Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Wins Legal Battle Against WoW Bot Company

New submitter gamersunited writes with news of Blizzard Entertainment's defeat of another company that created bot software to automate World of Warcraft characters. Ceiling Fan Software faces a judgment of $7 million, and must disable any active licenses for the software. They're also forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing the bot software, and from facilitating its continued use in any way. The court order (PDF) follows more than two years of legal wrangling. Blizzard won a similar judgment a few years ago against another bot company called MDY Industries, which created the popular Glider bot.

285 comments

  1. forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Only in the US where the ruling was made surely.

    Is it enforceable elsewhere in the world?

    1. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Only in the US where the ruling was made surely. Is it enforceable elsewhere in the world?

      Maybe not, but that does not help American companies/citizens, unless they can afford to move out of the USA and not go back.

    2. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      How do you propose that blizzard go about stopping open source software that is distributed from outside the USA from being used inside it, exactly?

    3. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If they detect it, they can disable or delete the account using it. That doesn't completely stop its use, but it does mean that a lot of effort has been for naught for that player.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      It's a judgement against the people who created the software. If they release it they face further punishment.

    5. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I would think that if Blizzard could really detect it on their end, they would have been banning the users of the software themselves instead of telling this company to deactivate any existing licenses.

    6. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Cramer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't want to ban users. It drives away paying customers.

    7. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by edman007 · · Score: 1

      Depends how big the company is I suppose, but honestly if it was just one or two guys who really own it, for $7mil I'd seriously consider just moving to China. You are not going to get arrested trying to flee the country from a civil suit, and China or some other country that won't care about that type of business. Moving could very well be more cost effective than losing $7mil and your income.

    8. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "They don't want to ban users. It drives away paying customers."

      And THIS doesn't???

    9. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Botting is evil incarnate, and anyone that quits because they can't bot anymore is a welcome loss.

    10. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      They have no qualms about dropping the banhammer. They've banned literally hundreds of thousands of accounts for botting, let alone the rest. I am quite sure they can and do detect it. This is just like WoWglider. when they created Warden in response on top of the lawsuit.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    11. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Put it this way: Blizzard is an entertainment company. They have a lot of paying customers who play their game 'by the rules' and enjoy doing so. It is less entertaining for their players/customers if there are other people manipulating the game with automated functionality.

      If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and just ran down the lane and kicked over the pins, a bowling alley operator would be similarly justified in throwing them out.

      People who actually play WoW find bots annoying.

      If your form of enjoyment is hacking other people's games, why not show up at golf courses with All Terrain Vehicles? It's certainly more extreme. If you like cheating and coding, perhaps write a solitaire game that cheats for you.

    12. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by theqmann · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just say the lawsuit bankrupt the company and walk away? Don't "corporate persons" shield the employees from legal trouble?

    13. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anywhere the long arm of US enforcement can reach.

      Seen any aircraft carriers lately?

    14. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Aside from legal maneuvers, the owners usually answer with their personal assets if the company bankrupts.

    15. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Thats the point. Not a lot of effort for that player at all. :P

    16. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      Depends entirely on the legal issue. The owners and the LLC were all named as individual defendants. If you read the judgement you will see it explicitly enjoins them from that:
      8. Any company or entity that Defendants own or operate in the future will also comply with the provisions of this Judgment and Permanent Injunction

    17. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is basically PVP stuff. Ie, competitions. Most players won't care, but the majority of PVP players strongly dislike anyone using software to essentially cheat. (just as with sports, the definition of "cheat" is variable and doesn't always follow logical rules but instead generally tries to create the least outrage from players and/or fans)

    18. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      Physically prevent it? They can't. However, releasing or transferring the software would be blatant and deliberate violation of a court order. That can carry jail time.

    19. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      Not really. The only ones that resort to botting have a minimal interest in the game or are rampant RMTers. They won't be missed and are a pretty insignifigant percentage of the playerbase.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    20. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Pinhedd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Corporate personhood does not shield employers or employees from legal liability pertaining to their own actions. It simply shields investors from liability beyond their investment.

      Point in case, Jeffrey Skilling is currently serving a 24 year prison sentence for actions that he took as the CEO of Enron.

    21. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I thought bots were PvE mainly. Glider was. Get a level capped herb/miner and have them run a loop in a good area, and glider will auto-mine/herb and fight things in the way. I would use a bot if I could (I'm too worried about getting banned for it and never seeing my characters again), mainly for gathering for mats, not gold farming, but I'd leave it on all the time and gold farm too.

      I heard glider was good for leveling up too. Spend 30 minutes setting it up, and farm mobs for exp. Come back a couple hours later, when the mobs are green, and move to another area and contine. One level an hour isn't impossible. The "fix" for that is questing. The gear earned through questing would normally scale your gear with level pretty well, but if you level through mobs only, you'll get to 90 with lvl 1 grays (meaning leveling takes longer the higher you get, and you are grossly undergeared for any particular level.

      Are there any working WoW bots left?

    22. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't know really, I haven't been in WoW for years, I was just making a general observation about what I had seen in other games where people had used bots or accused others of it. And I have seen it accused of being used in PvP contexts.

      It varies by community too. Some have zero tolerance for gold spam or farmers while other games have it rampant and the players aren't complaining.

    23. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've heard of them used in PvP, but the way they help is doing things that are impossible, so they are too detectable. Actually, the PvP bots in WoW were often used just to get in. Losing Arena still got you points for playing. So don't win with your bots, but put in a good show, and still get benefits.

    24. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Getting rid of cheats makes normal customers applaud.

    25. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you do that? If you don't enjoy playing WoW, don't play it. Don't mess it up for other people.

    26. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What does someone do if they like 75% of it? "Suffer" through 25%, or automate that 25%?

    27. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      if the online game breaks because of bots then the online game is broken.

      it's not the bots that is driving down the value. it's the boringness of wow that is driving it down. if the game allowed scripting AND HAD A FUCKING DYNAMIC WORLD TO GO WITH IT then it would be much more interesting. ie. leaving your character to defend a city when you leave etc.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    28. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      be like me - refuse to rent software in the first place - Never played - never will...

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    29. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      Botting is evil incarnate, and anyone that quits because they can't bot anymore is a welcome loss.

      You take MMOs way too seriously.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    30. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you do that? If you don't enjoy playing WoW, don't play it. Don't mess it up for other people.

      I used to play Eve Online and ran some mining bots. This activity was in itself way more interesting than just playing Eve Online because I am interested in the robotics and cybernetics aspects.

      Running a bot like this is a lot like working with robots, virtual robots in a virtual environment. Its extremely fascinating.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    31. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Blizzard ban people for practically nothing anyway. Seriously. They really do ban people for nothing at all, I've had the experience myself, wasn't botting, wasn't being offensive, wasn't using gold sellers, banned. Never figured out why, was never told why.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    32. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Anywhere the long arm of US enforcement can reach.

      Seen any aircraft carriers lately?

      Actually, no.

      (I live in a land-locked country now and before that in a country that banned visits by US warships).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    33. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by drkim · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and just ran down the lane and kicked over the pins...

      I love your analogy, may I improve it?

      ...If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and had their robotic Roomba run down the lane and knock over all the pins...

    34. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      It would be much more interesting to programmers, the ultra-competitive and those who enjoy sneakiness and one-upmanship. This is not the core market of WoW.

    35. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving to China is not that easy. It is very hard to get Chinese citizenship. Even marrying a Chinese is not enough.
      And if the US put any diplomatic pressure on China, China will most likely be perfectly willing to extradict you to the US. After all they don't have much to gain from protecting you, and want good relations with the US.

      Philipp

    36. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really hate this mentality. An account I had since the game launched became very loosely associated with botters a few months back (I was buying large quantities of herbs for a discount from someone who could have been a botter) and my account was permanently banned a couple weeks later for being associated with botting accounts. There were no blemishes on my account prior, but Blizzard didn't want my money enough to keep my account alive.

      Clearly they do ban users for being in the botting scene (and apparently even those who buy unspecified quantities of materials from bots knowingly or not [guess we're just supposed to know deals are too good to be true or not, even though in retrospect I don't think the deal was that great at all])

      The email they sent me sounded like a joke, at first, or a poor phishing attempt, because it basically seemed to allude to the idea that I didn't personally do anything wrong, but because I was, quote, "associated with World of Warcraft licenses that were closed for participating in exploitative activities", I was a threat that had to be put down as well. At the end they state "Engaging in or associating with exploitative activity violates the World of Warcraft Terms of Use." which means they can and will ban people who simply buy things from bots. I guess I just bought enough herbs from one that finally tripped Blizzard's threshold on my reasonable disbelief that the person wasn't a botter.

      Whatever the case, I no longer have an account I had for 9 years and have spent a great deal of money on the service and supplemental services. If they didn't care about losing my business, I really doubt they care about losing others.

    37. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by JDeane · · Score: 1

      I had my WoW account banned.... It was nothing I did at all, so I can share my story here!!! lol

      Started off a few years back when Google had it's Gmail servers hacked, my account was one of these accounts that got hacked into. According to the email Gmail sent me my account was accessed by "unknown means by some one in China" alright what ever.... I change all my passwords and try to log into WoW to do the same... no dice my password has been changed, ok so I have them send me a password reset to my email and everything is fine. The hackers had gained me 2 levels on my main (was right as the expansion hit that raised the cap to 85) no problem I played for like 15 minutes and logged off to go to work. I come home from work and wanted to explore some of the new expansion I had just paid for... My account was banned because who ever had been using my account my account was selling gold or something.

      I contact reps on the phone from Blizzard and am told "We do not reset passwords via email!" rotflmao hmmm ok I tell him I can forward the email if he would like. He doesn't want it of course. After dealing with this idiot for about 15 minutes I ask if I can speak to supervisor as being nice is getting me no where fast. No dice there are no supervisors on the floor that can help me. I kindly tell the rep that Blizzard will never see another dime from me and they have lost a customer that has been with the company since Diablo 1.

      I had been playing WoW since the day it had come out and spent quite a bit of money playing the game (paying the fee's to play.) and true to my word since that day I have not bought any Blizzard products. The customer service was horrible.

      So yes they do ban people for nothing and when you try to work with them they don't care about lost customers.

    38. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      ...If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and just ran down the lane and kicked over the pins...

      I love your analogy, may I improve it?

      ...If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and had their robotic Roomba run down the lane and knock over all the pins...

      ... then Blizzard's action would be equivalent to suing the iRobot company. Except it wouldn't be a Roomba, it would be a specially designed bowling robot

    39. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Play the 75% they like, and use the gold they make from that to buy the mats from the 25% they don't like?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    40. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought bots were PvE mainly. Glider was.

