Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Sues Overwatch 'Cheat' Maker For Copyright Infringement (torrentfreak.com)

From a TorrentFreak report: Blizzard Entertainment is suing Bossland, the maker of the popular Overwatch cheat tool "Watchover Tyrant" and several other game cheats. Among other things, the developer accuses the German company of various forms of copyright infringement and unfair competition. Blizzard is not happy with the Overwatch cheat and has filed a lawsuit against the German maker, Bossland GMBH, at a federal court in California. Bossland also sells cheats for various other titles such as World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and Heroes of the Storm, which are mentioned in the complaint as well. The game developer accuses the cheat maker of various forms of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. According to Blizzard these bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players. "Moreover, by releasing 'Overwatch Cheat' just days after the release of 'Overwatch,' Defendants are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm that game before it even has had a chance to fully flourish."

250 comments

  1. Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Titan fall was (may be it's yet) impossible to play on Brazilian servers cause of cheaters, good to see someone cares about their business.

    1. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Kkloe · · Score: 0

      I would like to think you are one of those who would have vulnerability in a hello world in dot.net and then tell other how to code

    2. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Shados · · Score: 2

      it's an FPS. You can't cheat-proof a skill based game without basically taking over control of the user's computer, and doing a bunch of things that Slashdotters really would not be ok with.

      So no, better programmers wouldn't help (much)

    3. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Doub · · Score: 0

      I tried telling game programmers how to code, but that's a pointless task. They already know better. Proof is the general increase in quality and the clear downward trend in the number of bugs in games.

    4. Re: Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you sure told them all. Gee why didn't they just listen to the mouth-breathing faggot in the first place ?

    5. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could track all unit stats server sides, so memory editing object attributes is useless as the server will correct your object data the next time that object does something.
      You could only send the client data they can see, so memory editing the wall textures to be transparent or removing objects is useless.
      You could make object boundaries be solid from all angles, so getting inside a wall would be useless.
      You could setup dedicated cheat servers which would satisfy most of the cheaters who exploit game bugs.

      Those 4 things would solve the majority of FPS online cheating issues with the exception of aim bots. I don't know any games that do all 4 things.

    6. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do the first and third, the second one would introduce a stack of lag (Overwatch is a an FPS and relies on low ping response), and the last one just encourages more people to cheat.

      The reason you don't know any game that does all four of those things is because at least 2 of them are terrible ideas.

    7. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blizzard certainly takes money seriously. You're applauding this, so I'm going to assume that you're not familiar with the history here. This is not the first time Blizzard has abused copyright to sue people for over something which has nothing to do with copyright, and won: link

      Among the consequences of twisting around an inapplicable law in this way is that any time you use a piece of software without permission from the copyright holder, including just using it in a way that the copyright holder did not intend, you are committing copyright infringement. Regardless of whether you've paid for that software, regardless of whether you have a license to use that software for another purpose. If, for example, you install a mod for a game and that game does not give explicit permission to use mods? Or to use that mod? Copyright infringement. A macro for a word processor for a word processor which doesn't want you to use macros? Or doesn't want you to use anyone else's macros? Copyright infringement.

      How about if that word processor is only licensed to write letters, and you use it to make a sign? What if you use some politician's campaign app in a way which doesn't support that politician? Copyright infringement. You get the idea. Blizzard is abusing the law in a way which wasn't intended.

    8. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      So what's your better proposition? Handle all of the sensitive data about the game state on the server, only giving out access to those who need it?

      I mean sure, it would work, but would also chew through server resources, since you'd have to have a separate instance /for every player in every game/. Not to mention network latency problems.

      Are you going to start encrypting game data? Sounds like that'd seriously affect performance.

      Please, explain to me how shitty programming is responsible for people hacking the game.

    9. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Doub · · Score: 1

      Shitty programming isn't responsible for people hacking the game, that's just the opportunity. You need a motive, and it's the game designers that provide that. They needed a retention mechanism, and rather than providing a gameplay that is truly enjoyable on the long run based on its own merit, they chose an addictive micro-reward grinding/collection mechanism.

      In such a setup, smartly-priced micro-payment is the only way to prevent the rich and busy from cheating. You would have thought that they learned their lesson with WoW and gold farming.

    10. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by xvan · · Score: 1

      Why a cheat jail, instead of perma-ban doesn't sound like a good idea to you?

    11. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's unfair in general for to blame the game devs for poor quality, as management generally ships games long before they're done, over the objections of the devs. Plus, the original devs are typically writing for a locked-down console, and the PC port is often farmed out to some bottom-dollar shop that cares nothing about code quality (those guys certainly deserve the blame).

      Blizzard, though, writes for the PC as a first-class platform, and doesn't ship games before they're done, so they really have no excuse here. Make it easy to catch and ban cheaters, instead of trying to solve a technical flaw with your legal department!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about Overwatch here? Have you actually played it? Sounds like not. The "rewards" in Overwatch are all just cosmetic perks. No new classes, weapons or gear that effect your toon's capabilities at all. *At all*. And levels are nothing more than status. There literally is nothing to grind, if you aren't set on changing your players skin (or voice line, etc). And IMHO, the gameplay is *very* enjoyable and ought to be for others who enjoy *Fortress games (of which I've been a fan since the original mod for Quake). In fact its the best class-based team game I've seen to date. Its impressively polished, and the classes are very well balanced, considering.

    13. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Overwatch is 12 players per game. It's not a big deal to send each client ONLY the data they can see. Plenty of games do this properly.
      And encryption adds microseconds per frame at worst. Get with the times.

      Of course, Blizzard thinks it's okay to run Overwatch (a fast-paced FPS) at 20 simulations per second, so...

    14. Re: Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you put into consideration that it might not be as relevant that it is just 12 players per instance but that it is the sum over all instances that needs to be addressed. Furthermore there is a reason we have high processing power graphics cards to handle occlusion. You could pull processing to the server, but then you will need to handle it there, like OnLive did.

    15. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then it's a good thing Overwatch isn't a skill-based game. It's intentionally designed with a heavily constrained and simplistic gameplay loop to appeal to the broadest possible market. Matches are also an average of 5 minutes to hold short attention spans and shorten the gratification cycle. Server tick-rates are less than a third of similar games, and 5-6x less than other games with competitive scenes. Head hitbox is also 1m^2 which is many times larger than the actual model.

    16. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will concede it is well-balanced, but at equal levels of mediocrity. It's honestly a travesty to compare it to Team Fortress or similar titles. Small maps with short matches using gameplay that forces "teamwork" by merely crippling each individual, rather than enabling players with better tools that would reward teamwork via being a force-multiplier. IE: 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 rather than 1 + 1 = 3. There is literally no time to properly prod enemy defenses nor space on the maps for anything but blob battles + 1 suicider... I mean "diver" to flank. It's a game that appeals to neither the competitive crowd due to the awful tick-rate and hitboxes, nor the casual crowd who the majority want to play 1 class/character... which will get you rolled quickly. Expect the game to flare out in 6-12 months.

    17. Re: Blizzard takes games seriously by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Pulling some processing to the server might be a necessary evil to make cheating more difficult. And you get a lot more processing power per dollar today than when Half-Life and Call Of Duty came out.

