Slashdot Mirror
Linux Users Banned From Diablo III Servers
dartttt writes with word that "Blizzard has banned all Linux users who are playing Diablo III on Linux using Wine." Reader caranha adds that these users have been flagged as "using cheating programs," and that replies from Blizzard support staff so far have upheld these bans.
Update: 07/03 16:57 GMT by S :An official response from a Blizzard Community Manager indicates they don't ban people for using Linux. As with most reports of game bans, we have only the word of random gamers that they were banned for the reason they say they were banned.
Linux users who crawl to Blizzard remind me of an cousin of mine who kept going back to her abusive boyfriend.
Yeah, maybe they've changed this time. Maybe they really love Linux now. Why, I bet after 8 years they're going to release a WoW Linux client too, any day now! This time it's going to be different!
Hey, here's an idea, why not support the studios that really *DO* support Linux instead of studios that treat it like a red-headed stepchild? Just a thought.
I mean, if you're going to be a whore to studios who clearly have no intention of supporting Linux, you had may as well set up a Windows dual-boot and play your game software in Windows.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
And that, dear readers, is why Slashdot advice is sometimes unsound. After reading reports of client side exploits (like rumors of item duping via system clock adjustments) and understanding basic limits on server/client communication, it is apparent that Blizzard has to trust the client more than they're comfortable with. So if you look at their "warden" implementation for WoW, you can imagine that Diablo III has a similar "anti-cheat check" component running in user mode where Diablo III runs. And they probably (correctly) identify Wine as being not genuine Windows. It's an emulation. And therein lies the problem. Without setting up a highly invasive rootkit like The Warden, Blizzard cannot know if Wine is emulating Windows libraries correctly. A simple mental exercise is to imagine that the D3 client cannot query the servers every time it needs a time stamp for each event in the game -- to do so would DDOS their own servers so each client must query each user's system clock. The Windows call that does this is emulated by Wine. One could easily insert a dynamic control for this "system clock" into Wine and recompile. One of the achievements in Diablo III is to finish each act in under an hour. So a user could note the time, play to the end of an act and before beating the final boss, simply turn the clock one minute past the starting time and have Wine report that to the client. And if the client is not asking the server for these time stamps, achievement granted. This is a very coarse example for the sake of brevity but I would imagine that system timestamps affect many more aspects of the game. The rumor was that rolling back your system clock after an item sale would return the item to your inventory and you would still have the gold from selling it.
So is there actually a modified version of Wine cheating for you under your Diablo III client using the windows DLL api as a facade? Blizzard doesn't know. They can't know unless they have a rootkit that runs in super user (administrator) mode that profiles and scans all other programs for offending actions. That's how they caught WoWGlider but it would be infinitely harder with individual people like me tailoring their own versions of Wine. I am not saying their reaction is correct, I'm just trying to explain to you why they are employing arcane logic. The solution is for them to natively support Linux but that's a completely separate flame fest for which I really don't have the energy right now.
My work here is dung.
And they probably (correctly) identify Wine as being not genuine Windows. It's an emulation. And therein lies the problem. Without setting up a highly invasive rootkit like The Warden, Blizzard cannot know if Wine is emulating Windows
Wine Is Not Emulation
Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.
Blizzard really are doing very well at generating massive amounts of bad publicity for themselves on Diablo 3. They may have achieved some impressive early sales, but I still can't help but wonder whether they're not being self-defeating here.
I think a lot of this stems from their decision to cash-in on what had formerly been a "grey market" around their games, via the introduction of the official "real money" auction house. While it's easy to see things like the always-on connection requirement and the paranoid 3rd-party software detection as being driven by piracy concerns, I suspect the RMAH has at least as much to do with it.
Partly, this will be due to Blizzard wanting to protect their anticipated margins. But as much as that, it's about covering their legal backside. By mainstreaming real-money financial transactions between players for virtual goods like this, they're entering a legal minefield - in fact, more than that, they're entering a different legal minefield for every territory where the RMAH is available.
If a third party exploit reduces the value of the cash investment that players have made in an in-game item or commodity, are Blizzard, as the service-provider, liable? In ANY of the territories where the service is offered? Chances are, questions like this haven't even been tested in most of those territories. Blizzard therefore need to minimise their risk by being as paranoid as possible and accepting as inevitable any harm that they do to the player experience. For Blizzard, absolute control over the game client is now more important than ever.