      Actually Glider was great for PVP, back when Glider was around the Honour grind was a pretty huge time sink and a large portion of the progression was based on the team that won not how effective you were individually.
      Running a Glider path that just headed straight for the flag and attacked anything that came near worked brilliantly. Sad part was it did better than many people who were actually playing!

    41. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how much damage a gold bot does to an online game, it's horrible.

    42. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Krneki · · Score: 1

      I call you racist!

      Why a human can play WoW, but the AI can't?

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    43. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Blizzard is like NewEgg, there will always be someone who got a bad experience. Given a large user base, it's a statistical guarantee, it just sucks when it's you.

    44. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Why a human can play WoW, but the AI can't?

      Have you ever seen a Looking-for-Raid raid group? If you ever had, you'd never claim that humans can play WoW.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    45. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I've said before that Blizzard should have designated one server to be "Anything goes" and allowed any and all sort of bots and scripting on it, while continuing to come down on that stuff on regular servers. It would seem to be a win-win-win for everyone - Blizzard, programmers, regular gamers.

    46. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is horrible. This is like someone paying to bowl, with a robot, and then getting strikes all the time. They can run around saying they bowled a 300, you just have to ignore them. WoW worlds _are_ shared, so the bowling alley is obviously not a good analogy. In this case though, why should the bowling alley owner care that people are showing up and paying to bowl w/ their toy robots? It wrecks the high score list sure, deal with it.

      All this said, I agree that you tarnish WoW by allowing bots... but they tarnish WoW in other ways than that and people still play. I however have quit. Paying ~$15 a month, for me, isn't worth it.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    47. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Krneki · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      I should have written "it is allowed".

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    48. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your story is unbelievable. Literally. Accounts are compromised all the time and at this point Blizzard is so familiar with how it looks that they almost proactively tell you and start the process to restore your stuff. Nothing in your story matches with how the process actually works.

    49. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      True...but in all likelyhood it won't be the company releasing their code. My guess is one of their more savvy customers will reverse-engineer it and release the code he/she discovered.

    50. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In general, the 75% won't pay for the 25%. The more you try to do so, the more grinding/bot like it becomes (all the non-bot automated AH tools, the more you go grind the AH, putting things up every 48 hours, managing 1000 active auctions, permanently full mailbox from expired auctions, etc.)

    51. Re: forbidden from transferring or open-sourcing? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      If someone showed up at a bowling alley, entered in a tournament, and just ran down the lane and kicked over the pins, a bowling alley operator would be similarly justified in throwing them out.

      This person would be going over the fowl line. That analogy is more comparable to someone adding a god-mode mod.

      I would say that this is more like the guy showing up at the tournament, realizing that bowlers have to take time out to get snacks to be ready for their next session (gold, herbs, levels, armor) and do less of actual bowling (raids, quests) so he starts a service that goes to the snack bar for you.

      Then the bowling alley kicks him out and sues him for the service, because going to the snack bar is part of the bowling experience.

      I'm sure the bowlers that got their own snacks were annoyed by his snack delivery service clogging the walkways and making long lines at the snack bar, but I still think this is a bit of an over reaction on blizzard's part.

  2. Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the gameplay is so simplistic that its bottable, then it's pretty boring to me. Studies have shown NP-hard problems are more fun, because they benefit from our natural ability to quickly choose a good path even if it isn't the absolute best. These kinds of challenges are harder to write bots for. So stop make your games less mindlessly boring and it's a win win for everyone.

    1. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, and expect people to think while playing?

    2. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What, and expect the kind of people who surrender their lives to MMORPGs like WoW to think while playing?

      FTFY, yo.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by geekoid · · Score: 1

      All game can be botted.

      Studies show game that are a skinners box are the most profitable.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bots aren't necessarily playing the game in the way a human would. They're more likely doing some monotonous activity that can be used to get gold or items or whatever.

    5. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by kwiecmmm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the gameplay is so simplistic that its bottable, then it's pretty boring to me. Studies have shown NP-hard problems are more fun, because they benefit from our natural ability to quickly choose a good path even if it isn't the absolute best. These kinds of challenges are harder to write bots for. So stop make your games less mindlessly boring and it's a win win for everyone.

      As someone who used to play WoW. I can say that WoW, as most MMORPG's, has many difficult problems to solve in the game. Bots do simple mindless farming, they do not play every aspect of the game or compete against other players in PvP. I ran across a few bots while playing and I can say that they were easy to screw with. You could kill them or you could just kill what they were going to kill, and confuse the software a quite bit.

    6. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Yosho · · Score: 1

      If the gameplay is so simplistic that its bottable, then it's pretty boring to me.

      Yes, that's the point. You use a bot to take care of the boring parts of the game so that you can concentrate on playing the fun parts of the game.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    7. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this insightful?

      Botting is almost exclusively used for currency/rep/etc farming. It has nothing to do with "gameplay". And whether you personally think WOW end game content is complex enough is irrelevant because botters cannot run end game raids or many other forms of content undermining your whole argument.

      And why do bots exist? Because "grinding" is the only way to gain large amounts of currency in a short amount of time. Gold farmers do it for cash. Players do it to shortcut themselves to the top and to avoid grinding.
      This small part of the game content IS simplistic and CAN be botted. It is a hurdle/challenge/time sink/test of your endurance to overcome to advance your character. I, like most, HATE grinding with a vengeance. But I NEVER played WOW for the grind, I played in spite of it.

      As a side note:

      I multibox WOW (5 chars) for the additional challenge. (and believe me it is a LOT more of a challenge) I would now never play another MMO without being able to multibox because they are all too easy.

      So I even agree with the idea of MMOs being way too easy to play - but still disagree with your post.

    8. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by dunezone · · Score: 5, Interesting
      To be fair most of these bots don't do much. Most bots won't go on quests, have conversations with actual people, go on raids, etc, etc. If they did fall into one of those areas the bot would quickly fail.

      If the gameplay is so simplistic that its bottable, then it's pretty boring to me.

      Ever played Fallout, Morrowind, or Skyrim on Xbox/PS3? You level up the sneak attribute by sneaking around which is basically crouching around and walking. People exploited this by putting rubber bands around the controller so the character would continuously crouch walk into a corner. That gameplay mechanic is pretty simplistic yet those games are amazing to play.

    9. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chess and poker are both bottable, and pretty fun. Crossword puzzles can be brute-forced, but they're still fun. News flash: computers are actually better than humans at some complex tasks.

    10. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Temporarily. Zynga, the makers of the purest skinner boxes, is going down in flames.

    11. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, exactly, the boring parts of MMOs are what gets botted.

    12. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      An example of a very bottable aspect of WoW is resource farming.
      Design a bot that goes between known ore nodes and mines them. When bags are full go to the auction house and put it up for auction. Sell the gold for real money. This can go on 24/7 with a bot. This can be done with any gatherable resource in WoW.
      The problems are as follows;
      1. Node are unavailable for players actually playing the game
      2. Auction house prices are driven down due to the abundance of auctions so it is not useful for real players to farm.
      3. Auction house prices for rare items are driven up because rich/stupid people can buy gold for read money.
      Economics are a small but important part of WoW and most other MORPGs.

      Another possibility is a healer bot. Make a bot that follows another character that heals them when they are hurt. You play one character but are basically vulnerable.

      There are also leveling bots for those who want to sell high level characters or just don't want to play low level characters.

    13. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the heck? Did geekoid have a stroke or something?

    14. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually this isn't true of a good many private bots, I've seen PVP, BG, Coordinated Raids, Raid Assist, Chat AI integration, Shopping, Loot Management, Auction House Automation, and REALLY good nav built from reverse engineering the world geometry + applying dynamic pathing for Dynamic Game Objects (like boats). The ubiquitous high profile bots sucked in general, the really good ones people horde the source and binaries to.

      - Source: Former WoW bot developer from the Pre-WotLK days leveraging the now-defunct ISXWOW innerspace extensions.

    15. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by kylemonger · · Score: 2

      Only slightly harder. There are free (libre and gratis) SAT and QBF solvers that make mincemeat out of the kinds of structured NP-hard problems that humans find enjoyable to solve. Humans are way outclassed in the PSPACE arena. We're still better at some kinds of pattern matching, but don't bet on us staying in the lead there for much longer, either.

    16. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ubiquitous high profile bots sucked in general, the really good ones people horde the source and binaries to.

      Not sure if that was intentional wordplay (For the Horde!), but "people hoard source and binaries".

    17. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when I was playing Everquest, I had a lot of fun writing bot scripts for my characters. Kept me playing (and paying) for several more months than I would have otherwise.

    18. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      All game can be botted.

      But some are harder than others. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess#Chronology) it took around 12 years and some notable scientists to go from theoretical concepts to a program that played halfway well.

      BTW I'm using the time frame between Claude Shannon's paper "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess" to Kotok-McCarthy here. If you want a tournament victory against a human as reference, that would be Mac hack in 1967 and 17 years of development.

      If WOW was that hard to bot, Blizzard would not need to sue developers of bot software.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    19. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies also show MMORPG players are often motivated by completely different things. Some like to level up, others like to kill other players, others like to socialize and it's all kind of fluid too. So it makes sense that some players will look for ways to avoid what they consider to be generally tedious (like leveling up) and instead focus on what they consider to be generally fun (like killing more and more powerful enemies). Bots are one way of achieving just that - avoiding chores and skipping straight to the fun part. Most probably the players who used bots are now finding the game a bit less fun because they have to gather exp. manually before they can take on the next enemy.

      Fun is subjective. No one will make games according to your liking, because no one makes commercially viable games for just one person, unless you're paying in at least 6 or 7-figure sums.

    20. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " Gold farmers do it for cash."

      Exactly. And Gold farmers in China are not easily impressed by US law.

    21. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      I was one the first successful macro/botter in Asheron's Call. I invented the drain health bot, auto melee combat bot and the cracked shard bot. I told Turbine,"Fix your game and it wouldn't be bottable." I used the exact same argument as you,"If you can beat the game by repeatedly hitting the same buttons over and over, your game is fundamentally boring."

    22. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of a clip of Futurama where Fry is playing a video game in the year 3000. He is just laying on the couch, staring into the ceiling and pressing the same button over and over.

    23. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the news that it's boring to you will send Blizzard crying themselves to sleep on their giant pile of cash. In other news, you are also apparently totally unfamiliar with MMOs.

    24. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 2

      I don't think you know what NP-Hard means.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    25. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So... they're playing WoW?