      As a reasonable compromise, I think plausibility checks on health, movement speed and visibility would make sense, and then
        - server-side, overriding characters whose client claims they have over 100% health or extra armor (yes that was once a hack on Day Of Defeat)
        - not sending position data of invisible players
        - punishing speed hacks somehow
      The visibility check might be the most challenging to program, but perhaps it would still be useful at reduced resolution.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    18. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard is abusing the law in a way which wasn't intended.

      Maybe Congress should sue them for copyright infringement?

    19. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at this the wrong way. Blizzard is too big to exist - they stifle competition and drive out competitors. The natural solution in an evolutionary system (such as society) when something like Blizzard comes about are parasites like Overwatch which siphon revenue off of them through various means. Overwatch is in the right here just because Blizzard is too big. If they were ruining things that were made by groups much smaller there would be an issue but they aren't, they are ruining something created by a behemoth of a game developer well known for implementing uncouth acts such as Facebook integration, social and psychological experimentation on their customer base, muscling smaller corporations out and injecting their own personal political ideals into gaming culture in an attempt to control it. Blizzard is evil, Overwatch is just a parasite that happens to suck a bit of their blood.

    20. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by mattventura · · Score: 1

      While I'm glad a game company is doing something about cheating, I don't think their logic is quite sound here. Unfair competition? Anti-circumvention? Gimme a break, it sounds like they're just throwing a bunch of charges around and seeing what sticks. "Defendants are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm that game before it even has had a chance to fully flourish" Really? Weren't they just bragging about how it already sold 10 million copies or some other huge number?

    21. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by MercTech · · Score: 1

      If you look back to incidents in the past; Blizzard tends to jump on people who manage an unfair advantage in their games diluting the experience for other players. Intentional cheat bots will get a game account banned. Even using exploits from a programming glitch can get a person suspended for a time.
            Blizzard has managed to get rid of most of the gold sellers in World of Warcraft by making it unproductive with the in game economy. Their antics in game is a pain that will not be missed.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    22. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that will happen and you know it.

    23. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      If they really cared about the business they'd hire better programmers rather than more lawyers.

      How many more programmers? Google, Microsoft, Apple - none of them have enough programmers to prevent hacking on their products.
      And remember, they're a for-profit business, producing quality products that work already. When people start throwing rocks through shop windows to get easier cheaper access do we tell them "Oh, if they cared about they're business they'd just put up strong enough windows"?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    24. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      "Make it easy to catch and ban cheaters" - This is something every Dev working on the game keeps fully in mind and attempts to achieve.
      Also every dev at microsoft, apple, google, etc. Including me (programmer for government).
      Blizzard's Devs are pretty good at it, stay on top of the latest tech and algorithmic concepts, keep up to date on zero days as they appear, etc.

      Personally, however, I don't think you should expect Blizzard to make it "easy to catch" cheaters, with "no excuse here" until you can realistically expect your government to make it "easy to catch" lawbreakers, with "no excuse here". (I mean it's shocking that our best lawyers (ok, I just put the word "lawyers" after the word "best" I know, sorry sorry, i'm sorry, sorry.) set up a legal system where so many people can just ignore it and do what they like, often with little risk of even being noticed let alone caught let alone prosecuted)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    25. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      How is this so? My experience is the following:
      Blizzard let me play their new overwatch game for free in open beta, to see what they were aiming for.
      After playing it for free, I estimated that I enjoyed playing the game just slightly more than watching an average movie. (I do like movies)
      Now, at this point, I've bought a copy of the game, and played it for about 100 hours. it cost me $AU60.00 for PC.
      60 cents an hour for movie quality entertainment (better that, imho), and that's if Blizzard deleted their servers and shut the whole game down today.
      If I watched movies instead (lets say cheap average $5 rentals, for 90m movies) Well, I'm sure you can see where that math is going......

      And I've had similar experiences with smaller studios also.
      In fact I've noticed over the years that competition is very healthy in the video games industry, games and concepts have developed and expanded even faster than the technology has (even with VR in retail now).
      Companies (and individuals, even) continue to produce quality programming, which I happily pay for.
      Then again, only about 10 million other people seem to agree with me (voting with their wallets), so you're probably right, Blizzard is ripping us all off and ruining our lives.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    26. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Agree with parent.
      Blizzard already has one of the best cheat-detection systems in place on the market today.
      That's why this german company is able to charge $20 a month for a cheat that sends NO INPUT to the game - they can't do that, cause Blizzard's systems are too good.
      Instead, they look at whats running in memory, and duplicate, modify and twist that to create an overlay that reveals the normally hidden information.
      Just because the information is normally and intentionally hidden doesn't mean that the client doesn't require it however, so as the parent stated, there is no avenue there for preventing cheating.
      The only avenue currently known (though blizzard or some other developers are hopefully working on something better already) is to force the users to install a "watchmen" type program, that usually requires root access to your computer, and sits there monitoring memory access, etc - essentially a resource-hogging security-hole-waiting-to-happen infuriate-your-customers type approach that's been used a number of the times in the past by various companies with limited success (Especially as every added layer of security is also a new attack surface).

      (The effect of the hack is in a nutshell: pretend overwatch is a game of poker. The hack gives you a hidden camera behind the other players so you can see their cards)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    27. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Then it's a good thing Overwatch isn't a skill-based game. It's intentionally designed with a heavily constrained and simplistic gameplay loop to appeal to the broadest possible market. Matches are also an average of 5 minutes to hold short attention spans and shorten the gratification cycle. Server tick-rates are less than a third of similar games, and 5-6x less than other games with competitive scenes. Head hitbox is also 1m^2 which is many times larger than the actual model.

      And how do any of these things mean Overwatch isn't skill based?
      You say, basically, that 1) it's easy to learn, 2) matches are short, 3) the server evaluates the game 20 times a second (actually it's a 1/3rd of some other fps competative, where do you get 6x less?)
      Ok, all correct enough anyway, however none of these mean it's not a skill based game. Not in any way.
      1) Easy to learn is a good thing, accessable and low barrier to entry is all fantastic. That's how we structure a lot of things in the real world, like education, apprenticeships, etc. Start easy, so you can learn it, rather than start hard and give up. But nothing to do with skill. Skill comes from practice, which (1) facilitates.
      2) Arguably the more skilled you are, the shorter your matches will be, so you're supporting me here, more or less. Match length is arbritrary to skill anyway - however skilled you are you can play till you first die, till teh first round, a complete match, a set of 10 placement matches, or just sit there and play all day long. Blizzard just make it easy to chop it into roughly 10m segments, meaning that if you only have a few minutes available, you can still practice, and improve your skill.
      3) The first game I wrote that is in any way related to OW was a MUD, so had a server tick cycle, and this cycle was 1/second, 1/20th as fast as Blizzards.
      We still had players who were clearly very skilled, and those who were not, and it showed.

      tldr; go play 2 competitive matches in full premade parties. One group with an average skill rating of 30, one with an average skill rating of 60. Then tell me this game has no skill factor (mic drop).

