Blizzard Bans Single Player Cheaters

[MedicSN6]

Blizzard Bans Single Player Cheaters

by Joe Sinicki on Oct 10, 2010

 

 

BACKGROUND:

On October 1, 2010, Blizzard began the unprecedented act of suspending and banning players for the use of cheats and trainers in SINGLE PLAYER games of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Users found to be using cheats in SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN MODE and AI SKIRMISH mode were treated the same as if they had cheated in a multiplayer online match. For some, their accounts were suspended and for others their CD keys were disabled and they were completely locked out of playing even campaign mode in their legally purchased game.

 

 

Cheat Happens user gm0ney has yet to play Blizzard?s much anticipated Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty online. He?s spent the majority of his time playing through the game?s campaign and AI skirmish matches, which makes the email he received that much stranger. ?Offense: Terms of Use Violation - Exploitative Activity: Unauthorized cheat programs (?hacks?). Account Action: 14 day (336 hour) suspension.? The user had been suspended, for using the trainer for Starcraft 2 created and distributed by CheatHappens.com, strictly against AI opponents. ?Gm0ney? isn?t alone either, Blizzard?s actions have left many Cheat Happens users with a suspension or much worse, a lifetime ban, it also has many wondering - is it legal?

 

?I was mostly shocked,? Cheat Happens gm0ney said of the ban e-mail. ?Although with all of the news about bans and suspensions coming up, I was somewhat prepared. Blizzard has made it very public in the few months since the game?s release that they would take immediate action against anyone found cheating in any form of StarCraft 2. ?We take cheating in our games very seriously,? said a Blizzard spokesperson in a press release. ?If you?re caught cheating in Starcraft 2, Blizzard, as per the terms in the EULA reserves the right to ban your battle.net account and/or CD key from ever playing again, online or off. In essence, it?s the language of the EULA that?s in question in the argument as Blizzard states that ?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.?

 

?The company already had our money so they didn?t care about our accounts.?

 

Still though, some question Blizzard?s motives. ?I?m surprised they took such a blind step without doing some research into the games played,? gm0ney added. The user has been through a similar situation before, with another game -- where he suspects the company had monetary motivations for the bans, ?A bunch of people?s accounts got hacked and used cheats, so we all got banned. The company already had our money so they didn?t care about our accounts.? Many people, including Cheat Happens? Business Operations Manager and Content Editor Chris O?Rorke, believe that Blizzard is also thinking monetarily, and points to the company?s blockbuster MMO World of Warcraft as evidence. In WoW, which (unlike Starcraft 2) carries with it a monthly fee, users who are found to be cheating are only handed temporary bans as to not interrupt the monthly flow of cash coming from those users.

 

A blizzard spokesperson defended the company and its actions, saying that the bannings were done in an effort to be fair to all users rather than for money. In an e-mail to a Cheat Happens user appealing their suspension, the company claims that single player Starcraft 2 games have an effect on multiplayer. ?While single player games only appear to be you and a computer at first, your achievements and gamer score also carries weight and prestige for your online play,? read the email.

 

O?Rorke scoffs at the reply. ?Our trainers help put the control back in the hands of the end-user and let them play the game the way they want to play it. Through our cheats and trainers, we try and enhance the games by offering the player new and different ways of playing. As long as these cheats don?t affect anyone but the person using them, why does anyone care? It?s not affecting any type of online ladders or standings or interrupting another person?s game. Some people argue that ?achievements? can easily be gained by using cheats and this is the reason for banning people. Again, achievements are meant to mark a certain individual?s milestones within the game. They have no bearing on multiplayer standings, matches or games, regardless of what Blizzard might say. You can?t tell me that an individual?s single player achievements have any bearing on the multiplayer match of two completely different and random people on the other side of the globe. If the achievements were such a big deal, then why not simply disable them or disable a user?s ability to participate in online matches? There is no good reason to completely disable someone?s legally purchased game just because they cheated in single player mode and might one day play a multiplayer match. If Blizzard has the technology to detect single player cheats and trainers, surely they have the ability to merely disable or deactivate achievements just as they do when using the game's built-in cheat codes.?

 

?I don?t think it?s fair and I would even go as far as to question its legality.?

 

O?Rorke says that when he heard about the bans, he was surprised. ?I don?t think it?s fair and I would even go as far as to question its legality. I can completely understand, and even support, the banning of users that are intentionally cheating multiplayer games as this affects more than just the person doing the cheating,? said O?Rorke. ?However, banning people for cheating in a single player game is utterly ridiculous.? O?Rorke adds that if you were to take the situation out of the gaming world, it seems even more ridiculous. ?Would you buy a car if you knew that if you decided to switch out the factory stereo with a better, third party stereo, that someone would come and repossess your car in the middle of the night simply for doing so? It's a ridiculous proposition." O'Rorke continues by saying ?Having been in the cheating business for over 13 years now, I?ve learned that people cheat for many different reasons. Some people have time constraints and want to be able to experience the entire game, so they cheat through the most difficult parts in order to reach the end. Some people might be older or handicapped or simply not possess the fast-twitch reflexes of a 12 year old which seems to be a requirement of some games these days. Ultimately, cheats and trainers help game publishers and are the reason that companies other than Blizzard don't start throwing out bans for single player use. Who is more likely to purchase additional DLC and sequels to a game, someone frustrated half way through that cannot finish the game or someone that was able to enjoy all the game had to offer, albeit with the use of cheats??

