bad. It's pretty clear cut that the logic says that you should be unable to play Just Cause 2 again without repurchasing.

If you get caught cheating in Starcraft 2 they don't ban your Warcraft 3 CD-Key. They don't ban your World of Warcraft accounts.

Ah, the way I read the article it was battle.net accounts being banned, but you're right, I guess it is just the one game. STILL. I am firmly of the opinion they should never be able to take your game away. Ban you from multiplayer or leaderboards or even earning achievements, that is fine, but they should never be able to prevent access to the singleplayer mode.

I don't think Valve should have the power to do that either, though they do. In the end I usually overlook this B.S. because the PC is an open platform and I would like to see them try to stop me playing a singleplayer game I bought. I usually look past supporting companies that use such DRM and "games as a service" tactics because it's more important to support PC gaming. If Blizzard are going to be such colossal dicks about it though, I don't know if I can give them money anymore.