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    28. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Shitty programming isn't responsible for people hacking the game, that's just the opportunity. You need a motive, and it's the game designers that provide that. They needed a retention mechanism, and rather than providing a gameplay that is truly enjoyable on the long run based on its own merit, they chose an addictive micro-reward grinding/collection mechanism. In such a setup, smartly-priced micro-payment is the only way to prevent the rich and busy from cheating. You would have thought that they learned their lesson with WoW and gold farming.

      Um, yeah, for those who don't want to get their loot boxes organically, they've allowed them to pay real money to get ahead there, however this is all cosmetic items, and has zero impact on gameplay. The game is enjoyable on it's own merit.
      For those with low skill, however, fair and balanced play is not enjoyable to them, and seeing (as just mentioned) that blizzard provides no 'paid advantage' (having made an enjoyable game - clearly a paid advantage removes enjoyment from the game) this german company has decided to hack in and provide one, ruining the game for others, just as if you buy tickets to nice seats at a concert, then some third party comes and parks a bus in front of your seat full of their outside customers, blocking your view. Of course the theatre wants to disallow those busses.
      I played WoW, and yes, it has grinding. Overwatch doesn't have grinding. You play because you want to, you don't gain anything but the experience and personal skill. Levels aren't something you grind for, they're merely indicators of how long you've been playing. They don't give you anything like in WoW. No bigger healthpool, or better weapons, or more shields, or speed, or ability to see through walls (like the hack does). So no, not grinding. (The only thing like grinding is the requirement to play 25 games or whatever before entering competitive, but that's done as they utilise the results of quickplay to matchmake in initial competitive)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    29. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      I will concede it is well-balanced, but at equal levels of mediocrity. It's honestly a travesty to compare it to Team Fortress or similar titles. Small maps with short matches using gameplay that forces "teamwork" by merely crippling each individual, rather than enabling players with better tools that would reward teamwork via being a force-multiplier. IE: 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 rather than 1 + 1 = 3. There is literally no time to properly prod enemy defenses nor space on the maps for anything but blob battles + 1 suicider... I mean "diver" to flank. It's a game that appeals to neither the competitive crowd due to the awful tick-rate and hitboxes, nor the casual crowd who the majority want to play 1 class/character... which will get you rolled quickly. Expect the game to flare out in 6-12 months.

      Could you clarify a little?
      Firstly, which is overwatch? the 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, or the 1+1=3? (I mean, I think it's the latter, as I know a pharah ult + zarya ult = 3, and reinhardt + bastion often also equals 3, and Reinhart + bastion + mercy = something like 42)
      And how is it "crippling" each individual? Isn't a "cripple" usually considered someone who functions at a lower level that everyone else? so if it's literally "everyone" that's a cripple, wouldn't that negate itself?
      Or do you mean how the characters perform better working as a team, literally one of the most impressive feats I believe Blizzard has pulled off here, that every other similar game I've tried in the past has failed at (for me)?
      Sure new inexperienced bad players will feel like they don't have enough time in a match. Then again, my niece visited last night and got to try my HTC Vive out, and she said she felt she didn't get long enough either. (No the length of time she actually got has no relevance to her sentiment). Also, I can think of quite a number of things I can do that take ~10 minutes that are a lot of fun, and require a certain amount of skill to perform successfully. Why is 10 minutes too short? (Not rhetorical this time, I need a rebuttal for my GF)
      The tick rate is moot also, it's just how often the server runs the main loop. Think of it like playing chess, each 'loop' it evaluates the move that was made, and decides if it's check, checkmate, or neither) Those chess 'server ticks' were often in past centuries months apart, but noone claims chess doesn't require skill.
      And finally you're complaining about the size of the targets... I assume that the typical archery target size has evolved over the years, as archery competitions balanced out what they thought a good challenge. Blizzard are doing the same thing in their game, and will continue to adjust in search of better balance - this is a good thing, not a bad one. (But sure, it can make some things look a little bit silly, like hanzo shooting an arrow that appears to miss you by a foot, but still kills you, oh well, I could just as easily complain about a myriad of other things that "aren't just like in real life")

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    30. Re: Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Pulling some processing to the server might be a necessary evil to make cheating more difficult. And you get a lot more processing power per dollar today than when Half-Life and Call Of Duty came out.

      As a reasonable compromise, I think plausibility checks on health, movement speed and visibility would make sense, and then - server-side, overriding characters whose client claims they have over 100% health or extra armor (yes that was once a hack on Day Of Defeat) - not sending position data of invisible players - punishing speed hacks somehow The visibility check might be the most challenging to program, but perhaps it would still be useful at reduced resolution.

      And as soon as we have the bandwidth and lack of network latency to allow it, you can bet all these sort of games will render on the server and just send processed video streams. But we don't have that capability today, and it's doubtful we will have the hardware and infrastructure for a number of years yet, and even if/when we do, it will take time for the new software to be developed to properly implement it.
      For now, blizzard will continue (as does every other successful company) to do it's best to prevent abuse, and take those who continue to abuse to court, which is their best solution presently.
      Of course they'll be staying on top of (and possibly/probably pioneering, to some degree) technology and methodologies to prevent abuse.
      (btw, being able to render on the server and just stream low latency high framerate/res video will revolutionise more than overwatch and more than games, as we'll finally be able to have "dumb terminals" where all our devices need only be screens and a network connection pretty much. It won't matter if you're on a PC or a console or how expensive your video card is or anything... gonna be awesome. We'll tell our kids about how when we were young, all our devices were standalone and had to reproduce the same work, etc...)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    31. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Blizzard certainly takes money seriously. You're applauding this, so I'm going to assume that you're not familiar with the history here. This is not the first time Blizzard has abused copyright to sue people for over something which has nothing to do with copyright, and won: link Among the consequences of twisting around an inapplicable law in this way is that any time you use a piece of software without permission from the copyright holder, including just using it in a way that the copyright holder did not intend, you are committing copyright infringement. Regardless of whether you've paid for that software, regardless of whether you have a license to use that software for another purpose. If, for example, you install a mod for a game and that game does not give explicit permission to use mods? Or to use that mod? Copyright infringement. A macro for a word processor for a word processor which doesn't want you to use macros? Or doesn't want you to use anyone else's macros? Copyright infringement. How about if that word processor is only licensed to write letters, and you use it to make a sign? What if you use some politician's campaign app in a way which doesn't support that politician? Copyright infringement. You get the idea. Blizzard is abusing the law in a way which wasn't intended.

      "wasn't intended"
      Blizzard is using a copyright law to protect their rights to how their intellectual property is used, as non-Blizzard companies are using their code to subvert the intended experience of their product for consumers who are paying for the intended experience.
      If copyright law "wasn't intended" to protect intellectual property this way, I'm curious as to what you think the "intent" of copyright law is?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    32. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      While I'm glad a game company is doing something about cheating, I don't think their logic is quite sound here. Unfair competition? Anti-circumvention? Gimme a break, it sounds like they're just throwing a bunch of charges around and seeing what sticks. "Defendants are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm that game before it even has had a chance to fully flourish" Really? Weren't they just bragging about how it already sold 10 million copies or some other huge number?

