Blizzard Banning Single Player Cheaters

Is Blizzard Banning Starcraft II Players For Cheating In Singleplayer?

Have achievements really become such serious business that developers like Blizzard should feel the need to punish players for playing a game they bought and don't affect other players? I don't even go for achievements on purpose when i play games. It just feels like one more bad step towards the idea of software as a service versus ownership.

 

Ouch, that would totally suck and ruin my day.

I have used a triple-screen hack for single player to enjoy SC2 on my mutli monitor setup. If they start tracking after single player "hacks" I could be on the bounty list.

Fog of war and stuff still there but it was really neat to see SC2 on 3 screens.

Widescreen Gaming Forum • View topic - Someone Test StarCraft 2 5760 x 1080 Support and Post Here!

I have never used it online in fear of ban but had no idea I would have to be worried about single player.


If Blizzard is doing this just due to people hacking for achievements, the best call would be to reset there achievements and give a warning I think.

 

Why does it matter? Single player doesn't affect anyone. Some of the fun of gaming sometimes is using cheats or hacks to do something different. I'm really getting to dislike Blizzard and all their WoW crap anyhow. As a matter of fact I'm growing weary of SC2 already. I realize it's an old formula that's been rehashed and it's just not that much fun to begin with. If they want to pull this crap then I want my money back. Release a single player game and a multiplayer game separately then.

 

i hope not i got a sc2 hacked for laa suport it helps late game into custom games

 

built in cheat codes= they are OK, because if you use them the game disables achievements+points, so you couldn't use them in multiplayer

3rd party programs (trainers)= they are bad, mmkay? Because if you use them the game won't disable achievements+points and you can earn them and use them to get advantage in multiplayer

The problem is not with cheat codes, it is with the 3rd party programs that Blizzard did not approve.

 

Tell me one way you get an advantage in multiplayer with achievements? It's all fluff. So you get a new avatar image. Big whoop. It's not like you get leveled up units from the start of the game or anything.

 

not like any one is looking at achivement's anyway blizzard is starting to fail and why the hell didn't they integrated channels in sc2 and let's not talk about the custom game system it's gottabe the worst ever

 

Blizzard is ruining themselves. Honestly, I never gave a crap about achievements, but banning people for getting single player achievements unfairly is just stupid. Let them have their cheats and achievements, who's it gonna affect other than the loser thinking he's cool with all those achievements?

 

Banning for single player cheating is retarded. Gamers don't like companies that try to tell them what to do with their hardware or software when it isn't multiplayer. One of these days the companies will wake up and realize this.

 

This has to be one of the dumbest moves since AC2's DRM. Banning because of single player cheating? Really? It affects no one but the person doing it. If they want to go ahead and ruin the feeling of getting a hard achievement them self, then let them do it.

 

What he said.

You can cheat all you want as long as it doesn't affect achievement points. I do believe there are players out there who take that seriously and want to show off/brag to other people about it.

That being said, I believe if you used 3rd party programs OFFLINE (so achievement points are already disabled) it's okay (in terms of getting banned). If you don't care about achievement points in the first place, then just play offline and use whatever 3rd party programs you want. Note however, you are still violating the EULA (but I don't think they'd ban you in this case. See Vicious' post above.)

 

Cheating in multiplayer should be their top priority, not single player.

 

It is their top priority. And that's already been taken care of.

 

The whole point is who cares? Once companies start regulating your single player game, it's game over before it's even started. Stupid. Just plain stupid. Achievements mean nothing. Achievements are stupid too IMHO. It's just another way of whipping out a ruler to see who's bigger anyhow. If they're that insecure then maybe they need to get some counseling.

I can understand if the achievements gave you an advantage in multiplayer games, by adding extra units, leveled up units at the start, etc, but that would make for completely uneven game balance too.

Just another nail in the coffin for PC gaming. Anyone who supports this might as well get out their rulers and their hammers.