Actually, even more interestingly, I wonder what this might mean over time for Blizzard's love of tweaking stats and balance. If Blizzard do something that reduces the value of a particular set of items or commodities, are they vulnerable to law-suits? In ANY of the territories where the RMAH is available. Blizzard have an absolute fixation with tweaking stats and balance in their games. In some ways, it would actually be good for this tendancy to get stomped on a bit; their constant meddling with my class was one of the biggest factors that drove me to quit World of Warcraft. But I do wonder whether their development teams might find themselves increasingly frustrated by constraints placed on them by legal and marketing.
I really do wish Blizzard had decided to stay well out of the real money trading thing. There was always a real money grey market in World of Warcraft (and, I gather, in Diablo 2). It was an occasional low-level irritation (mostly when the activities of gold-farmers started to impinge upon "genuine" players), but it was never catastrophic. You always knew that, on balance, it was likely that a good number of the players in your guild had bought gold at some point and that, in all likelihood, a small minority did so regularly. But you just got on and played the game.
Blizzard seem to want to have it both ways; the up-front profits from the "direct sale" model and the profits over time from the "pay to win" model. I always defended WoW's subscription model on the basis that your purchase of the game and its expansions covered "sunk" development costs and your subs covered the ongoing cost of maintaining and incrementally enhancing the game. I still believe that's correct. But I do hope that players don't let them get away with what they seem to be trying to achieve with Diablo 3.
This is hardly news. Blizzard has probably tens of thousands of people out there trying to break their games and their economies. If Blizzard doesn't feel it is worth extending Warden (their anti-cheating tool) to work on Linux (because of the marginally increased sales that come from supporting Linux), then they don't have to.
If they allowed Diablo 3 to be played on Linux, but weren't able to properly monitor users who play on Linux, their WOW and Diablo 3 economies would be sunk.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Guess Linux users will just have to wait for the PS3 version!
(Runs and hides)
Summation 2
The problem is that no rootkit can truly be invasive enough. The only real answer is hardware trust management where the hardware system vendor and the OS vendor can provide guarantees via known public-key software signing, etc, to the application vendor at the expense of the user not really having any control over their machine anymore. Anything less, and where there's a will there's a way to manipulate the client software and bypass the checks of an invasive Warden-like program, even on "official" Windows.
The *real* answer is that they can only protect their game server-side. It's ok to do client-side optimizations that don't matter much to the integrity of the game, but things like buying and selling items need to be implemented as proper server-side transactions. It's perfectly possible to design a networked game with the right local optimizations to make it playable and the right server-side transactions to make it mostly-unhackable in all important ways. It just requires a lot more coding work and proper design and $$ spent on server infrastructure to support the increased load on their end, and they're unwilling to expend that. The only other logical conclusion is to accept a hackable game. Banning Linux users does nothing to change this fundamental problem.
We constantly hear complaints about companies and their inability to deal with the grey market over item resale. Like it or not, they're building digital economies and that means real value is being dealt with. Valve hired an economist for a reason and, likewise, Blizzard has taken a very bold step in their RMAH. Many have praised 2nd Life for its embrace of digital/real value and have talked about it being a model for serious later material, but, honestly, we're still collectively wary if someone actually wants to try it for themselves. The real point to be made is that the "pay to win" model exists regardless of the game itself and the game developer's intentions. As long as you can trade items between players, you create economic incentive to game the system. If you've ever talked a friend in real life into trading you material in-game, you've done the exact same thing, but only with social capital. All that Blizzard has done is bring it out into the light and try and address the mechanic that is in place and clean up the system so that there is a clear standard rather than murky side-dealing.
I like losing arguments, it just means that I can take your point and make it my own.
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/vyc4z/linux_users_permanently_banned_from_diablo_iii/
There are only one or two accounts that were banned. I think it's fairly obvious that they are just using Wine as an excuse for using cheat engines. Plenty of users are using Wine with no problems at all.
From http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/07/blizzard-clarifies-diablo-iii-ban.html
"We’ve extensively tested for false positive situations, including replicating system setups for those who have posted claiming they were banned unfairly. We’ve not found any situations that could produce a false positive, have found that the circumstances for which they were banned were clear and accurate, and we are extremely confident in our findings.
Playing the game on Linux, although not officially supported, will not get you banned – cheating will."
Too many assumptions here. When cheaters get caught they like to spout lies ... so why believe any of this?
A post from support (a blue) in the thread above:
>> Playing the game on Linux, although not officially supported, will not get you banned – cheating will.