      Do you really need this explained, or are you just trolling?
      Clearly those 10 million legitimate customers (of which I am one) would like to get what they paid for (a balanced fair game). Clearly, this other company is subverting this experience, in a way that directly contradicts the terms of service, and there's this area of law called "copyright law" that was created to address such issues. So they're trying to use the correct process in the way it was intended: to protect their intellectual property.
      How is this flawed logic?
      And sure, there's 10 million users or whatever, and yeah, that's a lot, but no, this game is not yet flourishing. It'll take a while for that. To reference Anders Ericsson famous stipulation: to become an expert takes 10,000 hours of practice. Well, I do think we already have some "experts" at overwatch, but give it time, and it will flourish. Also the game isn't even finished. Competitive mode is still officially in beta mode, and there's a never-ending list of improvements to be done to the game (which would happen faster if not for this other company requiring Bliz to devote money and resources to dealing with them).
      And clearly having some players with this unfair advantage will result in those without the advantage receiving sub-optimal results from their effort, and thus, less enjoyment, and thus more likely to leave/not recommend/etc and thus less money for Blizz (that they otherwise would have) and so on.... Not a hard concept, pretty straightforward and logical.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    33. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by guises · · Score: 1

      Is that a trick question? Copyright exists to incentivize the creation of new works by granting the creator of those works a temporary monopoly over their distribution. That is the intent.

      Blizzard does not have any rights, explicitly granted by copyright law, over how their intellectual property is used, only how it's distributed. What they have managed to do is convince a court that running a piece of software is equivalent to copying that piece of software, since in the process of running it the computer copies parts of it from disc to memory. The idea that a company can sell a piece of media but still retain control over how and whether you use it falls far outside of the purpose of copyright and outside of the concept of property rights in general.

    34. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      No, not a trick question, a real one, I'm no expert at any sort of law. I just know that if when I sell the right to use the compiled result of code I worked on, without modification, and make that part of the contract - this would clearly impact the price - if I was selling you my source code and rights to modify it, I'd be charging - well not me, we're talking about Overwatch here, I paid $60 for my compiled non-modifiable copy, but I think the source code and rights to modify it would be easily in the millions of dollars.
      Blizzard have decided to keep their project closed source and locked up, and simply sell licenses to use it that way. And Copyright law is the law that covers the rights to this I thought? So when someone hacks in, modifies the source code, and profits off it, I can see Blizz thinking the law should help protect them.
      And when the whole entire driving intent it to access Blizzards game servers with these modified illegal clients, they're breaking yet more agreements and at that point they're damaging the entire overwatch playerbase. So you think there should be no legal recourse? Or is it a different legal area, like theft or digital trespassing or what? I mean I know most laws are old, and that the world today has a lot of issues the original law writers never considered, but that's not Bliz's fault is it?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    35. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by mattventura · · Score: 1

      I went through and read the actual suit since as usual the summary is garbage. Blizzard is 90% blowing smoke here, but the claims that actually have some merit are:

      1. Intentional interference with contractual relations: since cheating is against the EULA, they are facilitating other people violating EULAs.
      2. Since the cheat makers themselves were violating the EULA by developing/testing cheats, they were thus infringing copyright.

      The rest of the claims require some major mental gymnastics, like claiming that when the cheat modifies the workings of the game (unclear as to whether it actually does that, or just reads memory and creates on overlay), it constitutes a derivative work. But the claims that do have merit are actually a pretty crafty end run.

      However, the implication of #2 is that if someone cheats at a game, they are on the hook for piracy. Pretty scary precedent especially in situations where it's not 100% clear what constitutes a cheat.

    36. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      I went through and read the actual suit since as usual the summary is garbage. Blizzard is 90% blowing smoke here, but the claims that actually have some merit are:

      1. Intentional interference with contractual relations: since cheating is against the EULA, they are facilitating other people violating EULAs. 2. Since the cheat makers themselves were violating the EULA by developing/testing cheats, they were thus infringing copyright.

      The rest of the claims require some major mental gymnastics, like claiming that when the cheat modifies the workings of the game (unclear as to whether it actually does that, or just reads memory and creates on overlay), it constitutes a derivative work. But the claims that do have merit are actually a pretty crafty end run.

      However, the implication of #2 is that if someone cheats at a game, they are on the hook for piracy. Pretty scary precedent especially in situations where it's not 100% clear what constitutes a cheat.

      Oh, you're dead on the lawsuit details are smoky at best, but I see that as part of the legal system as a whole, and in particular an archaic legal system trying to solve problems in a world of international digital goods and services that are traded and sold between such legal systems, etc... There's more gymnastics required than I have the patience or inclination to unravel :P
      And yeah, the judge on this is going to need to be very careful what precedent is set, however i think it's pretty clear that there's a problem here, and I would love to think that there's the possibility of a good precedent being set here, one that protects creators and their creations from this sort of abuse, in the international community. (But odds are it won't)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    37. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by guises · · Score: 1

      but I think the source code and rights to modify it would be easily in the millions of dollars.

      Blizzard doesn't sell the source code and the people in question don't have access to the source code. What these people have done is written their own software, containing nothing copyrighted by Blizzard, which is designed to work with what they have purchased from Blizzard. Think of, for example, purchasing a book and then making a custom bookstand. It modifies the manner in which you read that book and that could possibly be in a way that the publisher doesn't like, but fuck them. Who cares what they think?

      The fact that when you do this in a multiplayer game it effects not just yourself but other people as well changes the ethical situation, but not the legal one. An aimbot (or whatever) changes how you interact with your purchased media, just as the bookstand does. Blizzard has made using one against their terms of service (which they are free to do) but it is not illegal to produce software which can be used to violate some company's terms of service. Thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it is illegal to produce software which can be used to violate some company's copyright. So Blizzard has found a way to convince a judge that violating their terms of service is the some thing as copyright infringement.

    38. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by guises · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I didn't answer you're other question there. Yes, I think that there should be no legal recourse. When you can make a game and then make breaking the rules of your game illegal, enforceable in a real court by real police officers, this is just shy of being able to make your own laws. This is not a power that Blizzard or any private company should have. It should be up to Blizzard alone to enforce the rules of their game.

    39. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The first step in avoiding such is to not use .net
      If you are looking for security stay as far away from Micro$oft products as possible.

    40. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Well, lets say you walk into a police station.
      You decide that you want to go behind their desk, and hop on their computer, access their internal systems, find out where your ex is living, whatever.
      Well, while the police station is there for you to visit and place complaints at, etc, and the computer systems hold the data that makes this possible, it's protected data, and you're not allowed to look at it like that or use it that way.

      What bossland is accessing is protected code. They are reading it out of the memory, modifying it, and then using that to render an interface showing that hidden information.

      An alternate example:
      Think of blizzard as the olympic committee (they exist, right?). They have set up the olympic games (overwatch) and people can enter and compete by buying tickets. As I'm using the olympics as my example I trust you're generally familiar with the sort of rules and agreements a competitor must agree to.
      Bossland would be the shady 'doctor' that hangs around at the contestant entrance selling performance enhancing drugs. (And unfortunately these drugs don't have any foolproof detection rate).