 

So they just jump down to single player now that there done with multi player? Whats after single player? Cheating during the installation of the game?

 

I don't really see how we're all disagreeing.

We all think achievements are stupid.
We all think cheating should be okay in single player.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ergo, cheating should be allowed if it doesn't affect achievement.

Again, people can cheat all they want as long as they're doing it offline. Perhaps the problem with SC2 is the default play is online unless you specifically tell it to play offline.

 

nah if you cheat in any thing on your computer

 

Also, you don't own this game. Before installing, you clicked on "accept" after reading through their EULA, which specifically states that you are leasing the game and that you don't own it. Therefore, any modifications are technically illegal, as it is not yours to begin with.

Gaming (and cheating) I think is really interesting from a legal point of view (anyone else study law?). If you take a look at WoW, it's clear players would prefer Blizzard to violate your (comupter's) freedom and monitor the processes during your gaming to see if you're cheating or not. Any hardcore WoW player don't want others to have an unfair advantage by cheating. You can basically take the same logic and apply it to SC2.

 

I don't understand why people are angry at this move. It is also a violation against TOS to use 3rd party program (i.e. trainer) for the game period (doesn't matter if it is single or multi). Also Blizzard has every right to ban if you have violated the TOS since you don't own the game when you buy it.

 

But WoW is all multiplayer. If it's a ranked game, then sure, apply all the rules and monitor cheating. But even if it were a private server where your levels wouldn't carry over, who cares.

I dislike the whole "you accept the EULA" argument. Just because Blizzard wrote it doesn't mean it's right or fair. I don't use cheats, except for built-in ones occasionally, haven't yet on SC2. But I've played games in the past with third party hacks just for fun in single player games.

There is nothing "legal" about the EULA. It's a use policy written by Blizzard, nothing about legalities. You won't be arrested or tried in court if you violate their terms. Blizzard is the judge, jury, and executioner. Worse case scenario is they ban you. Which in the case of single player I don't think should be even monitored.

I'm beginning to regret buying SC2. It's not a whole lot different than Ubishaft's DRM now. Not to mention the lack of LAN play.

 

Agree with what wingnut is saying. Pretty much every gamer out there agrees that if it's online then the playing field should be even (no cheating, exploiting unpatched bugs frowned on ect). But unless achievements (or items) that you get in SP can in any way affect multi, then who gives a crap?

Ever since activision tainted blizzard, they've been pulling stunts like this. If anyone actually bothered to read the EULA in vanilla wow, you actually owned your account and were free to do with it as you pleased - it wasn't until midway thru TBC, when activision came into the picture, that blizz really started witchhunting account traders and modifying the EULA.

If they are going to keep using terms like 'you are renting this software' then they should include the EULA on the outside of the box, before you buy it. It's unacceptable for virtually any other piece of software - would you "buy" a copy of windows you didn't own rights to? Or music you didn't actually own and was DRM locked... wait, people already do that

Perhaps it's sheeple consumers that are the problem, and activision is just ruthlessly exploiting the average joe's lack of information/care. People need to vote with their wallets, unfortunately too few are informed and too many are attracted to the newest shiniest dangling virtual carrot.

 

That's the other thing. Even if the EULA is "subject to change without notice" then the customer should have a right to a full refund. You sign up with a certain EULA then they change it, you should be given a chance to get a refund.

Besides that, who reads the EULA? It's a friggin GAME! Which is supposed to be FUN! When they start pulling crap like this it starts to eliminate the FUN. Modding and hacking PC games is what sets PC games apart from consoles. Again, if it doesn't affect ranked gameplay then who cares. If I want to turn my SCV's into chickens, and make my Queens look like George Bush just for fun, why should I need to risk being banned?

 

God dammit Blizzard stop doing all these stupid things and be done with Diablo 3 already >:[

 

Q F T !

Not that I was a big fan of Diablo to begin with, but Reizo's point is well taken. Instead of spending resources witch hunting single player gamers let them actually spend time creating new content...