A clear and concise explaination for why they might ban Linux users. Only problem? Banning Linux users isnt whats happening here, and they have stated that playing on Linux will NOT get you banned:
http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/07/blizzard-clarifies-diablo-iii-ban.html
We’ve not found any situations that could produce a false positive, have found that the circumstances for which they were banned were clear and accurate, and we are extremely confident in our findings.
Playing the game on Linux, although not officially supported, will not get you banned – cheating will.
I dont think Warden works properly on Linux, but then it didnt for WoW either, and that didnt stop it from working flawlessly. Blizzards games have tended to be shining examples of Wine actually working well.
By how I interpret your definition of emulator, Linux is an emulator because it emulates UNIX behavior. What do I misunderstand?
Clearly, as usual, nobody did their research. I quote the Blizzard Community Manager:
We’ve extensively tested for false positive situations, including replicating system setups for those who have posted claiming they were banned unfairly. We’ve not found any situations that could produce a false positive, have found that the circumstances for which they were banned were clear and accurate, and we are extremely confident in our findings. Playing the game on Linux, although not officially supported, will not get you banned – cheating will.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I have no idea if this accusation of Linux users being banned for using WINE with Diablo 3 is true or not, or if we have all the facts yet or not, but one thing seems quite clear to me - if your account is banned, you can't play the game AT ALL - not even single-player, since D3's single player still has to be played via their servers.
So if, through a fuckup of their Warden software you are marked as a cheater despite being nothing of the sort, you probably won't get any recourse. I mean, why would they bother investigating? Here's the TOS: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/termsofuse.html
"BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU"
This crap isn't unusual, it's actually very common and will become increasingly pervasive as more service-dependent games are brought into the world. And some people wonder why I don't fucking use Steam/Origin and only go with Humble Bundles, GOG and other non-DRM outfits.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
And that, dear readers, is why Slashdot advice is sometimes unsound.
That wasn't unsound advice. His advice worked perfectly, as Diablo did indeed run under Wine.
There are only two people to blame here. The first is Blizzard (and all the other game companies for similar games) for making the game the way they did (they can ban whoever they want from their severs, but a single player game should be able to run single-player, and the multi-player aspect should allow any one person to host the game without ever talking to their servers). The second are the people who would buy a single-player game that requires connection to remote servers in order to work.
Queue the people who go, 'Diablo III isn't a single-player game.' Well, considering diablo 1 and 2 were, they should be blamed for that too.
Wine isn't emulating anything. It's a wrapper library. There's a significant difference.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
First of all, you are assuming Blizzard is 100% trustworthy. I, and many others, are not so sure, not after Blizzard's behavior over the past few years. Secondly, Blizzard's setup, pretty much out of necessity, assumes everyone is using 100% default, unmodified software. There are plenty of legitimate reasons (million, literally) for Linux users to be using custom software, in every single component from Wine to their kernel, especially when running 3D Windows software in Wine. And finally, the comparison to WoW is poor: WoW is a pure client-server achitecture, which means the server doesn't have to trust the client for much more than user input. Most of the "cheating" in WoW was, in fact, just using bots to replicate false user-input. Diablo III, OTOH, obviously trusts the client far more than that, probably for Blizzard to lessen their load (and because Diablo, at heart, is a single player game, not an MMO).
Which is the final problem: if people want to cheat at Diablo III, why does Blizzard care? Because they are greedy bastards who want to force people to play online so they can use their RMAH, that is why. And that is the real reason people are pissed: because if even 1 person gets false banned because of that, Blizzard are the ones at fault, from the very beginning, because they were being greedy. And that is why I did not buy Diablo III or SC2, and will not be buying anything from Blizzard in the foreseeable future.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
First of all, you are assuming Blizzard is 100% trustworthy.
I and several others used WoW on Wine / Linux for years with no issues. Ive also seen time and again people complaining that they were banned for technical issues, only for the truth that they were cheating to come out.
So forgive me if all of my experience points to this being yet another case of that. If it were some technical issue, why would Blizz stick to its guns and alienate customers?
A feral druid blog I follow had this to say about the banning:
(Full source here)
Blizzard doesn't make a point of banning Linux users. The same source claims that there was an incident a few years ago where they inadvertently banned everyone using Cedega to play WoW, but when Cedega contacted them they determined the bans were false positives and not only lifted them but credited them with 20 days of game time.
Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.