      Three things can happen here.
      1) run the shady doctor off - throw him in jail, ideally. (what would happen if this were real world)
      2) cancel the games - if you can't have a level playing field, there's no point to the competition. (this seems to be what many here think would be the best solution - 'it's not illegal, you can't do anything about it')
      I'm in favour of working through the legal system to try to reach (1) - This in reality means law reform, probably, or enhanced trade agreements (and we all know how those go) So I totally get that it's no easy path, but I far prefer it to option 2.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    41. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      You'd be dead right.... if it weren't "opt-in" - You agree to the ToS when you buy the game. No different to getting a drivers licence - When you get one you're suddenly liable for a lot more than you would otherwise have been. If you don't want to have to follow the road rules then - yup - you don't drive, noone is forcing you to. Noone is forcing you to buy a software product and agree to how you use it.
      It's common practice to require a signed agreement in order to receive (usually limited) access to something, be it a game, data used in running a business, or anything.
      Every other business gets a legal recourse, but because this is 'just a game' they shouldn't have one?

      p.s. (not advocating this at all, but I think it's better than the current system blizzard is using)
      ( snipped from: http://www.mapsofworld.com/spo... )
      Punishment for Athletes in ancient Summer Games
      In the ancient Summer Games, there were rules for every game contested for. Those who cheated or violated the rules were disqualified from the contest. Along with the contestant, the trainer and the sponsoring city-state were also fined.

      Cheaters could be punished by whipping or levying heavy fines on them. The money from these fines was used to construct bronze statues of Zeus. These statues were placed along the tunnel that leads to the stadium. Each statue's inscription told the cautionary tale of the offense. The athletes walked past these statues as a reminder of the importance of obeying the rules.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    42. Re:Blizzard takes games seriously by guises · · Score: 1

      You do not agree to the ToS when you buy the game - it's a shrink-wrap license, you only agree to the ToS after you buy the game. For that reason it's on dubious legal standing, but shrink-wrap licenses have been upheld in court so I can't say that it's completely bogus.

      That's irrelevant though, since this person is not being prosecuted for violating Blizzard's ToS. This person may never have done that, and conceivably never purchased or used any of Blizzard's products at all. That's why I said in the other post: "it is not illegal to produce software which can be used to violate some company's terms of service." This is what the person in the article has done. They have created independent software which other people then use to violate Blizzard's terms of service.

      For you other post: comparing a piece of media which you have purchased and own to a police station is... Frankly, that's a terrible analogy. I don't know where that came from. I'm going to assume that that made sense in your head, but I can't see how.

      Your shady doctor at the Olympics is a better analogy, but what that Doctor is doing is illegal only because the substances which he's distributing are illegal. (And, if dangerous, he could also be subject to some questioning by a professional ethics board.) Otherwise the burden is on the athletes to play without cheating and should they be caught cheating it's not the courts and the legal system which they have to answer to. Sports discipline is maintained by the sports leagues who are certainly free to set and enforce their own rules, but who can not and should not expect the police to enforce those rules.

  2. Germany + DMCA = ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    German maker, Bossland GMBH....violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision

    How would that work? Germans are not subject to the DMCA, which is an American law.

    1. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Vapula · · Score: 1

      Basically : if the people from that German company don't go to USA, if they don't own anything in USA and if they don't use an US financial company (including Paypal), Blizzard can't do anything...

      They can't force that in a californian court, they'd have to go to a German court and have the case judged against german laws... which don't include DCMA...

      All that they can get in USA is a "by default" judgement which could not be enforced... hard luck...

    2. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by mfh · · Score: 1

      I don't think Germany would enforce a court decision from a foreign power that couldn't at least meet critical thinking requirements.

      Germany will, like any sane country, see that this is nothing more than Blizzard trying to shift its responsibility for cheat prevention in its own games to a third party and by this logic every kid cheating could also be sued, which nobody would think is a good idea, right? Of course California won't see it that way because Bliz is their sweetheart, but Germany should really tell USA they do not meet the required legal standards for a suit against a German company.

      This is why the TPP is pretty scary though.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    3. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      if you are bringing up ttp in this I assume you dont know shit about anything
      dmca is covered up in the wipo treaty that is signed by the eu, that germany is part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      same things with eula that is valid in all countries beside the part that contradicts the countrys law

    4. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every cheating player should have his account banned. Want to play again? Buy the game again.

    5. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can block imports into the US, but I doubt Bossland cares about that if payment from US customers is blocked anyway.
      On the other hand, it's going to be difficult to block things on the internet, so if he adds a bitcoin payment option, There is very little the US can block.
      Defending yourself in the US, in a court that is clueless about anything technical, is not worth the risk of setting foot on US soil.

    6. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      they'd have to go to a German court and have the case judged against german laws... which don't include DCMA...

      The EU signed WIPO, which bundles the DMCA. Germany is part of the EU. Try again.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be great of Blizzard could tell exactly who was cheating with an extremely high probability. If they only have a fairly strong suspicion -- say, 75% -- then 25% of the people they end up banning will be innocent people. And doing a proper investigation, complete with a proper chance to defend yourself and refute evidence against you, will significantly increase the cost of running the game.

    8. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Germany ... and it's not applicable ... not even in the EU
      I was sued over torrent sh*t ... and my hoster completly ignored it ... you're practically able to f*ck every US company in the a** ... without lube!

    9. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Tukz · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what Blizzard does... if they detect them.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    10. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Blizzard doesn't ban on a 75% probability. They watch accounts over a long period of time. If one account is in that 75% probability, day after day after day, then they become reasonably certain of cheating and place them in the next batch of mass bans. At least, that's how they have explained they do it in WoW after players complain they don't ban fast enough (which is automatically, by some player's standards). Blizzard does care about not reflexively banning anyone and everyone.

    11. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      Every cheating player should have his account banned. Want to play again? Buy the game again.

      Blizzard isn't just banning accounts; they're banning hardware. You can't just buy another copy after being banned and continue what you were doing. This is how it should be done. There is zero excuse for cheating, and the punishment is properly severe.

    12. Re:Germany + DMCA = ? by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      To all the people posting stuff like this.... Take a deep breath, step back, and without needing to know any of the actual laws, agreements, contracts or anything like that, just use some common sense:
      Germans can purchase the game Overwatch. They agree to the ToS when they do. They are breaking these ToS. If they decide that just because Blizzard is based in the USA they can ignore the ToS. Which is pretty much what you're saying. Assume this is true, Blizzard has no legal recourse. What happens next (and would happen with every other company also, if they couldn't expect their terms of use to be followed) - They stop selling to that country.
      Now, in this instance, sure, the company in germany could continue to produce the hack, etc, however how do you think the German government will feel if it fails to protect foreign companies, and those foreign companies then embargo the country. They're going to either end up with no imports (and thus effectively be unable to export) or they're going to start protecting those companies, so they can have an economy.

      tldr; Sure it's fun to say "different country, you're USA can't touch us nyah nyah!" but in reality, this doesn't work (and therefore, we have all sorts of trade agreements and the like in place, which these other guys are happy to detail, but noone really wants to bother to read).