 

The fact that WoW players are okay with Blizzard accessing their computers knowingly to prevent cheating is amazing to me.

Likewise, I really don't think consumers would stop buying SC2 (or any other games or OS or music) knowing that they won't own it, as long as they can use it and enjoy it. Note that Valve (and most others) also states a similar "you don't own the game" on their games.

It doesn't matter if you think Blizzard's EULA is fair. You will still buy the game. I don't think it's fair that I'm mandated by law to pay for car insurance. But the fact is, driving (and playing games) is a privilege not a right. Remember, you don't have to buy the game! Edit: this is a horrible analogy.

Also, I think a lot of you underestimate the power of achievement points. Why do you think games such as farmville is so popular? Any game where you can directly/quantitatively compare two people are highly successful.

Edit: It needs to be clear that there are cheat codes already in SC2. People are NOT being banned for cheating. They are being banned for using hacks whilst ONLINE. They are not even being banned for using hacks OFFLINE.

 

There are people who actually really "work" for the achievement. I don't know if you play WoW, but here is an example:
How would you feel if you earned Light of the Dawn title (Lich King 25 hc) after weeks of wiping but then half the server would get it in a few hours with a trainer? Exactly.

 

Funny that folks like PB can't get cheaters off servers but Blizzard can.

Maybe PB needs to contract Blizzard to write some cheat detection code.

StevenX

 

The problem is for your first point, eventually people are going to run into a situation where they want to play DRM music that they've had for 10+ years on their new computer and no longer want the hassle of itunes. Once you go itunes, you don't even have the option of opting out without losing whatever library you have on it.

I don't believe Valve has ever stated that you don't own any of their games, but I know for a fact that they've stated if they were to ever shut down the service, all games you own on your account would be unlocked and would be in your possession. The difference is that actiblizz's EULA pretty much says that they can shut down their servers after 30 days notice and you will get nothing, since you never actually owned anything in the first place.

@drevan, again you can't compare multiplayer/mmo to SP. Blizz has rightfully banned entire wow guilds in the past for exploits, even before achievements existed. Banning for singleplayer exploits and goofing around is akin to saying "x build/strat is banned from gameplay but we aren't actually going to patch it so you can't do that anymore" or "building motherships in SP results in an instant forfeit". Would you play singleplayer if certain units were greyed out and unbuildable? Or if you couldn't play on whatever map you wanted?

 

Achivements again, who cares? If someone worked for it and someone else didn't who cares? It makes no difference to anyone. It doesn't give anyone and advantage over anyone else. It's bragging rights, which to me is completely ridiculous.

Pretty much every game out there says you don't own the game, you're only given the right to use the game, it's been that way since I've played games for the last 30+ years. Although many companies treat you, the paying customer, with respect and like you actually do own the game. And no company that I'm aware of intrudes into your single player game except Ubisoft with their recent shenanigans.

If you buy a game like Starcraft 2 for achievements and worry if someone else got it by cheating or not, well you need to get out more often, sorry.

Chances are you might compete against your friends for achievements, but that's a friendly rivalry and probably neither one of you will cheat. Even if someone did, WHO CARES? If some Joe Blow off the street cheats are you going to care if he has all the achievements and you don't? I sure hope not. That's just pure insecurity at its finest. WHO CARES?

It's a game. WHO CARES?

See a trend there?

 

Cheat codes already exist in SC2. You can use cheat codes all you want.
People were not banned for cheating but for using hacks whilst playing single-player online. I believe people who used hacks for offline play were not[i/] banned.

Essentially, Blizzard banned players who used hacks to gain achievement points. So back to the question the op posted:
Have achievements really become such serious business that developers like Blizzard should feel the need to punish players for playing a game they bought and don't affect other players?