    26. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by lgw · · Score: 1

      I had great fun writing a crafting bot for EQ2, since it required fast matching of icons appearing on screen with actions to take, and a bit of strategy in doing so. Same experience: it kept me playing (and paying) for several more months than I would have otherwise.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by readeracc · · Score: 1

      I remember watching a NerdCubed vid of him playing Skyrim when he realised he could level up his character's fireball spell (or whatever it was) by continually flaming an invulnerable NPC at the begging of the game (the one which is in the gated and asks the player grab their initial equipment)

      As for the games, I found them boring as batshit. Just didn't have the charm of depth of the Interplay games (Fallout 3 was a pale comparison to Fallout 1/2). But to each his own.

    28. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 2

      It's a prostate reference, right?

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    29. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Chess is a highly complex game giving rise to many "gambits". WoW, on the other hand, is a endless series of boring tasks, with a few grand battles thrown in. That said, i've never heard of a bot being able to complete quests -- which means working in groups, solving puzzles, and battling rooms full of baddies.

    30. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I got tired of that excuse when I played an MMO. "It's not my fault I've figured out how to cheat/exploit it's the fault of the developers for not being omniscient."

    31. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You basically kicked the ass of C3-P0 as he gathered twigs. Oh oh, here comes HK-47. Shoot, immediately reverse to get out of range, full knowledge of your cooldowns state, following pre-calculated response tables.

      Why don't you move over there and chip at that tin vein and give him half?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    32. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      But that's also the point...

      Why make boring parts?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    33. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by theqmann · · Score: 1

      they are also probably using a scripted set of tasks for the bot to execute, rather than being an AI. things like go to A location, activate npc for quest, go to B location, kill all rats within 10 meters, etc

    34. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can keep the player going for months and months, paying that monthly over and over. If all you played were the fun parts, the game would be over in less than a month and no money for poor old blizzard.

    35. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Those games aren't so difficult that you have to level the hell out of any particular stat to get anywhere though. I enjoyed those games thoroughly without really caring much about any particular stat and was still able to finish the game.

      However, if it did come down to "you need 100 in these 3 stats to have a hope in hell of finishing the following quests," then I'd bypass that stupid rubber band trick altogether and just modify the character stats in the save game and continue on.

    36. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      When gaining the maximum amount of experience is literally press the number 1 every 5 seconds, there's a problem with the game design.

      Also I don't think botting is cheating/exploiting. It is more like getting your friend to play your account. It just happens your friend is a robot.

    37. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Because if everything is equally cool, people will do the cool stuff that is easy instead of the cool stuff that is hard.

    38. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The real question is: Why the mindless farming even exists?

    39. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      In Daggerfall, I'd level up evocation by fireballing myself. With the magic absorption trait, you don't take any damage and it recharges your mana, so you can just sit there for hours.

      And no, that's not the reason why the games are amazing. =)

    40. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Depends on what the bots do. Often bots exist merely to earn reputation points while the user is sleeping, or perform other highly repetitive actions. Thus reducing the overall grind necessary to get better gear or better ranks or pass some sort of gating. Then when actually engaging in PvP those players might not use any bot to assist.

      Most MMOs are designed to keep players playing and paying and so they've often got some sort of illogical but repetitive action required for advancement (this is not a requirement of MMOs though many players seem to think it is necessary and so will put up with it).

    41. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, doing these repetitive simplistic tasks puts me into some kind of autopilot mode( trance of some sort?)
      Anyway, after a while you get conditioned so that any kind of stimuli ( such as a bell ringing when you level up) that stands out of the routine is inmensely gratifying.

    42. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't looked at the game for a while. Questing in WoW now means following the yellow arrow on your map from point A to point B, and maybe having to fight a few (non-challenging) monsters on the way.

    43. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's basically cheap design from MMO makers. They know they need to keep players in the game and paying. Unlike single player games they can not just have an ending to the game, but they also can not just keep churning out new content every week (especially when some of these players chew through new content in less than a week). So the add some monotonous activity that keeps them logging in. Overall MMO game play is very simplistic compared to single player games, but people stick around for other reasons, like chatting with friends, player versus player fights, player and player coop, or sometimes because the simplistic play suits some people.

      Monotonous activity might be to earn gold, which you accrue over time by killing things; the reward being better gear you can acquire at an auction house (and if everyone does this the prices go up, which means more farming of gold, which means higher prices, etc).
      It can also be earning of faction reputation, which might be required in order to purchase better gear (with all the gold you got elsehwere).
      Or it's an instance that has a chance of producing one really great item at the end but only one person gets it based on a random roll, so people keep going back every day even after the novelty of the instance has worn off.

      And then players will defend all of that! Only the players who've put in the time are said to have "earned" the rewards, and amazingly if a game reduces the amount of repetition some players will call it unfair that new players have to do less work than the previous players did.

    44. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but pretty much any game in any genre can be automated for convenience. It doesn't make the game crappy or simplistic.

    45. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a side note:

      I multibox WOW (5 chars) for the additional challenge. (and believe me it is a LOT more of a challenge) I would now never play another MMO without being able to multibox because they are all too easy.

      Roflmao. You multibox for "the challenge". Would that be the "challenge" of roflstomping mindless mob in PVE or the "challenge" of killing sucker after sucker dumb enough to try going up against your multiboxed walking death machine in PVP? I played WoW for years, and multiboxers were regarded as unskilled players buying wins at the cost of paying for 5 (or more) accounts and the hardware to run them.

    46. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you want the "fun" instances, you must do the "unfun" gear gathering to have appropriate skills for the instance.

    47. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Psychology. Many small "wins" is addictive. Vegas knows this. Also, to keep the "difficulty" high, you must spend in-game money or in-game time to get gear appropriate for the grand battles. If you could win without challenge, nobody would play.

    48. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I just wish there was a way to mulit-box under a single account. I've seen someone 5-box 5-shammys through an instance. It was cool. But I can't see buying 5 accounts just to play around with multi-boxing.

    49. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair most of these bots don't do much. Most bots won't go on quests, have conversations with actual people, go on raids, etc, etc. If they did fall into one of those areas the bot would quickly fail.

      So, how do you tell the difference between the players and the bots again ?

    50. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by murdocj · · Score: 1

      since chess can be "botted" I guess it's boring too?

    51. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by murdocj · · Score: 2

      In the same sense that a computer program that moves a knight back and forth between two squares is playing chess, yes.

    52. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should actually observe what these bots do, and what purpose they serve, and how that compares to typical gameplay before you make this assessment.

      Basically, there are ways of gaining XP or currency in WoW that are very simple for a bot to perform, but are highly inefficient and tedious for a real player. A real player will always beat a bot in efficiency at these tasks, but the bot can run while the person is asleep or at work or school or whatever, and never gets bored or tired, so inefficiency and tedium are irrelevant.

      The bots aren't killing raid bosses or even dungeon bosses. They're not doing anything that has any level of skill or difficulty required. The actual part of the game that most players find interesting, fun, compelling, challenging, etc. cannot be botted.

      A player is not going to mindlessly grind boars to max level. They're going to do varied tasks including quests, dungeons, pvp, pet battles, crafting, gathering, etc. Whatever they find fun or compelling at that time. And most of the time those more compelling activities will also be much more time efficient that whatever the bot is doing (unless the player is simply being inefficient, but if they're having fun while being inefficient, the point is moot).

    53. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raid and PvP bots are TERRIBLE compared to even mildly incompetent players.

    54. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bots do simple mindless farming, they do not play every aspect of the game or compete against other players in PvP.

      as someone who used to play wow, and still plays wow, i can say that you are dead wrong about this. i've seen bots farming mats, fighting in 5-man instances, raiding, and fighting in pvp battlegrounds. blizzard removed the follow command in battlegrounds because there were trains of bots in every battleground, every night. choo chooooooo.

      I ran across a few bots while playing and I can say that they were easy to screw with. You could kill them or you could just kill what they were going to kill, and confuse the software a quite bit.

      and when you got bored and left, the bot continued on with its task for hours and days and months. beep boop.

    55. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      The state of Looking For Raid (A pick me up raid for 25 players) is atrocious. At any given one time, 5 players are AFK, another 5 are dead, and 10 more are standing in mechanics that are easily avoidable.

      Literally, 5-10 players carry the whole group along.

    56. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually grinding is quite a slow way to learn large amounts of currency in a short time. The really rich people on the server are the ones who dominate the auction houses.

    57. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this insightful?

      Botting is almost exclusively used for currency/rep/etc farming. It has nothing to do with "gameplay". And whether you personally think WOW end game content is complex enough is irrelevant because botters cannot run end game raids or many other forms of content undermining your whole argument.

      you are dead wrong about this. i've seen bots playing in pvp battlegrounds, 5-man instances, and raiding. attacking and fighting against the closest enemy has been solved. moving through an area with a known layout has been solved. moving out of fires has been solved. moving around obstacles has been solved. responding to predictable dialog boxes has been solved. using class abilities has been solved.

      and if a bot has a setback, it doesn't matter. it's just going to come back and continue its task for hours and days and months.

    58. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Chess is a highly complex game giving rise to many "gambits". WoW, on the other hand, is a endless series of boring tasks, with a few grand battles thrown in. That said, i've never heard of a bot being able to complete quests -- which means working in groups, solving puzzles, and battling rooms full of baddies.

      One could easily integrate a bot with a leveling addon like Zygors. Eg the leveling addon could provide all kinds of visual cues on the screen for the OCR bot to find and follow.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    59. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that doing that wouldn't give you any advantage in chess, while WoW is actively designed to encourage that kind of behaviour.

    60. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Zedrick · · Score: 1

      > I would now never play another MMO without being able to multibox because they are all too easy. Really? Try multiboxing World of Tanks or War Thunder... Or just try to get good stats the normal way.

    61. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that pretty much describes playing WoW.

    62. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

      I topped DPS in my guild from the time I had my first purple until I went on a very long hiatus during cata because I was so bored with having "won" the game.

      Boxing is a real challenge. And there are no cookie cutter teams or guaranteed wins. Just getting set up takes days to do it properly and requires constant adjustment and refactoring. Not only to you have to master 5 different classes (with several specs each esp. if you pvp also) and their rotations you also have to custom design how they interact together as a team and make up for the fact that you are the only one at the keyboard.

      And there are very few videos just telling you how to play your team - unlike single player.

      On the other side you will NEVER beat a good team/raid in either PVE or PVP because you are only one person.

      I say again: You have no idea what you are talking about.

      But then your comment is more to do with your jealous nature and the fact that it burns you to think that someone is getting an advantage over you. (despite the reality.)

      It is really pathetic...

    63. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Not end game content (like I said)

      They will not be beating significant bosses.

      I call BS on this and would ask for evidence...

    64. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I got good stats the normal way and it got boring. (see my other post above)

      The only reason I am back is because of MBing.