 

So is there any way around the bans for those who cheat in single-player content? Apparently not, according to email correspondence received from Blizzard which states ?Following a review of your case, we can confirm that the evidence presented was correct, and that the subsequent action taken was appropriate. Our decision in this matter stands, and will not be overturned. Please note, it is our policy never to reveal details regarding account investigations, beyond the information given in the original notice mail, for privacy and security reasons. We now consider this matter closed, and would not look to enter into further communication on the matter.? Mike Yurgalavage, Lead Trainer Programmer for Cheat Happens, finds this response almost comical. ?Imagine if you were arrested for something and the legal system worked the same way. You would be accused and convicted without even knowing what you were accused of exactly nor how they got the evidence,? says Yurgalavage. Regardless, O?Rorke states that the situation won?t change how Cheat Happens does business in the future.

 

?We will continue to produce cheats and trainers that work in single player games because we believe it is each person?s right to be able to fully enjoy what each game has to offer,? O?Rorke said of his website. ?It may take extra time on our part to safely separate the trainer's functions so that they only work in single player modes, but we will not simply give up and deny our users the ability to cheat in a game that they have purchased just because Blizzard doesn't care about their customers. Blizzard is the real loser here. By lumping all cheaters into the same category and banning people for using single player cheats, they are losing the support of gamers around the world.?

 

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

[Grizzly]

well Im not buying any blizzard games, I thought about buying starcraft 2 but im for sure not going to now

[MedicSN6]

well Im not buying any blizzard games, I thought about buying starcraft 2 but im for sure not going to now

 

Ya, I am/was looking forward to Diablo III, but now, I don't know.

[GySgt~SPARTA~]

this is stupid because when you use the cheats all achievments are dissabled so what they are doing is BS for single players, any truth be said they give 2 shits they got there cash, and for there 15 years in the making of a game that resembles nothing more then a weak AI and half baked graphics of the first game Eye candy thats all it is..supreme commander , Command and Conquer 3, 4 have a better AI then starcraft 2 does and the maps are to damn small for any real thinking.

[custard~SPARTA~]

The only thing they are doing wrong IMO is not treating the WOW cheaters the same

[Zeno~SPARTA~]

The door to ban single player cheaters was opened when they linked single player points to multiplayer. This allows people to skip the level process in mulitplayer. However there is not circumstance where that gives them the right to prevent a player from playing single player, that is outrageous and theft imo.

[BowtomePhil]

I say good.

 

Don't cheat and you won't get banned, simple.

 

Why would you use cheats v the AI? You can play them on easy and win easy, I know I play the game.

[SirSmokalot]

As Zeno said the reason why they take it seriously is the linking. I've seen the same with Command & Conquer 4 which it doesn't matter if you played coop or compstomp (skirmish with people players or with out vs Ai), the points count toward leveling up and unlocking bonus units and abilities, etc. I've seen where you can actually acquire more XP points playing against Ai opponents then humans and this is where cheats being enabled in this situation can really throw the game off and make it unfair for others, just the same as if you had cheated in a multiplayer people vs people game.

 

 

Now call me the blacksheep of the bunch here, I'm still getting Starcraft 2 (waiting for price to come down, don't feel its worth more then $40), I believe in what Blizzard is doing, and I love it.

 

This is the sting cheaters need. Its understanding when you are having difficulty and need to have a little bit of a "push" to get started, but cmon its singleplayer and if its tough, turn down difficulty and build your skills. All you're doing is warping the gaming experience with cheating.

 

I wish EA was more proactive in these realms and coded their games a bit better with this in mind and I would play their multiplayer games more often against humans.

[Yankee~SPARTA~]

I currently play SC2 a bunch and while there are no "unlocks" for MP that are linked to SP progression, there are certainly achievements, vanity unlocks, etc. The future of gaming is that everything is going to be online and linked to a profile somehow. Blizzard makes it very clear in there EULA that they do not like cheaters or hackers in any portion of their games. This may be a down side for some people, but GD there games are just about bug free and heavily supported.

 

GG Blizzard. There's a reason they are getting billions a month off their games.

[Hunter~SPARTA~]

While I do agree with the article in that completely banning them from playing the game even in SP is a bit much. I also believe that a person who bought a game should be able to play it how he wishes to. I agree that simply disabling their ability to participate in multiplayer matches is more appropriate. However, it does very clearly state in their EULA that cheating will not be tolerated. Since the user has to "Accept" the EULA before installing, they really have no foot to stand on. Granted, most people don't even read the EULA before hitting "Accept", but even in the article the banned user states that Blizzard had made it very public what their intentions were for anyone found cheating. Yet, they still chose to do so.