 

I think you underestimate the power of achievement points. It's what makes a game sell and be addictive for gamers these days. Farmville is a great example of this. It's also why people will pay money to get more 'points' in Farmville. (I actually know nothing about Farmville, so if everything I said doesn't make sense, please disregard it )

If you're saying who cares to achievement points, you might as well say who cares about getting that purple pixelated item on WoW. People who care will care, and people who don't care won't care. Fact is most people do care.

If, however, you don't care about achievement points, just use hacks offline in single player and you're golden. You won't be banned.

Edit: I believe if you're actually downloading the hack, it even says FOR OFFLINE USE ONLY. USE AT OWN RISK.

 

I think this is really a case of personal opinions. Some people may take achievements more seriously than the rest. But really, I do think it's quite pointless at this point to do this since they have other big things to do than just banning achievement hackers. Why not finish off other things first and then do these bannings at a larger scale to actually scare off people? I mean just saying "4,000 people banned for single player achievement hacking in SC2" is less threatening than "40,000 people banned for single player achievement hacking" or so

 

Well that's a simple answer: yes they are srs business. They allow devs to be lazy - in case you haven't noticed, in lieu of actually adding content pretty much everyone just adds achievements as their new metagame. Why create content which is hard work when you can tell the players to do something in a certain, often stupid way to create artificial replay value?

Devs who designed achievement popups are evil/clever, they realized that 95% of people like a shiny popup+sound that is the virtual pat on the back. Some people are just more prone to seek (blizzard's?) achievement "approval", or have more time on their hands and nothing better to do with it, and will defend their "time well wasted" aggressively.

 

And I think people take achievments way too seriously.

Achivements mean something like in Battlefield 2 or Bad Company 2 where you can actually get new weapons, and can make a difference in the game. That's when achivements mean something. That's when cheating would affect other players.

Otherwise it's just a personal progress meter, nothing more.

It's fine if you want to earn achivements, and it should be up to you how you earn them. If you cheat, well you know you cheated, but it doesn't affect anyone else, period.

 

HEY! You get new pictures to be your avatar in SC2 when you get the achievements! NEW AVATARS!

 

Oh man! You're RIGHT! I take back everything I said... those avatars are worth getting banned for.

 

I think people take games way too seriously in general. But eh, what can we do?

I disagree that it's a personal progress. If it could only be viewed by you, then it's a personal progress. But because it's viewed by everyone, it's more of a personal progress that you use to compare with others.

Perhaps a compromise would then be to allow players to cheat but put achievements earned through cheating in red or differentiate them in some other way? If you don't differentiate them in some way, I think it would lessen the game for all non-cheaters.

 

Some people do take games way too seriously. I think some friendly competition is fun, but game companies breed too serious competition because they don't have a lot more magic tricks to pull out of their pocket to make games fun.

Do you compare your achivements with people you don't know? I'd compare with friends just for some friendly competition. Otherwise I don't care if you finished the single player campaign on easy or insane. Or if you have all the avatars.

I'd be fine if they disable achivements altogether if they detect you're using a third party or unauthorized hack.

Again, if achievements actually meant something that affected the multiplayer, I could easily see banning, but even that's extreme. Just reset that person's achievements. Put them back at ground zero.

 

They'll start scanning to see if people are overclocking in order to get a higher FPS. In that case we'd all be fudged.

 

LOLOL. Yeah, really. Its getting that ridicules.

Anyways, so there only worried about single player hacking? not "cheating"? I've always been a big fan of single player hacks like, you know, messing around with AI, texture replacement, other hacks, modding, ect. Just look at all the great Valve games that were inspired by player-made hacks.

 

I find achievements idiotic in the first place.
Unless they contribute to actual game-play, then quite frankly, they're a useless gimmick.

Either way, I don't do multi-player in virtually any form, so I would never have to worry about this particular stupidity.

 

It is personal progress. It basically is a milestone in your, and only your progress throughout the game by achieving certain goals. Has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

I dont think I have seen one person here really compare there achievement points to somebody else, or had anybody feel somebody is better because they have more.