      I played RIFT for free to start and get into it and then I was hooked.

    65. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Play Rift. It is a good game and boxes well (and they like boxers) and is essentially free.

      Eventually put $5 on each account to avoid any "mistaken bot bans".

      That is where I started. :)

    66. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Your example isn't really relevant here. The things being botted in Wow are akin to simply moving all your pawns forward and taking any pieces you can happen to take in the process. Wow bots do not play even close to "half-way well." Wow bots brute force the absolute easiest parts of the game with minor or no combat in the most inefficient manner possible for marginal gain because that's all they're good for. There exists no wow bots that can play like a player could, and there likely never will due to the complexity involved in such a task and no one willing to work it out.

    67. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not dead wrong. A bot can queue for PvP and follow simple waypoints across the map but it can't actually win against players unless the player is legally retarded and unable to play, himself. It won't do any objectives and win points for the team. The same goes for pretty much anything a bot can queue for and enter, or grind on.

      Wow bots are incredibly stupid, even today. There is nothing sophisticated about what they do. Any video game is susceptible to this form of low level botting.

    68. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Don't be upset because a multiboxer killed you in a battleground 5 to 1. He's not referring to stomping on individual players in a battlegrounds when he talks about challenge.

    69. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      any NP hard problem that can be solved by a human as a game can be solved by a computer in a split second. it's NP hard not NP Impossible

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    70. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      And the guys who make Skyrim etc don't really have to be extra vigilant in stopping this, as there's no multiplayer component to those games. When you use a glitch or exploit in Skyrim, the only person 'harmed' by this is you. In WoW, botters can ruin a server economy for people who are trying to earn gold through legitimate means.

      What is really a problem, and possibly what the Parent is on about, is that a game that's vulnerable to advantage gained through a bot, is a flawed game. The game should not be made in such a way that any repetitive task that can be automated which give you a benefit.

    71. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are bots that do run end game raid content. Just thought I'd point that out.

    72. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      Don't be deceived: it's a devious ploy to get you to snatch the knight for an easy kill, only to get baited into an ambush. I've been the victim of it once too many in Chessmaster.

    73. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by dywolf · · Score: 1

      sitting a battlegruond afk, witht eh bot tentatively running around and hitting someone once in a while, and generally sucking at playing, while everyone else wins or loses the match isnt exactly the intended gameplay, so you cant say the gameplay is boring for that reason (being bottable).

      and because you get free honor either way...more for a win, but even losing you get something, so botting while at work becomes attractive then, and thus the botting services are born.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    74. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      And also WOW removed auto follow in battlegrounds a while ago so this has not happened for some time. I never played in them because I came back to WOW after the change.
      So he is FOS on two counts.

      Also, and it pains me to say it again and again, a half decent and well-organised 5-man team will murderous a 5man boxer every time. Its just one of the features.

      PVP is dynamic and reactive. PVPing 5 boxes yourself effectively is approaching mad scientist levels of gameplay. I would love to see a 2000+ rated boxing team.

      It would be something to watch I bet. (and I don't mean on the screen...)

    75. Re: Bottable == boring IMO by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Well, if all you do is move a knight back and forth, chess gets boring. Maybe you should trying playing the game...

    76. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      So boring that you went to the effort of creating bots for it. If I find a game boring I stop playing it.

    77. Re:Bottable == boring IMO by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      1) if they're paying for the entertainment, why not let them do only the parts that are fun for them?
      2) boring isn't a relative term. There can be cool stuff and cooler stuff, and the cool stuff that is hard will eventually fall into the latter category anyway, once the cool stuff that is easy has been done already.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  3. Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely it's the usage of said software that goes against some EULA, not the software itself. Why can it not be released? If nothing else, it will help other game developers see what kind of abuse goes on against mmorpgs. And surely, if it's open source, blizzard can just patch the vulnerability and get on with their day.

    1. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "blizzard can just patch the vulnerability" It's not a vulnerability AFAIK. The bots act on behalf of the player, doing the same things players are able to do. No exploits involved. When you run them 24/7 though then they make alot more progress than a player would playing just a few hours a day.

    2. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a vulnerability.

      Their game relies on an ever growing "grind" of repetitive and simplistic tasks to progress.

      They have a paid subscription model in place, therefore they rely on their customers sinking time on this tasks.

      WoW is just so damn easy to automate.

    3. Re:Can't open source it? by gigaherz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their game relies on an ever growing "grind" of repetitive and simplistic tasks to progress.

      No it does not. Repetitive simplistic tasks are one way of obtaining the resources (gold, experience, item tokens, ...), but they are far from being the primary way. In fact the only reason WoW is still as popular as it is, is because unlike almost every other MMO released since 2004, it is NOT a grindfest.

      Experience points come from quest chains in the open world and in instanced dungeons, and those quest chains have an actual story that unfolds as you play. Gold is obtained as reward from quests, and looted from monsters, same as gear. Item tokens are rewarded by defeating dungeon and raid bosses, which require a team, and a strategy.

      You can argue that it's too easy or boring for your tastes, but you can not say it is a grinding-based MMO.

    4. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW is grind base. This is why most players have moved to Guildwars 2.

    5. Re:Can't open source it? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can argue that it's too easy or boring for your tastes, but you can not say it is a grinding-based MMO.

      But you can argue that reward per hour, grinding is more efficient than doing challenging content in terms of the in game rewards.

      I used to play EQ1, you could go and do a real dungeon crawl with a group, and fight yellows and low reds. And it was genuinely fun. Lose control of aggro, or run into someone elses train though and you died. The necro would summon our corpes out, and our cleric would rez us... we'd re-equip and go in for another run. It was great fun.

      BUT

      You made more ingame currency, and gained more XP by joing to a known camp and grinding.

      At 15-20th level ("back in the day") you could walk into Blackburrow and head down to the bottom... and that was challenging and fun. But the gnolls were pretty poor, and the risk of death (and associated "downtime") was high.

      Or you could go to Highhold Pass, and fight a particular camping spot there. The drops were reliably better, the stream of creatures to kill was constant, and if things got out of hand you were just steps away from a zone line. You made more money, and gained more xp, easier, and faster, with less risk.

      You didn't have to "grind", but most players did. Because the game actively rewarded them better in everything but "fun" by doing so. And it turns out the majority of players will sacrifice "fun" for "progress" for reasons that I truly find baffling.

      WoW and other MMORPGs, and even many single player RPGs are the same, hell even stuff like diablo -- how many diablo 2 players just spent hours doing "Hill Runs" repeatedly for xp, over and over again because it was the easiest and safest place to get loot and xp?

    6. Re:Can't open source it? by Arker · · Score: 2

      Running repetitive and simplistic quests can be just as much of a grind as any other type of grind.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:Can't open source it? by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So fix the (broken) gameplay mechanic that allows bot users to have an advantage.

      Having to 'grind' at mindless / meaningless tasks in game in order to play the interesting parts of the game is just bad game design - it disrespects the player's time and money. It's a transparent attempt to increase subscriber revenue. Get rid of the grind and you eliminate the incentive to use a bot in the first place.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I can. It's a fucking grindquest.

    9. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experience points come from quest chains in the open world and in instanced dungeons, and those quest chains have an actual story that unfolds as you play.

      Or you can get *far* more XP per hour by grinding pet battles.

    10. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most players have moved to Guildwars 2.

      No they haven't. "Me and like three of my guildies" do not constitute "most players".

    11. Re:Can't open source it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Best as I can figure, WoW is still at least 4 times as big, so "most" would be quite the overstatement.

    12. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So fix the (broken) gameplay mechanic that allows bot users to have an advantage.

      FFXI did something like this to stop fishing bots. At many major fishing spots (which were often just outside of aggro-mob territory, they put in Goblin Bounty Hunters, of a level appropriate for XPing, but more than a match for RMT/botters who bought or stole low-level (and often naked) accounts to fish for them.

      I always wondered, given Sqenix's penchant for punny names, if the initials GBH were intentional, as MANY players wished the bots grievous bodily harm.

    13. Re:Can't open source it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't play WoW in years and I never got pass my 2 week 'free' from the box purchase. But I am still counted as active player because I didn't close my account, I still get mail remaining to log in to play my lvl 19 mage.

      How many of these players count are just like that? WoW is dead, most player have moved to Guildwars2 or Diablo3. The few addicts remaining can still be milked dry so Blizzard will continue operating the servers until cost of operation become less then revenue from subscription.

    14. Re:Can't open source it? by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1
      You're not counted as an active player. There is no such thing as a "closed" account, your subscription just expires. The only accounts that are counted are accounts that are currently paid up. You can look at every single earnings report with subscriber numbers and see how it's defined:

      Subscriber Definition: World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules.

  4. Software should've been kept free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This only happened because they started charging monthly subscription fees 2 years ago.

    1. Re: Software should've been kept free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have always had to pay a subscription fee for wow.

    2. Re: Software should've been kept free by thaylin · · Score: 1

      I think he means for the bot.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  5. ALl you need to do by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is label it an aid for disabled players. Get ADA, Blizzard won't stand a chance.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:ALl you need to do by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      is label it an aid for disabled players

      People with the total locked-in syndrome also want to play!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:ALl you need to do by geekoid · · Score: 1

      People with one arm, or Parkinson, or..well a great many.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:ALl you need to do by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Except that the LUA system that blizzard uses already allows people with disabilities to play easily. In fact, there's no shortage of mods that make it easy to play for those who are colour blind, or can only use one arm. And not forgetting that you can buy no shortage of mice, or keyboards that are fully programmable to do everything you want.

      There's no way that an automated gameplay element would stand on the ADA.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no way to change the mouse cursor size in WoW, a large disadvantage to those with poor eyesight.

    5. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the LUA system that blizzard uses already allows people with disabilities to play easily. In fact, there's no shortage of mods that make it easy to play for those who are colour blind, or can only use one arm. And not forgetting that you can buy no shortage of mice, or keyboards that are fully programmable to do everything you want.

      There's no way that an automated gameplay element would stand on the ADA.

      An adaptation for sufferers of ADHD, perhaps?

    6. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total lock-in? I thought that described WoW players already.

      /former WoW player

    7. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those who are colour blind, or can only use one arm

      Or blind altogether.
      Or no arms.

    8. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not forgetting that you can buy no shortage of mice, or keyboards that are fully programmable to do everything you want.

      Except those are questionable at best and have produced bans in the past.

    9. Re:ALl you need to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I was reaching my arms beneath a cement pillar I had been excavating under earlier today, this very thought occured to me. I play a mud and botters are similarly banned from playing, but I wondered if losing my arms an exception might be made.

  6. What's the point? by operagost · · Score: 1

    Why bother writing bots? Just play Progress Quest.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:What's the point? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Just play Progress Quest.