 

So from an unbiased stand point, I'm with Blizzard on this one. From my own personal stand point, I'd say just disable the MP.

 

 

- JHunter

[Zeno~SPARTA~]

If you dont accept the EULA do you get a full refund

[MH6~SPARTA~]

They're hacking to beat AI. Think they won't hack when the finally go online and play multiplayer against human opponents that beat the shit out of them?

 

I mean hell, you can turn the AI down to easy (which, as the name implies, is stupidly easy to beat), so I don't see the need for hacking singleplayer.

 

Especially when they have fucking built-in cheat codes already (just like every Blizzard RTS that has come before it). The hell is the point of using a trainer when you can get all the same benefits just by typing in some commands in the chat window? Then you wouldn't be in this mess.

 

In short, people test their multiplayer hacks in singleplayer. So, ban the hell out of them in my opinion. At least ban them from doing any kind of multiplay whatsoever (LAN included--because god forbid they get invited to a LAN party)

[Zeno~SPARTA~]

MH6 that is absolutely right, but does blizzard refund you if you do not accept the EULA

[MH6~SPARTA~]

MH6 that is absolutely right, but does blizzard refund you if you do not accept the EULA

 

According to Battle.Net's terms of use:

Fees.

...

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BLIZZARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REFUND FOR ANY REASON, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE MONEY BACK FOR PREPAID TIME WHEN THE ACCOUNT IS CLOSED, WHETHER SUCH CLOSURE WAS VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY. ...

...

 

Whether that applies to Starcraft 2 or not, I have no idea. It does also use Battle.Net for it's multiplayer, but not sure how that works with single.

 

Also, this:

Blizzard has since defended itself, saying that the actions fit with StarCraft 2's EULA, which reserves the right to ban players for cheating.

 

 

In essence, if you've been banned for hacking the singleplayer side of the game, that means you have played the game, which you can only do once accepting the EULA, and as such, you're pretty much screwed.

Now, if you bought the game, haven't played it, and wanted a refund based on the EULA, they may or may not refund you, I have no idea. Though usually with software, once you've opened the package, no one will accept returns.

[Zeno~SPARTA~]

 

Now, if you bought the game, haven't played it, and wanted a refund based on the EULA, they may or may not refund you, I have no idea. Though usually with software, once you've opened the package, no one will accept returns.

 

 

And that is inequitable. You cannot set terms to which a client must abide and not let them read them prior to purchase. However I dont care what happens to cheats

[MH6~SPARTA~]

And that is inequitable. You cannot set terms to which a client must abide and not let them read them prior to purchase. However I dont care what happens to cheats

 

Well, they do post the EULAs online, and when you start the game a window pops up with the EULA and an accept and decline button at the bottom (you have to choose one before it will let you play; declining will close the game). But like I said, not sure if they'd refund you if you clicked decline and closed the game, as I've never tried it.

 

Though honestly, if you called their customer support they'd probably reimburse you and lock out the CD key.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

In tomorrow's news, Viagra pushes for a ban on masterbation.

[ragnarok92~SPARTA~]

*facepalm* sounds like blizzard alright, typical knee-jerk reaction. From my previous WOW experience with them, my opinion is lukewarm, alternating between them screwing me over and actually helping me.

[Pilotboy~SPARTA~]

Wait a second. I'm all for the ban on cheaters in MP, but what gives Blizzard the right to banning people who play SP missions with cheats? Why write cheats into the code in the first place? Seems rather blazae (sp) to be quite honest.

 

Here's what it looks like in my own humble opinion.

 

1) Blizzard Pumps out a rather good looking game, with cheats

2) Someone at Blizzard gets pwned by a cheater on a MP game

3) Said someone whinges to the Development crew of the game and has a whinge about losing

4) Development team gets reamed for writing in cheats into the code

5) Development team sends out a patch to stop Cheaters in MP, but as a result affects the SP side too

6) Users complain about the bans put in place

7) ......

8) Blizzard Profits

[GySgt~SPARTA~]

I think you Nailed it square on 1-8

[BowtomePhil]

They are not getting banned for using in game cheats. They are getting banned for having hacks, they are modifing the code.

[SirSmokalot]

What MH-6 said is right though....why in the Fudge do you need a trainer or hacks in singleplayer when the Ai is dumb as snails??? I played it at a buddy's over the weekend and experienced this...I was laughing my but off.

 

 

Ya know he's right....and this is where i stand. You buy a game and assume that its ok to hack...well that's on you. Blizzard makes a good product and there's a reason why, they put enough time and money into "their product"...its not yours....yes bought it, but it was there's , they have license to it, you have to follow their rules....easy don't like the rules don't buy their product.

 

Same with EA, Codemasters, etc, etc etc

 

Its gaming industry standard and were not surprised? We all have been playing games online for a while we all shouldn't be the least bit surprised especially for a game that has their own gateway you connect to. They know everything. They really do.

Edited October 14, 2010 by SirSmokalot