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  3. There's a contradiction there. by mark-t · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players, but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game, and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.

    It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.

    1. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know _I_ won't buy a game if I know that cheating like this exists.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not buying it because everyone knows it's full of cheaters.

    3. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Mr.+Spock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know _I_ won't buy a game if I know that cheating like this exists.

      If that is the case, then you'll never be able to buy any sort of pvp game. Sad, but true.

    4. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to conduct the incredibly basic analysis for you. If cheating is ruining the gameplay environment, that fact will be publicized, people will hear about it, and some people who hear about will refrain from purchasing the game. The people who refrain from purchasing the game due to the reputation for gameplay ruined by cheaters are the "lost sales". I can draw a picture with crayons if you still have trouble understanding. You're welcome. Jesus, this world.

    5. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Of course, but they didn't say it was ruining the game for *potential* legitimate players, they just said it was ruining the game for legitimate players. If the players are legitimate, then they've already bought the game, and haven't lost that sale.

    6. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players, but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game, and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.

      It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.

      It may discourage people from buying the game when all their friends stop playing it and complain about it because it's no fun anymore due to the cheaters.

    7. Re:There's a contradiction there. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      When calculating damages for copyright law, you're allowed to include anyone who might possibly have bought the thing if it weren't for the infringement. Not realistic, but that's how the law is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I see... I would argue that it was poorly worded, then... because it seemed to suggest that the people that the cheaters were ruining the game for were people who would otherwise spend money on the game... where my above point is that if they were playing the game legitimately, then they've already spent their money on it, and cannot represent a "lost sale".

      Although I can certainly see how second-hand reports could impact sales, but how the summary was worded didn't suggest that to me, and it had not occurred to me at the time that is what was meant.

    9. Re: There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often games offer paid for expansions or in game purchases. If it ruins the game for legitimate players they may not buy these other items.

    10. Re:There's a contradiction there. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plenty of Blizzards games are subscription based, so yes: they lose sales to cheat bots.
      However they lose more sales to stupid game design decisions ... e.g. in World of Warcraft.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:There's a contradiction there. by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      If the players are legitimate, then they've already bought the game, and haven't lost that sale.

      They're almost certainly losing monthly subscription renewal sales as a result of the cheating. In particular, Blizzard makes far more money from WoW subscriptions than it does from the initial game purchase.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    12. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a silly interpretation that could have been avoided with closer reading or application of common sense. That said, I apologize for my insulting language which wasn't called for.

    13. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mfh · · Score: 1

      Blizzard still doesn't have a right to sue. They have to pony up the cash to fix the exploit holes and they don't want to pay for it but it is a cost of doing business if you're a game developer.

      I wouldn't buy a Blizzard game because they are cunts. They have a cheating problem because they refuse to design better anticheat systems. Blizzard shouldn't sue they should reverse eng the cheat programs and patch. Blizzard is a garbage company. Id Software should sue them for copying Quake 3... but they won't.

      And this game has plenty of bugs that appear to be like cheats, giving players huge advantages, but are simply bugs and QC inadequacies.

      tl;dr: Blizzard suing to draw attention away from how bad their game is... going to learn first hand about the Barbra Streisand Effect.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    14. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I played Medal of Honor for a grand total of about 45 minutes over about five sessions spread out over a few weeks. Continuous insta-headshots from across the map.

      I was done with it at that point, and refuse to consider buying another MoH franchise game.

      Tell me how that does not equate lost sales?

    15. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a contradiction there.
      They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players,

      I'm listening...

      but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game,

      With you so far. Legitimate players are those who have bought the game (or are otherwise playing as a result of legally obtaining access) and aren't cheating. Go on.

      and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.

      What? That doesn't follow.

      Also, regardless of lost sales, where's the contradiction? What's contradicting what? Are you saying that if cheaters are ruining the game for many legitimate players then cheaters necessarily aren't ruining the game for many legitimate players?

      It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.

      It might discourage people who haven't bought the game yet.

    16. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. Consoles have plenty of online multiplayer pvp games with no extant cheats. There are also some games on PC for which no cheats exist either. I avoid games with cheaters successfully, and OP can too. I guess you can't though. Pity.

    17. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overwatch has in-game purchases. Your analysis is flawed.

    18. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not every game has a subscription. Some have microtransactions, which are effectively the same thing in aggregate. The bigger problem is that Blizzard is notoriously poor for having too damned many cheats for their games. Their "solutions" are heavy handed- we have "Warden" scanning all your RAM and being fully capable of exposing anything else your computer is up to, a built in supervisor back door. We have out of line copyright claims, we have them shutting down free software that implements protocols, and of course they run around to shut down people who wrote and run their own WoW server (no closed source code used!).

      And what do we get for all this bullshit? You queue a battleground and see bots running around. You play against wallhacks and aimbots. Their code remains a nest of cheating, despite their ludicrously overreaching bullshit.

    19. Re: There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody wants to play shooters on their console in the first place

    20. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Of course they have the right to sue. You're confusing the right to sue with your assumption that they'll lose.

    21. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It was a silly interpretation that could have been avoided with closer reading or application of common sense.

      Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I haven't shown common sense. It's me being stupid, and I deserve a lot of the derision.

      The plethora of responses I've received and how irate I seem to have made some people makes me wonder how far an actual troll could have gotten, however.

    22. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It might discourage people who haven't bought the game yet.

      True... but my point was that such people are not legitimate players. I realize now I had poorly interpreted what was really being said and they were really talking about two separate demographics of people when they talked about lost sales and legitimate players, and not one.

      Yeah, I know it should be obvious. Sorry, sometimes I can be pretty dense.

    23. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Chryana · · Score: 2

      Let me make an analogy between a multiplayer game and a night club. A night club needs a critical mass of people to be profitable. If the number of people dips below a certain level, then the club is doomed - fewer and fewer people will show up every night, until the club is empty. Thus kicking loud and obnoxious patrons is a sensible decision, because even though they are bringing some profit to the club, they drive other customers out. Which brings me back to the reason why it makes sense to kick cheaters out of the game. The presence of even a few cheaters has a large psychological effect on the rest of the players - when you get killed in shooter repeatedly by the same one or two players, you start thinking: "Is that guy cheating? Why am I getting my ass kicked?". And thus, instead of having fun, players are getting frustrated. Furthermore, I think a lot of cheaters are really obnoxious assholes. They love bragging about it, they often derive fun from making other people angry. They will belittle others for making a big deal of their cheating. In short, they're the kind of players nobody wants to play against. And just like the obnoxious patrons in a night club, they will make players leave for greener pastures, and once everyone is gone, they will go somewhere else - and do the same thing all over again.

      So what all of this - which I am not pretending to be anything other than my opinion - has to do with lost sales? I will agree it may not matter so much for a game which strongest component is its single player campaign. For a purely multiplayer game though, I think it will hurt the community growth, cause it to never grow to its full potential and shrink to the state where "nobody plays because nobody plays" sooner. In the old days when all the money derived from the game was made on its initial purchase, it didn't matter so much, but as many other posters have mentioned, it will probably have an impact on games that depend on subscriptions on monthly transactions - and lo and behold - this is probably the reason your hear more of these types of stories. Companies are taking notice that cheaters are bad for them, and taking actions to attempt to fix the issue.