      Personally I prefer Cookie Clicker. After the first few minutes, once you've bought a farm and a few cursors, most of the stuff is automated, and you only need to look at it once every few minutes.

    2. Re:What's the point? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Writing your own bot from scratch and watching it play and interact is far more fun than the game itself. If you design it well enough then it's more much rewarding than doing things manually. Or you can write a semi manual bot to assist.

      Sitting in front of a computer, doing all the tedious tasks manually...that's really just an insult to the entire history of electronic computer design.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Others play with their fancy 12 button mouses. Why can't we play with our fancy brains?

  7. Death Throws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do I get the funny feeling that this is the first of many steps of the death throws of WoW?

    1. Re:Death Throws by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      Because you're one of those people who've been shouting "WoW is dying!" since 2004?

    2. Re:Death Throws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW apparently peaked around 2010.

      So yeah, it's dying. I imagine bliz's next incarnation of MMO will be even more mindless and repetitive, since it seems that's what people want.

  8. We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Captain+Kirk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Blizzard sued my company in Germany and we are still trading. The reason is that Americans can't avoid the broad restrictions of the DMCA while Europeans are able to work within existing copyright and trademark law. The DMCA is simply a way of closing creative American companies so the business is done from overseas.

    1. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blizzard originally sued bot companies based on copyright. Now, they're suing based on violations of the EULA (end user license agreement) and TOS (terms of service). Bots violate both, plain and simple. Your company might get sued again, if Europeans laws support EULAs and TOSs.

    2. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Scowler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your botting software is nothing but run-of-the-mill malware, whatever the merits of your copyright argument. Why is it so hard to write addon software that conforms to Blizz's ToS?

    3. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably because Blizzard's ToS is written specifically to make such software difficult to write.

      To be blunt, they don't like competition.

    4. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your botting software is nothing but run-of-the-mill malware, whatever the merits of your copyright argument. Why is it so hard to write addon software that conforms to Blizz's ToS?

      Because, by definition of the ToS, that software wouldn't do what the players want it to do (i.e. doing grindy stuff for them)?

    5. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Scowler · · Score: 1

      There are hundreds of addons out there that comply with ToS just fine. Indeed, it's hard to find any dedicated WoW players in the game who aren't using any.

    6. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Your botting software is nothing but run-of-the-mill malware"

      Umm, no. Run of the mill malware by definition is acting without the informed consent of the user. This botting software is running at the will of the user. So the comparison is utterly specious.

      "Why is it so hard to write addon software that conforms to Blizz's ToS?"

      Why is it so hard for Blizzard to write a system that does not effectively penalise those who obey their rules?

      Now I have years of experience running multiplayer online games and I appreciate as you may not that the answer is actually quite complicated. It's not a trivial thing to do, but then again, Blizzard has raked in enormous sums of cash on this game, more than enough to have done it right and many times over. It's an enormous profit-centre and like all the big companies these days it seems to believe that it has a divine right to maintain that profit without working for it. They would rather write unenforceable rules and invoke state force as a bandaid than try to fix the problem because it's cheaper - at least for them, at least in the short term.

      The state shouldnt allow itself to be used in this way, however.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... on the one hand you say that it's a difficult problem:

      the answer is actually quite complicated. It's not a trivial thing to do

      But then immediately assume because they've made piles of money... they could easily have done it?

      Blizzard has raked in enormous sums of cash on this game, more than enough to have done it right and many times over

      While I've never played WoW... no have no opinion of Blizzard... breaking out the lawyers would seem to be a later stage thing to do, and only after taking steps to block such activity at a technical level.

      Are you saying they haven't? Or for that matter, that you know exactly what work would be required to be done and how much it would cost?

      Isn't what you are claiming kind of like gmail suing spammers rather than implement better spam detection & blocking systems... is there no chance of them doing both?

    8. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      That is 100% not malware bro.

      If I run a program that makes my life easier at your expense, that is an exploit, a hack, or illegal automation.

      Malware is when my dumbass friend got a fishingbot that ALSO hat malware on it, which compromised his account and lead to endless mocking (fishing in WoW is mindless but is not necessary nor highly profitable nor prestigious- he should never have risked his account for such foolery).

      But anyway, a bot program isn't inherently malware. You might not like it, but that's not what malware is.

    9. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they? EU law, and the freedoms it brings, trumps the abuse of process by American companies like Blizzard everytime. We recognise the 'First Sale Doctine', for instance, and you Yanks allow companies like Microsoft to pretend this legal Right doesn't apply to out-right purchases of software (no software 'licence' or EULA converts software into a product unlike any other, but you Yanks are thick enough to buy that argument, when Gates pays Obama to make software a special case).

      Just because the use of bots can 'spoil' a game like WoW is no excuse to abuse the law, and ban the right of people to use their own computer hardware as they so wish. Blizzard is still free to 'ban' users they detect using bots under EU law, so long as Blizzard returns unused subscription fees. Blizzard is still free to change the rules of the game, so bots no longer offer any serious gaming advantage.

      Cheating is one thing, but enhanced inputs under the rules of the game, using information legitimate for the player to access (so, no wall-hacks and the like), should never be considered 'cheating'. Games should be played for fun, NOT for profit (I mean for the player), so players should have little to ZERO reason to be concerned about those using bots.

      Online games should focus on allowing groups of players to play with others that share the same gaming philosophy. This would allow players to avoid playing with bot-enhanced players, solving the problem.

    10. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      So anything that can be used to cause adverse effects to other people, can be considered malware? That's a pretty broad definition.

    11. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      It is malware, because it adversely affects the gameplay of other players, who never consented to such software being used in the MMO they are playing.

      Are WOW macros malware? How about macros in Word or Excel, ones that let person A do something with half the actual effort as person B?

      How exactly does them using a bot affect your gameplay, other than frustrating you when others level or gear up faster? Bots aren't interactive, they're for the dull, grindy, repetitive sequences that make moderate amounts of gold or experience. Maybe the player doesn't respond if you try talking to them: does that hurt your feelings that much?

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    12. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Scowler · · Score: 1

      Blizzard has made efforts on the technical front. (Google for the infamous 'Warden' for an example...) Sometimes they've been too aggressive, in fact, and mistakenly flagged legit users as bots. (Believe it or not, some players do, in fact, like standing in one spot fishing for hours on end...).

    13. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by alexo · · Score: 1

      What if you use the clean room approach where the developers of the software never play the game and therefore need not agree to the EULA/TOS?

    14. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could make the same argument for Auctioneer (a perfectly legal addon per the TOS), since the desired effect is to gain an advantage at the Auction House - other players have their gameplay adversely affected by paying more gold for an item (or receiving less for it) than they might otherwise because Auctioneer is helping sellers/buyers optimize their transactions. You're changing the definition of an established technical term to suit your argument.

      It's good to see Blizzard is spending so much money on lawyers when WoW continues to have serious bugs that have been in the game and complained about by its customers for YEARS in some cases.

    15. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Scowler · · Score: 1

      If the macro / addon is legit with the ToS, then I consented when I agreed to the WoW EULA. And farming bots do adversely affect my gameplay, by distorting the in game economy. Honor farming bots definitely hurt PvP gameplay for others. I understand the incentive for these bots, just like I understand all those Counter Strike cheats back in the day, but the malware label is well earned regardless.

    16. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Scowler · · Score: 1

      "Abuse of process"... wow. I would think the player who agreed not to be a douchebag (that EULA is an agreement, in fact. You do not have to click 'I accept.' You can always play some other game.) and then becomes a douchebag is Abuser #1. I don't care to squabble over US vs EU copyright laws, as I think a more fundamental question over integrity is at play here.

    17. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They have definitely attempted to tackle it at a technical level. Part of installing Blizzard games is giving consent for it to look for cheating programs. Support for macro keys such as found on Logitech keyboards has been broken numerous times (and I think is broken right now) as they allow a keyboard macro to perform exactly one action that would be performed as a player clicking a button. It can be a keypress combination (such as Alt-Shift-4 or whatever you have it mapped to), but especially for combat, they don't want that one keypress doing a string of actions, especially not timed.

      They've also been going after bots since well before their peak player count. I've seen news of lawsuits going back for at least six or seven years.

      WoW is certainly in decline (if they could upgrade the entire game's graphics to be like Pandaria, it might draw a few people in or back, but the cost probably exceeds the potential income) and they need something to take over, but these enforcement actions aren't new by any means.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    18. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was one add on, which I forget the name sadly, that put an overlay of graphics over the terrain and used this pseudo 3d approach. The graphics could be shared and saved. They were great for marking areas to stand in, to have a visual representation of the range of an attack around a raid boss, or simply show circles around other raid members so that you wouldn't stand so close. It was made within blizzard's add on system, but after some time they banned it.

      It was quite fun drawing in cities, not to mention it simplified some of the harder raids. This was during the Outlands expansion.

    19. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If they sell it, they could be encouraging people to violate some EULA contract. Isn't it illegal to do that?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    20. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "by distorting the in game economy."
      That just shows the WoW econimic model is broken. Also, you don't need to use the auction house to gain anything.
      IT doesn't impact your game play at all, and it's AH impact helps you.

      The fact that you don't like it does not make it malware. Fuck dude, malware has an actual definition.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware

      Let me know when it attacks your computer.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Arker · · Score: 2

      I never said anything about 'easily.' It's a very difficult problem. I am not saying there is a perfect solution either. But they arent even trying.

      There are a lot of inter-related issues here but specifically the article is talking about botting. Basically botting just means automating repetitive tasks in the client. It's a very natural and predictable desire for anyone playing a game that involves a lot of repetitive tasks to find some way to automate them on the client-end, and if the client is a PC then the more technical players are going to find a way to do that. There is no technical 'fix' for this and acknowledging that is important. It cannot be fixed it can only be worked around.

      Now we could go off down the decades long history of workarounds, but I will try to skip to what's important. You see, the main damage that botting does to the game is to disadvantage the people that dont do it - they find that they progress so much slower than the ones who do that they get disheartened and quit. The authoritarian game admin will reflexively respond to this by prohibiting the use of bots - but this NEVER improves the situation. The technical folks whose advantage he is trying to disrupt, are also the least likely to be caught violating the new rule. It's the other gamers that the admin is actually trying hard to retain who are most likely to somehow stumble into the world of botting, slip up and get caught, and then banned.

      A better solution, in general, is to allow it and make it easy for all players to do, so that they are on a more even playing field. Because most of the burnt out players arent going to be stressing on botting qua botting, they are stressed on the fact that other people are doing it and they cant!