When I see games won, league ranking, win loss ratio. Those mean something to me. If I see a diamond player with like 400 achievement points I do not think anything more or less of him than another diamond player with over 3000 points.

To me it just means somebody took the time to go out of there way to get the points, but its not like any real accomplishment.

I actually have been actively hunting achievements since day one and still even now when not playing others try to get more, but just because its giving me something to do, a goal. Not because I actually get anything from it or expect anybody else to think anything of it.

I agree with those who took the easy way out of the argument and said "in the UELA it clearly states...blah blah blah" you would be correct by definition, anybody that has hacked in single player violated those terms and is liable for the actions taken on them.

However I do not agree that its actually morally right in any way shape or form. Who actually reads the EULA?? I sure didnt. Even if I had I would still have used that triple screen hack because its my game, my system, and I wanted to see what it would be like to play the game on 3 screens.

I was smart enough, and honest enough to never use it online because I know that is wrong. Anything that is a cheat online is wrong, but in single player? Let people do as they wish, if they have more fun that way then let them.

The argument here is clearly not is this "legally right" but is it "morally right" and I have to say its not.

 

I know people I used to play with before the achievement system that play 18 hours/per day just to be the "top" in the achievement rankings. I don't know these people IRL, but they've given away a great deal of their lives to grinding achievements. I for one, HATE the achievement system and could care less about it.

Achievements are poison and should of never existed to begin with. It's poisoned WoW especially, since people are obsessed with them.

 

Personal enjoyment is personal enjoyment end of story. Blizzard is being arrogant in assuming they have a right to police what you do in your own home on your own pc.

Don't have Starcraft, and now never will. Don't care if I would or would not have "cheated". To me it is simply the wrong way for a company to behave. And I have simply one choice to exercise, don't buy their product.

I'll bet Diablo 3 is going to be the same way. And you know what, won't buy that either. Yeah I was looking forward to D3 and mayby SC2 when I had more time, but now, I'll pass. If this is what 12 million players does to your morals then it's no wonder the gaming industry is in the pickle it's in. You want people to behave morally? Companies have to do it too. And this isn't right.

 

Whether or not you agree that this singleplayer "cheating" is wrong, can we all agree that outright banning is pretty much overkill?

Send out a warning via email or Bnet, something before you take away a persons right to play the game.

 

Yeah thats what I am thinking. What is there reason for it?

Is it to scare us? Or is the BS they are spoon feeding us about achievements being some kind of prestigious marking that strongly reflects upon your online reputation.

If it really is what they claim and its because they are freaking out about achievement then how hard is it to send them an email saying "all of your achievements have been reset to 0 because we have determined your account was used in some form of game hacking blah blah"

Atleast then somebody who paid the $60-$100 for the game can learn there lesson and game on. Lot better than making life long enemies and having people boycott your games.

 

It's all about potential money I guess ._. Banning them forces them to get another copy. Even if you refuse to get another copy it won't be much of a difference to them.

 

With the real id system, who knows even a new copy may not get you back into the game. They may ban YOU from the game and not just your copy of the game.

This means you would have to create a whole new battle.net account under somebody elses name and credentials as well as get a new game.

When you get a game it ties to your battlenet account you can even digital download most of them, so a new game is not going to magically remove the old one from your registration and allow you to add a new one I do not think.

 

I don't think it's along the lines of earning more money as much as them wanting to prevent 'cheating' online (though I certainly don't discount the possibility of them wanting to profit from this somehow).

Namely, they are allergic to cheaters on battle.net and have banned such individuals.
It's possible they are implementing this tactic as means to see who cheats in SP, which could in their twisted mind automatically translate into the possibility that such a person is more likely to cheat in battle.net.

Buying a new game ... well, that might bring in a bit more revenue to Blizzard, but honestly, who exactly would go out and spend another batch of cash on a game on a slim chance they could play it online?
Oh wait ... the dedicated ones probably would.
Still, I would find it pointless.