    24. Re:There's a contradiction there. by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Their code also remains buggy as hell. There are still serious bugs in WoW that have been there for years and years with no apparent motivation to fix them (which *also* costs them subscriptions), so it's not surprising that the client continues to be easily hacked as well.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    25. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After initial release, sales of multiplayer games are very dependant on a healthy and active playerbase. If it is generally known a game is rife with cheaters it absolutely kills sales.

    26. Re: There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or via word of mouth prevent others from buying the game.

    27. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not every game has the same amount of cheaters, at all

      i played quake live (a marginal game) when it was a browser addon, i played it when it was a stand alone little client
      and ive never seen one single cheater in all those years, until the very first day they put the game on steam, and that first freaking hours of the game in a known plattform i encountered a noob with a hilariouly configured bot and i proceeded to rape him to the tune of 40-2 in aerowalk, then the guy i was with proceeded to rape him even harder while we mocked his very obvious bot use

      every big game (and platform) has lots of bots, some companies want to do something about it, some others dont care, im not buying games from companies or platforms i know they dont care, in fact i will be trolling them at each and every single chance i get, in each and every single social media, forum, or opportunity i get, and other gamers will do the exact same

      that means, electronic arts will ALWAYS have a bad consideration in gaming circles (because its deserved), ubisoft will ALWAYS be considered as a company that downgrades graphic quality of their games just before they release them (because they do so every single time so, again, its deserved) etc

      and we, gamers, will troll, shitpost, and everything we can to fuck with them, forever and ever, and if someone does nail it and makes a killer game, like blizz did with wow back in the day, we will read the uninformed regular press stories about how that game is a phenomenom and all that crap when its actually just some guys that basically did not shit the bed

    28. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know _I_ won't buy a game if I know that cheating like this exists.

      If that is the case, then you'll never be able to buy any sort of pvp game. Sad, but true.

      Yes, that is a nontrivial portion of my decision not to play any sort of PvP based game. PvE games with an opt-in for temporary PvP in certain locations with no consequences elsewhere in the game, sure. Primarily PvP games, no.

    29. Re: There's a contradiction there. by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      Except the millions of people playing shooters on consoles.

    30. Re: There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google "Controller mods"

      Filthy peasants....

    31. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Tukz · · Score: 1

      If a game is riddled with cheaters, I won't recommend it to my friends.

      Rampant cheating has brought many rather good games to be ghost towns.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    32. Re:There's a contradiction there. by dmomo · · Score: 1

      Are you really going to be THAT guy who takes a potentially ambiguous PARAPHRASING and then uses it to derail the larger point? Blizzard didn't even say this "contradiction". The article paraphrased it as such.

      Blizzard said this "Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation."

      It's fine to disagree with the larger point, but there's no need to start a side-show based on hearsay.

      If you still need to nitpick, OK

      "These bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players. "

      There's no contradiction. They never said that the lost sales were from legitimate players. They just say that the game is ruined for legitimate players, and this results in lost sales.

      If a brand of rice has been known to kill people because of listeria, this will result in lost sales. See? No contradiction.

    33. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Plenty of Blizzards games are subscription based, so yes: they lose sales to cheat bots.

      Only World of Warcraft is subscription based. Overwatch, Diablo, Starcraft, and Heroes of the Storm are traditional subscriptionless game purchases, and Hearthstone is free-to-play with purchasable card decks.

      Most of their titles in the last decade require Battle.Net, but that part is a free service.

    34. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just unrealistic, it's completely irrational. That's like the creators of Zork suing the education system because they lost out on sales due to illiterate adults.

    35. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mattventura · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's lost sales. But plenty of things cause lost sales, even completely legal things. Legitimate competition causes lost sales. A bunch of people protesting legally outside a store might reduce their sales. Noisy construction going on near a business might discourage people from going there. Lost sales alone can't be the litmus test for whether something is actionable or not.

    36. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      They say that the cheaters are ruing the game for many legitimate players, but if these players are legitimate, then they have, in fact, already bought the game, and so the cheaters can't actually be causing lost sales.

      It might discourage people who aren't cheating from playing the game, of course... but they don't say that, they explicitly use the term "lost sales". I'm not sure how that can possibly be true.

      Do you think people buy Overwatch simply because Blizzard tells them to? Or do you think people read reviews of the game, which would be clearly influenced by the presence of cheaters (as cheaters would influence in every other competition of whatever type)?
      It's pretty clear that an unlevel playing field makes for less recommendations, and a really small step from there to loss of profits.
      And it's not because Blizzard created it this way, but because someone else hacked into their systems and wrote exploits against them, which they're selling for their own profit to others.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    37. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Untrue. Consoles have plenty of online multiplayer pvp games with no extant cheats. There are also some games on PC for which no cheats exist either. I avoid games with cheaters successfully, and OP can too. I guess you can't though. Pity.

      Summary: "Let cheaters cheat, the only way to win is not to play" Sure, play games that are not as good, and thus have a smaller player base, and thus are not targets for these hackers. That doesn't seem to me like a way to enhance your playing experience, rather one to severely limit it. Pity.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    38. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Well, not every game has a subscription. Some have microtransactions, which are effectively the same thing in aggregate. The bigger problem is that Blizzard is notoriously poor for having too damned many cheats for their games. Their "solutions" are heavy handed- we have "Warden" scanning all your RAM and being fully capable of exposing anything else your computer is up to, a built in supervisor back door. We have out of line copyright claims, we have them shutting down free software that implements protocols, and of course they run around to shut down people who wrote and run their own WoW server (no closed source code used!).

      And what do we get for all this bullshit? You queue a battleground and see bots running around. You play against wallhacks and aimbots. Their code remains a nest of cheating, despite their ludicrously overreaching bullshit.

      Overwatch has no subscriptions, they have stated additional maps and characters will be added over time at no additional charge. The only microtransactions are for cosmetics that have zero impact on gameplay.
      " Blizzard is notoriously poor for having too damned many cheats for their games"
      Actually, all games the size of Blizzard's "notorious" games tend to have cheats. If Overwatch had a playerbase of 10 thousand, we wouldn't even be aware of this issue (and it probably wouldn't exist, as there wouldn't be a market for it).
      Their solutions are "heavy handed" because clearly "light handed" doesn't protect their paid customers.
      As for "out of line copyright claims" The entire copyright system is "out of line" by all I've read over the last few years on /.
      They're trying to protect their intellectual property, they're trying to use the appropriate section of law to do so. Not their fault that section of law is so messed up.
      How can someone run a wow server without using wow server code, which I don't recall them open sourcing?