      Now on a game with any sort of role playing feel to it, there is still another problem - bots running around skilling up or making money or whatever and not responding to you really blow the whole immersion thing. But once we have focused more narrowly on the problem there, it is not intractable. What we did on my old Mud was legalize 'at keys' botting (where the client is running a script, but the player is still near enough to see the screen and respond if needed) and only outlaw afk botting.

      That worked great on a system with ~300 players and ~4 immortals on at any given time, but WoW may well be running with far fewer admins. Again, to save money. And look, I got no problem with them wanting to save money and make a profit, but do you have any clue how much money they rake in on this thing? It wouldnt kill them to hire a little staff.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    22. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always let my cat accept the EULA.

    23. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shitty EULAs deserve to be violated.

    24. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by alexo · · Score: 1

      Just add a disclaimer:
      "This software is sold for educational purposes and its use on Blizzard's servers is strictly forbidden."

    25. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Just because you add a disclaimer doesn't mean it will fly in court.

    26. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of AVR, which was banned during Lich King.

    27. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you use the clean room approach where the developers of the software never play the game and therefore need not agree to the EULA/TOS?

      You don't even need that. This is what corporate personhood is for -- even if I were an active WoW player, that doesn't mean my company has agreed to WoW's terms of service -- that would only happen if I ever played the game for purposes related to the company's activities.

      Now, it could be argued that it would be pretty difficult to develop a bot without testing it against the servers, for which you would need to agree to the TOS, so this might be a little hard to actually achieve, but I believe there are third party server implementations that work...

    28. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the shrinkwrap EULA is fine in court but a shrinkwrap disclaimer isn't? I smell double standards...

    29. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe, we have laws against adding additional restrictions after the sale. WoW is (or was at one point) sold in retail stores. Buy one of those, and the EULA is invalid.

    30. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard's EULA / TOS is not valid in Germany because both are presented *after* purchase (during installation of the software, after you ripped the package open and can't give it back)
      it's like presenting contract details after the contract has been signed

      Copyright in Germany does not include reading/copying memory values which was a ridiculous argument in the Glider case

    31. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not as ironclad as you think it is.

    32. Re: We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but the malware label is well earned regardless."

      You can call it moonshine if you like, by skewing the definition of moonshine to include "all software that does things I object too". But you will sound like a kook, people know moonshine is a illegal booze and not software.

      And the definition most people use for malware is: "software designed to subvert the control of the computer without the knowledge or consent of it's owner". Scriptable bots simply don't match that definition, they are automation tools that depending on how they are used can disrupt or not the gameplay of other users, and can break or not Blizzard's TOS.

      It can be reasoned that the tool banned by the court in the original article is a tool specifically designed to break Blizzard's TOS and has no other legitimate use, but on the other hand you cannot claim the same thing about Capt. Kirk's software since as we've seen it has survived a challenge in court. TLDR, you're full of shit.

    33. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by alexo · · Score: 1

      Nothing is ironclad in a system where justice is influenced by the amount of money one can throw at the problem.

      Personally, I'd find against Blizzard in the original case.

    34. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Blizzard starts banning people en masse, specifically pointing out the bot software. then the users of said software sue the manufacturer ;)

    35. Re:We beat them because the EU has no DMCA by alexo · · Score: 1

      Social problems can rarely be solved by technological means.

  9. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can be prevented from releasing your own code by courts?

    1. Re:Huh? by johanw · · Score: 2

      American judges seem to think they are gods and give the strangest orders. In more civilised countries the law describes what a judge can and cannot order.

    2. Re:Huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Then they aren't judges, are they?
      Judges, judge based on criteria that can not put put into law. Tying judges to specific and strict rules has turned out very bad for American system.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Calooby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, you can't escape now!

  11. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a software developer, I find these cases to be very disturbing. Now I have to worry about what my users do with my software?

    1. Re:Scary by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      How is that different from anyone else who makes and sells a product?

    2. Re: Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaddya mean, "Now?" This bullshit has been going on since the 1900s.

    3. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont see weapons or cooking knife manufacturers going to prison for their product being used to kill people

    4. Re:Scary by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      No one is going to prison here either. They're being sued in civil court and made to pay damages and stop making a product. Why do you think that doesn't happen to any other product maker? Gun manufacturers were being sued so often (and in most cases so frivolously) that Congress passed a law in 2005 immunizing them from many types of suits. Knife manufacturers are sued too.

  12. forbidden to open-source ? by richlv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're also forbidden from ... open-sourcing the bot software

    now that's messed up. although the source code could always be "stolen"...

    --
    Rich
    1. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If it were... particularly now, they'd probably have to prove that it was actually stolen with official records of a break in or whatnot... if they were unable to or unwilling to supply such records, it would probably be assumed that they were complicit in the alleged "theft".

    2. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      In which case Blizzard goes to court asking the judge to hold the defendants in contempt for violating his/her order.

      Defendant: "But the code was stolen, there was nothing we could have done!"

      Judge: "Did you file a police report?'

      Defendant: "No, we..."

      Judge: "What steps did you take to prevent this kind of theft?"

      Defendant: "Um..."

      Judge: *gavel bang* "I find you in contempt of this court..."

    3. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Firewall security.

      Seriously dude, try to think.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by eWarz · · Score: 1

      Really? Because i'd argue freedom of speech. Let the court strike THAT down...I would take it to the supreme court...Yeah blizzard, be glad i'm too lazy to write bots for your games...

    5. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by richlv · · Score: 2

      that would be hard, right ? :)
      leave unpatched software here, root password in bash history there...

      --
      Rich
    6. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by richlv · · Score: 1

      -- "yes, we did file a report"
      -- "we had a firewall and we patched all the software we use for security vulnerabilities. there was this one we only found out about two days later and patched it immediately"

      leaving the door open is easier than locking the whole infrastructure.

      --
      Rich
    7. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize you live in a country where people are thrown in a hole for a undertemined lengh of time and without legal due process, and that thinks its fine to go around the world assassinating people remotely?

    8. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because i'd argue freedom of speech. Let the court strike THAT down...I would take it to the supreme court...Yeah blizzard, be glad i'm too lazy to write bots for your games...

      When you violate the law you can lose your freedoms. Also, code isn't speech, even in the US. It's a device.

    9. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Which is fine.... as long as they can point to a specific vulnerability fix that would have otherwise enabled a hacker to easily access content within the firewall without record, and can provide reasonable cause to suggest that said fix was only recently installed (ie, the fix just came out last week or some such thing). Of course, if stuff was taken without record, then they would also have had no way to know about it, and therefore no reason to report it stolen until it is actually discovered, existing in the wild. Given the nature of the court order, I would expect that they have no business even trying to look for something like their software that was made by other people, so they would not have any specific cause to suspect it was stolen until it was explicitly pointed out to them by another party.

    10. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but they are brown.

    11. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by richlv · · Score: 1

      why complicate that much ? stop patching your systems.
      "reasonable cause to suggest that said fix was only recently installed" - well, revenue stream was removed so we had to find some other job :)

      --
      Rich
    12. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Okay... but that would still entail that, right now and without any further patching, it would be possible for a person to obtain that code from them illicitly. I'm not saying that vulnerability doesn't exist, but that vulnerability would *NEED* to exist right now for them to claim that.

    13. Re:forbidden to open-source ? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Also, code isn't speech, even in the US. It's a device.

      Unless your name is Phil Zimmermann & you publish the full & complete source code in the form of a bound book to work around export restrictions on cryptography... then dare US regulators to ban the book.

  13. Grindfest by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you think World of Warcraft is a grindfest you obviously never played Final Fantasy XI.

    1. Re:Grindfest by aiadot · · Score: 1

      I don't play MMORPGs, but I've tried both of them when they were released. From my couple days experience, the grind amount is the same. It's just what are you mainly grinding for. In FF11, for XP. In WoW, gold. And that is why those bots are so important in WoW. Because, differently from XP in FF, you can give or better yet SELL virtual gold for real money in WoW. I'm pretty sure every other major MMORPG has bot problems too, but not as significant as in WoW.

  14. Time for the torrents by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Fight back!

  15. Botting... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    As a fan of MMO's since about 2000, I can safely say that EVERY MMO I've ever played, from then, to now, has had some form of botting or automating mindless grinding activities.

    Every MMO has them. There's no stopping them, it kind of reminds of the same sort of silly arms race spammers have against spam filtering software.

    Anyway, I think what MMO companies should do, it just make their own botting software and sell it to people like the rest of their products. Level the playing field. Every MMO has bots, so open the flood gates, let anyone have bots, make some money as well.

    1. Re:Botting... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      I would much prefer they simply ban the bot accounts. Bots are horrible for the game. Last thing I would want is your suggestion coming to pass.

    2. Re:Botting... by lgw · · Score: 1

      DDO doesn't really have any mindless grind to automate, and I've never seen a bot in it. Heck, if you choose the run the same content repeatedly, the XP and loot falls off quite rapidly.

      There's no need to make an MMO that way. Make the game, from start to the endgame raids, have no need to repeat a quest, no mindless timesyncs. It's just not that hard to make quests if your world designers are given good automation for laying out content.

      Sure, you'll need to repeat the endgame raids, but that's not usually the part the players call the grind.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Botting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban their customers? Their sweet, sweet, profit-generating customers?

    4. Re:Botting... by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Every MMO has them. There's no stopping them, it kind of reminds of the same sort of silly arms race spammers have against spam filtering software.

      Anyway, I think what MMO companies should do, it just make their own botting software and sell it to people like the rest of their products. Level the playing field. Every MMO has bots, so open the flood gates, let anyone have bots, make some money as well.

      The MMO I play has fishing. This will level you faster than actual monster grinding, and if you're lucky (or fish long enough), you can make more in game gold than by questing. You need to buy a fishing pole from the in-game shop or another player. The fishing pole expires and disappears after a few days forcing you to secure another. This game understands the grind sucks, and has found a balance between easy and acceptable. There are still bots, but they are immobile drones clogging the chat window.

      Game is called Dekaron (Free to download and free to play, unless you're serious/lazy)

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  16. Blizzard buys these judgements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be in no doubt. You are NOT seeing justice at play here. Blizzard's back account simply buys the verdict they desire, in the most corruptible legal system in the world, that of the USA.

    America has ALWAYS given victories to arising corporate giants over those they seek to stamp all over. This is the AMERICAN WAY. To allow anything less would be see as threatening the form of capitalism assumed to be behind America's success.

    Of course, in the case of WoW, players put their interests in a "fun", "Fair" game ahead of established legal freedoms, and so cheer such verdicts. The precedent set by Blizzard's purchased 'justice' is no less potentially devastating than the actions of patent trolls in American courts.

  17. This is bs. and so is wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to stifle a creative programmer with a passion for games because of your stupid egos bliz. At least this guy was botting your game rather than wasting time playing it.

  18. I botted hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bots are an awesome addition to the game in my opinion. It allows you to enjoy the fun parts of the game while not having to deal with all the monotonous portions needed to attain said fun. I didn't feel like having a serving l second full time job by playing wow. Bots make that possible.

    1. Re:I botted hard by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      ...at the expense of nonbotters.

      If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve to win. I report every bot I see, and I love it when they get banned and lose everything. Fuck botters. Right in the bot hole.

  19. yeaaaaaaah... bleh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only fps developing companies would come forward and step it up like this. Bots and wallhacks sure are ruining the fun for a lot of people.

  20. They can't publish the source. but.... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    ... I just read the court order and there's nothing I could see in there that suppresses the defendants' ability to freely pass along the ideas that were contained in the code.

    In other words, they don't need to openly publish the source code to release it... they can just openly publish the methods that were utilized, and let other developers write their own bots in the language of their own choosing.

    1. Re:They can't publish the source. but.... by ArbitraryName · · Score: 2

      2. Defendants and all persons acting under Defendants’ direction, supervision, and/or control (including but not limited to Defendants’ agents, representatives and employees), will immediately and permanently cease and desist from:
      [...]
      E. Knowingly assisting, facilitating, or enabling any persons or entities, directly or indirectly, to engage in any of the activities prohibited by the foregoing Paragraphs 2(A) through 2(D); and

    2. Re:They can't publish the source. but.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Hmm.... didn't catch that bit. Kinda weird that a court would permanently ban you from publishing facts that anyone else who does the exact same research could also discover.

    3. Re:They can't publish the source. but.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that what they've already done could constitute indirectly facilitating or enabling other people to do something similar, since it's also probably possible for somebody else to reverse engineer what they already did.

    4. Re:They can't publish the source. but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got the binary? Got a dissassembler? You've got source. Modify, hack, spread. Fuck blizzard.

  21. Blizzard, fix your game to not suck. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    And why do bots exist? Because "grinding" is the only way to gain large amounts of currency in a short amount of time. Gold farmers do it for cash. Players do it to shortcut themselves to the top and to avoid grinding.

    Amen brother! But more specifically:

    Bots exist because blizzard has created a market by writing software that wastes people's time. If they really wanted to put an end to botting, they would fix their crappy game so people don't have to engage in repetitive pointless tasks to max reputations and get cash. If the pointless grinds are removed, then there is less economic incentive to have to bot. If gold is easy to acquire, there isn't any value in buying it from a gold farmer.

    They can go lawyer all over anyone who writes this software, but it costs a lot less to write a bot (in terms of time and resources) than it takes to sue someone out of existence. If the authors properly incorporated, then they can file for a new LLC for about $100, and be back in business by Friday. So, Blizzard == a pack of drooling idiots.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Blizzard, fix your game to not suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's lifelike realism... no matter what level you are, you're ALWAYS collecting some shrubs for someone for a meaningless reward.

    2. Re:Blizzard, fix your game to not suck. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They can go lawyer all over anyone who writes this software, but it costs a lot less to write a bot (in terms of time and resources) than it takes to sue someone out of existence. If the authors properly incorporated, then they can file for a new LLC for about $100, and be back in business by Friday. So, Blizzard == a pack of drooling idiots.

      Unless the judge writes a clause into the judgement binding any successor companies founded by the same principals. Much like this judge did. So no, that wouldn't work because then they'd be facing charges for willful violation.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Blizzard, fix your game to not suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So "oops, my computer got hacked" and the source code leaked out. Eat shit Mr. Judge.

    4. Re:Blizzard, fix your game to not suck. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet that if they were to claim that, they'd have to work pretty damn hard to show that they weren't complicit to said "hacking".

  22. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hipster alert!

  23. ...What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly what law have they broken here? Blizzard's claim is that the software these guys have written isn't compliant with their (Blizzard's) TOS. Last I checked, user's breaking the Terms of Service wasn't the fault of a 3rd party and certainly not illegal. Might as well sue Microsoft since most of these botters are running on Windows.

    1. Re:...What? by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      They haven't broken any law. This is a civil suit.

    2. Re:...What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you didn't check, or you'd have found out that this party is very specifically at fault due to their own particular conduct directly aiding the players who are botting.

      Sell a screwdriver? Then you're not liable that a man used it to stab another. Hand your friend a screwdriver after he asks if you have a weapon he could use to threaten other people? Then you are liable.

      Of course, in this case, it's civil law, not criminal law, but ooh, in case you don't know, there is such a thing as tortious interference.

    3. Re:...What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to troll.

      I read it perfectly fine. Doesn't mean it makes any sense. If Blizzard has an issue with people breaking their TOS, maybe they should take it up with the players doing so. If the designers of this software never agreed to that same TOS or have since ended the contract, then they aren't subject to it.

  24. Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I accept that Blizzard is an entertainment company. I like that they put effort into protecting the game experience of their customers. I don't even play and I appreciate that a company will go to court and fight to ensure that the service they offer be as fair as they can make it. If I was at a golf course and someone was messing up the carefully maintained surface with ATVs, I'd be happy when the course owners banned them. If I was playing competitive online solitarie and someone found a way to have a computer make their moves for them rather than play fairly, I'd be happy when they were banned.

    I'm okay with a judge saying that you cannot break the terms of service (which I assume they did.) Up to that point, I feel like we're in agreement.

    However, the software I build myself on my own computer is mine and I believe I have a right to use it on my computer, or sell it or open source it as a basic free speech right. So long as what I do on my machine or contracts I enter into that allow other people to use the software doesn't interact with Blizzard, my rights should be protected. I haven't read the TOS of WoW, but I doubt there is any clause that says anything like "by agreeing to this, you also give us rights to anything you create which might be related to the service we offer."

    That's where the ATV and solitare analogies don't make sense. If you wanted those analogies to be fair, you'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for golf and those ATVs should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on one golf course. If I made a cheat friendly solitaire program, and used it to cheat, it is reasonable to ban me from using it on specific systems where the TOS disallow it, but to say that the program I wrote is itself illegal and can never be used, sold or given to anyone because it broke the rules on one system; that's just wrong.

    I honestly hope that this judgement gets thrown out on an appeal or someone "hacks" into the computers of the developers and makes it open source, distributed from a server not under the jurisdiction of this court. I don't say that because I think the bots shouldn't be banned by Blizzard, I think they should be. I think the court would be reasonable to say that using them is breaking the TOS and anyone doing so is subject to the terms they've agreed to in order to use Blizzard's servers. However, I think that banning the sale or open sourcing of software that someone creates which is an original work is morally and ethically wrong and I hope that for that reason, that part of the judgment will be overturned or clearly demonstrated to be worthless.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    1. Re: Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of generalization from someone too lazy to google: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/wow_tou.html

    2. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Informative

      I haven't read the TOS of WoW, but I doubt there is any clause that says anything like "by agreeing to this, you also give us rights to anything you create which might be related to the service we offer."

      I'm pretty sure it says precisely that. Or at least 'You agree to only interact with our software in approved ways". Which, for a multiplayer game, seems like a pretty reasonable restriction.

    3. Re:Bad analogy is bad by thelexx · · Score: 1

      "That's where the ATV and solitare analogies don't make sense. If you wanted those analogies to be fair, you'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for golf and those ATVs should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on one golf course. If I made a cheat friendly solitaire program, and used it to cheat, it is reasonable to ban me from using it on specific systems where the TOS disallow it, but to say that the program I wrote is itself illegal and can never be used, sold or given to anyone because it broke the rules on one system; that's just wrong."

      Seems like they built a Blizzard-Terrain Hack Vehicle and not an All-Terrain Hack Vehicle, so there may be some weakness in your analysis.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    4. Re:Bad analogy is bad by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Actually my problem with this is that it is impossible for a company that creates bot software to break *Blizzards* terms of service. Only the customer can break Blizzards TOS, because only the customer actually has a relationship with Blizzard.

      Moreover - it doesn't even pass muster on that level because the TOS as they stand - are not actually legal. The Uniform Commercial Code is the only legal framework for interpreting a TOS agreement, and the UCC is quite clear - this kind of Boilerplate agreement is only acceptable as a contract between Merchants -
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-104#2-104(1)
      (1) "Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.
      (...)
      (3) "Between Merchants" means in any transaction with respect to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants.

      The default under UCC code is not that people are considered to be merchants, but consumers - and thus, under the law, this type of boilerplate agreement is not applicable. Unless there is a 'professionsal' WoW player, the TOS is unenforceable.

      This is simply interference in a third parties right to contract.

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    5. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, you're wrong. In the TOS and EULA you have to click through after installing the game (and after, at least, major patches) you agree that blizzard can do whatever they want with your account, for any reason at all.

      They can you, at will, because you agree to let them.

      Your argument about someone "hacking" their servers, etc, would only imperil the original authors to additional civil fines and possible criminal charges (as going against a court order would do).

      Had they open sourced it to begin with, then it wouldn't be a huge issue. Then again, if it were open sourced, there would be tons more compromised accounts because of dumb people....

    6. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Their terms of service specifically say that. You may only interact with their software in ways approved by them. As far as they're concerned, the only way you should be talking to a WoW server, is with a WoW client and that client should only be taking input in ways approved by Blizzard.

      What someone should really do is work on building a robot that can sit in front of a computer and actually play wow, by the rules. Watch the screen with cameras, actually do processing and press keys.

      That would be cool.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    7. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually my problem with this is that it is impossible for a company that creates bot software to break *Blizzards* terms of service. Only the customer can break Blizzards TOS, because only the customer actually has a relationship with Blizzard.

      That just makes it worse for the bot company. They're profiting off Bliz's work without any agreement.

      In the bowling alley analogy, they'd be street peddlers hanging outside the premises, but selling robots which are only useful if brought inside the bowling alley, even when Bliz has a policy against people bringing robots into the bowling alley.

      For customers who signed the TOS/EULA, Bliz can kick them out of the bowling alley if they catch them with the robot, but the peddlers outside aren't customers, so Bliz got a court order to tell them to stop making and selling the robots.

      This is simply interference in a third parties right to contract.

      Other way around, it is the the third party (the bot makers) interfering with Bliz's business.

    8. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does this mean they're going to come raid my house for their share of my software? riiiight....

    9. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm okay with a judge saying that you cannot break the terms of service (which I assume they did.)

      Their terms of service specifically say that. You may only interact with their software in ways approved by them.

      If you're ok with this, you haven't been paying attention. Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. These are the same people that write and enforce contracts.

      It has been routine practice for many decades for the US legal profession to do all kinds of sleazy things to artificially increase the demand for their services. Not surprising considering who writes, prosecutes, and judges the laws. What is surprising is how little attention people pay to this -- there are some indications that is slowly starting to change.

      The costs to society of this inability of the US legal profession to act ethically are very high, and manifest themselves in all sorts of ways. This ethical conflict of interest is why the USA has a broken patent system, a broken copyright system, and a broken tort system, for example. This ethical conflict of interest is why the USA is known as the "Land of the Lawsuit". This ethical conflict of interest is why Congress gets away with passing laws that are hundreds or even thousands of pages long, which are considered binding on the public when the Supreme Court can't even be bothered to read them!

      To make matters worse, this ethical conflict of interest also contributes to the ability of government agencies to get away with routinely violating fundamental rights: the legal professionals have created such a complex legal system, with all kinds of contradictory precedents and rules, that government agencies can simply pick and choose the aspects of the legal system that favour the actions they want to carry out, while ignoring any considerations that would suggest such actions are illegal.

      Getting back to the particular issue at hand, one of the (many) sleazy things the US legal profession has done over the years is to vastly widen the scope of contract law, allowing all sorts of fundamental rights to be infringed through various contract provisions. This is particularly common in "shrink-wrap licenses", which they expect to apply to the general public even though almost nobody reads or understands them.

      That this is happening should come as no surprise: the legal professionals writing, judging, and enforcing the laws have decided that it is in the interests of their profession to artificially increase the demand for people that write contracts, which happens to be one of the more common activities legal professionals get paid to do! There's no conspiracy here, simply a situation where amoral people, acting individually, recognize the opportunity to benefit themselves at the expense of society, and act accordingly.

      It is rare to find ANY contract these days that doesn't violate fundamental rights in one way or another. The same can be said of laws and often judicial precedents: the dominant role of the legal profession in creating all of these artefacts of the legal system should be suggestive.

      As a result, it's not practical in the modern world to simply refuse to sign contracts: these contracts are all over the place and affect almost every aspect of life.

      We can suppose that one of the reasons that most people don't read shrink-wrap-licenses is the assumption that the legal system will not enforce any provisions that violate fundamental rights, and thus it is not necessary to wade through a huge amount of legalese. Furthermore, there are obligations placed upon businesses in return for the privilege of receiving intellectual property protection, and the expectation of reasonable use of the goods or services a business provides, irregardless of what they might choose to put in their contract, is, well, reasonable! Don't forget that the Bill of Rights provides for unspecified

    10. Re:Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1

      I had a little trouble following that, but I'll assume you had a good reason for the missing words, like a bottle merlot or something. (Which is my current excuse.)

      you agree that blizzard can do whatever they want with your account, for any reason at all.

      I didn't say otherwise. There is a big difference between "your account" and a program that you create.

      They can [ban] you, at will, because you agree to let them.

      Yup. I didn't say otherwise.

      They can [control any aspect of] you[r life and work outside of the game], at will, because you agree to let them.

      That's what I actually disagree with... but I doubt you intended to say that.

      Your argument about someone "hacking" their servers, etc, would only imperil the original authors to additional civil fines and possible criminal charges (as going against a court order would do).

      You're right of course. They'd probably be pulled back into court where someone would have to prove that they were intentionally responsible or negligent in protecting their computers and CDs and any flash drives where they might have put a backup. That can be difficult to prove to say the least.

      Had they open sourced it to begin with, then it wouldn't be a huge issue. Then again, if it were open sourced, there would be tons more compromised accounts because of dumb people....

      Yeah, um, sorta. I wonder if you meant banned accounts, but I don't have any problem with people who like to cheat being banned.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    11. Re:Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll buy that. Let me amend my analogy.

      You'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for [that specific] golf [course] and those ATVs and anything based on the work that went into building them should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on [that] one golf course. Which would prevent them from selling other custom built ATVs based on their experience and parts they were able to reuse. That is clearly an infringement on their normal rights to conduct business.

      That is a bit better, but it's wordy and a little complex. I guess that's the problem with accurate analogies.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    12. Re:Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between saying "you agree to not use our software and servers a certain way" and "any software you build on your own computer belongs to us."

      I'm genuinely curious how people keep making this mistake. Software I build on my own computer, regardless of what it might be intended to do is not in any way the same as my rights to use somebody else's service. One is a right to use something somebody else provides and one is something that I create and own all the rights to independently.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    13. Re: Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Does it say they own rights to something I create on my own computer in my own time? Because otherwise it doesn't have any relevance to my arguments.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    14. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure most people can understand your "freedom of speech" argument ... however, we are talking about software that was specifically created for ONE purpose and ONE purpose only ... running "illegal" bots in a game where both the developers AND community doesn't want them!

      Now, lets me honest, if this software wasn't completely "banned", then it would simply be passed on and be used again!

    15. Re:Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1
      1. The developers and community for WoW is not the same thing as the legal framework of the United States of America
      2. Software designed for one purpose usually has many thousands of lines of code that are useful in dozens of potential scenarios
      3. The US doesn't take away your right to say something because somebody else doesn't like it and it might get repeated... or at least we didn't
      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    16. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The developers and community for WoW is not the same thing as the legal framework of the United States of America

      The legal framework for the United States of America respects the rights of individuals. Those developers and community are those individuals. When you write a bot program that works specifically on Bliz's servers and affects Bliz's community, you are the one violating their rights.

      The verdict is essentially an injunction, or restraining order. That's how the legal framework of the US works, as do many societies with rule of law. When you've been found guilty of violating somebody else's rights first, you can find your own rights restricted as a result.

      Software designed for one purpose usually has many thousands of lines of code that are useful in dozens of potential scenarios

      So what? In an injunction or restraining order, you'll be told that you can't do certain things, even if doing those things could be "useful in dozens of potential scenarios"

      If a restraining order says you have to stay at least 1000 feet from her, it doesn't matter if you were saving nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer. If you broke the order doing so she has the right to press charges (you can call her a bitch for doing it but it's her right to be a bitch)

      The US doesn't take away your right to say something because somebody else doesn't like it and it might get repeated... or at least we didn't

      Other way around, the US doesn't take away Bliz's rights just because you don't like it. Again, if Bliz wants to be a bitch, it's their right.

    17. Re:Bad analogy is bad by ancientt · · Score: 1

      When I write a program with my own resources, regardless of what is in that program, it doesn't violate anyones rights. Only when I use it is it possible for me to violate someone's rights. If I do something with it in a way that gets me in trouble with the law, then yes, I may loose rights.

      I've seen a lot of arguments to my comments, and dismissed most of them, but you actually presented your argument logically enough that I must concede that you have a point. I disagree with the judge's ruling, but not your arguments.

      Should I ever have such a restraining order, and cure cancer while saving nuns from a burning orphanage and by doing so violate the terms of the order, and have charges pressed against me for doing so and have a judge decide to punish me by taking away my rights to use, sell or give away programs I've written... then your argument would still be valid and I'd still believe the judgment was a bad one. Why? Because I believe some things are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored.

      Free speech, the right to own property and the moral obligation to save nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer if you have the opportunity are among the things that I don't believe someone should be deprived of by a judge without a very strong reason. I don't believe Blizzard's arguments are a strong enough reason for for a judge to deprive someone of any of them. Were I a judge or the defendants' lawyer, I would disagree with this particular judgment for that reason.

      I have mod points, but I never use them on a discussion I'm involved in. I don't know if it would work anyway, but I hope somebody else gives your comments a bump up.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    18. Re:Bad analogy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall the details and I didn't read this particular article (Sorry) but the reason they won the glider case is because the program essentially makes a copy of wow in order to run. So blizzard won this case based on copyright laws.

  25. You see ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have open-sourced it way before, like in the first place.

  26. If Blizzard has any business acumen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they'd provide their own botting service for a fee. However way anyone else can make money from WoW, Blizzard should immitate.

  27. Bots all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that by playing WOW, you become a BOT yourself.

    Atleast any "boss" fight seem like a pre-defined set of same key strokes over and over again.

  28. Free speech? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 1

    Isn't blocking the release of the source akin to blocking free speech?

  29. So... WoW is a good game how ? by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The things being botted in Wow are akin to simply moving all your pawns forward and taking any pieces you can happen to take in the process. Wow bots do not play even close to "half-way well." Wow bots brute force the absolute easiest parts of the game with minor or no combat in the most inefficient manner possible for marginal gain because that's all they're good for.

    But apparently, WoW is designed in such a manner, that the *END RESULT* of such brain-dead-stupid bots is so big, that Blizzard needs to unleash every available lawyers to launch them against bot-makers, because bot-makers ruin the experience of every other users.

    The point *you failed* to see is that, if something as stupid as a brainless gold-farming bot is completely disruptive to the game, maybe the game itself isn't that much good.

    Indeed, where are the hordes of "pawn-advancing" stupid bots swamping chess tournaments and ruining the experience of every other player? Answer: there aren't.
    Because actual chess is a game much more complex where brainless bots are completely useless and where actual intelligence is a requirement for a good game.

    Meanwhile, WoW has a significant part of its gameplay which rather dumb grinding. Blizzard designed a game were simple mindless tasks play a significant role, and then they complain that users are using bots to automate said dumb tasks?!

    There exists no wow bots that can play like a player could, and there likely never will due to the complexity involved in such a task and no one willing to work it out.

    Then make a game more dependant on this kind of complex play where the grinding isn't that much an impact and :
    - you'll get less bots because of a lower incentive to build them
    - you'll get less players complaining about the ruined gameplay, because the farming/mining won't impact the game that much.

    In fact: Even build some level of botting in you game, so that the player get less annoyed by the most boring part, and have your game designed around the higher level task where player find actual fun and challenge.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:So... WoW is a good game how ? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      In fact: Even build some level of botting in you game, so that the player get less annoyed by the most boring part, and have your game designed around the higher level task where player find actual fun and challenge.

      People don't bot because they find some part of the game boring, it's hacked accounts running bots to rack up more in-game money. Even Eve Online has bots and it's one of the most complex MMO's I've ever seen.

      One of the best ways to combat bots is to fix exploits they use to get around the world. Almost all bots use some sort of teleport method to get around. WoW bots have been doing this forever. I don't understand why Blizzard can't fix teleporting. It's happening as we speak in Final Fantasy 14. Bots teleporting from mob to mob killing them to sell dropped items on the market.

  30. An unbottable game by Wokan · · Score: 1

    If they want to prevent people from using bots, maybe they should END THE EFFING GRINDING. Seriously. What kind of entertainment company thinks people are entertained by repeatedly clicking a set of actions in the same place over and over again?

    You want bots to stop being made? Stop making games that people don't want to have to drudge through.