      What am I getting for this? A better competitive experience in Overwatch, Blizzard delivering on their promises, etc...

      tldr; I replied to this post and halfway through realised he's simultaneously complaining that Blizzard do too much to stop cheaters, and at the same time that they clearly don't do enough to stop cheaters, as they're everywhere (talk about a contradiction! :P), but I'm having fun on this thread so still posting.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    39. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      will fix that for you:
      :%s/WoW/Adobe Flash/
      inb4 :%s/Adobe Flash/Microsoft/

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    40. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      But when you don't have a logical argument you can always just get pedantic about language instead right? /s

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    41. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      I won't bother to respond to each part of your troll blather, but I will point out that for Blizzard to reverse engineer the cheat programs, they'd have to break a ton of laws, in this case both national and international, and end up just as bad as the company they're suing, and probably get sued in turn.
      Also, I'm sure Bliz is fully aware of the Streisand Effect, and I hope it kicks in and people take a close look at the amount of bugs in Overwatch as compared to other studios offerings. (Hint: they look pretty damn rosy)
      There's already a lot of posts on here commenting on how "At least Blizzard goes after cheaters" in comparison to other studios.
      While many other studios fail, Blizzard continues to produce some of the most popular games in the world with the largest playerbases, and never gives up on hunting down and banning cheaters. Of course there are cheaters, you can expect cheaters in games to stop being a problem the same day that we as a society manage to eliminate criminals and the need for jails. Meanwhile, just as the rest of the world does, Blizzard will continue to deal with cheaters.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    42. Re:There's a contradiction there. by mfh · · Score: 1

      Next time you reply to someone, don't use a phrase like "troll blather". It makes you look like a frothy fanboy or a Blizzard intern.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    43. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Next time you reply to someone, don't use a phrase like "troll blather". It makes you look like a frothy fanboy or a Blizzard intern.

      I'm a fan, for sure.
      But I'm a fan because of the quality of their product and the efforts they go to to maintain it's integrity, which are fairly good reasons I think.
      And my arguments are mostly from the perspectives of both Gamer and Developer, though I've never worked for Blizzard (and probably never would).
      And I actually had tried a few different phrases before I settled on "troll blather" as I seriously couldn't think of a more apt phrase.
      I mean, clearly you know nothing about the game, as all your evidence is third hand, you're calling it a clone of quake 3 (I'm assuming you did play quake 3? Clearly you've not played both), And just about every sentence in your post was a hyperbolic inaccuracy.
      If I hadn't already posted and had mod points I would have done the exact same thing with the dropdown, but without adding anything extra.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    44. Re:There's a contradiction there. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      because this game is driven by word of mouth once it's past the first initial sales to the hardcore, and if out of the gate everyone is cheating it WILL hurt sales.

      compared to other games where once it is popular there are a number of third party cheats.. this game had a cheat written and out for sale publicly within a week of the game being released.

  4. And here I sit... by brwski · · Score: 2

    ...playing TF2 for free. Later, Blizz!

    --

    brwski
    "Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''

    1. Re:And here I sit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought The Orange Box, so I can't play TF2 for free.

      But yeah, the last Blizzard game I bought was the SC+BW pack. The last one I played was probably a ROM of Rock 'n' Roll Racing. (Blizzard = Silicon & Synapse, for those that didn't already know.)

  5. If your game can be controlled by a bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps your game is not very good.

    1. Re:If your game can be controlled by a bot by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Most games can be played by a bot better than by a human, the hard part in making a decent AI opponent is to make them beatable without making them a pushover.

    2. Re:If your game can be controlled by a bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Very, very few AI's are hard to beat because they are "better players". Most win because they cheat massively (unlimited resources etc.), or simply because it micromanages on an inhuman level because it can click more times per second than any human possibly could while constantly have full awareness of everything going on - even things it shouldn't.

    3. Re:If your game can be controlled by a bot by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your game is not very good.

      OK, so some of the worst games of all time are Chess and now Go. Do I follow your logic correctly? I think I did.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    4. Re:If your game can be controlled by a bot by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Very, very few AI's are hard to beat because they are "better players". Most win because they cheat massively (unlimited resources etc.), or simply because it micromanages on an inhuman level because it can click more times per second than any human possibly could while constantly have full awareness of everything going on - even things it shouldn't.

      Exactly, that's why we call people who use these bots and "tools" cheats.
      The bots _are_ "better players" precisely because they do cheat and can react much faster than a human (interesting point: it's the reaction time that's most relevant)
      When creating intentional AI enemies, the developers are totally aware that their AIs cheat as compared to their human players, and it's the balancing of this "cheating edge" that developers tweak to make a balanced game (Because, as it turns out, hiring real humans who don't need to cheat to play all the NPC characters real time is a little bit cost-prohibitive, unless you turn it into a competition between the real players and... oh yeah that's what they did for the main game)

      tlrd: the definition of "better player" is open to discussion.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  6. Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing their games. If cheaters can so easily ruin the game for others, then they should perhaps design their games more robustly. Imagine if banking systems worked this way: they only way your bank can protect money in your account is to launch lawsuits at "cheat sites" which tell people how to steal money from other people's accounts. If their systems were designed that poorly, no one would have any money left in their bank accounts. Perhaps similar security practices should be applied to game design.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For certain cheats there is little that Blizzard can do to prevent them, and at best they can only make it more difficult for the cheat authors.

      Blizzard can protect against cheaters being able to modify game state in impossible ways such as having characters move too fast, appear upside down, be invulnerable, deal too much damage, etc. But they cannot perfectly protect against auto-aim, and can only partially protect against wall hacks.

      Since auto-aim is a client side program that at its lowest level can simply mimic mouse input, Blizzard can only rely on the particular implementation details of such solutions to detect them. A perfectly coded auto-aim bot would be undetectable.

      Wallhacks rely on the fact that the client has more information than is actually displayed in that it is aware of the location of other players despite them not being visible. This is a trade-off for performance / playability reasons so that when you run around a corner you can see your opponent immediately instead of waiting for them to pop-in after querying the server. Limiting the information the client has can help protect against this, but it runs the risk of negatively impacting the play experience.

      Ultimately code wise there is only so much Blizzard can do, so they take a multi-pronged approach in order to reduce the availability of cheats. If they make it more difficult to write cheats while ensuring that it is not commercially profitable to produce cheats then they may raise the bar high enough so that cheating is a rare occurrence limited solely to those who have invested a significant amount of time in writing their own cheats.

    2. Re:Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call wouldn't it be hilarious if users took a class action against Blizzard for allowing cheats in games.

    3. Re:Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Imagine if banking systems worked this way: they only way your bank can protect money in your account is to launch lawsuits at "cheat sites" which tell people how to steal money from other people's accounts.

      According to what I've heard, American banks are pretty notorious for constantly stealing from their customers through overdraft fees and overdraft protection racket. So arguably they'd have a legitimate case of IP infringement against other thieves.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Banking does work that way. These cheats are the equivalent of a locally compromised machine. If your machine is running malware and you log in to your online banking, it can steal your money. In the UK customers are required to take reasonable steps to protect themselves from this kind of fraud (such as using anti-virus software), because there is just no way to do online banking without trusting the client to some extent.

      Blizzard is faced with players who voluntarily install this software. All they can do is write their own "anti-virus" (cheat detection) code and fire off lawsuits. The only way to avoid this is a walled garden like a games console, that only runs authorized code.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Blizzard's neglegence by suxorzomg · · Score: 1

    What about Blizzard's negligence in providing any sort of anti-cheat capability, or in allowing their code to be easily circumvented with decades old techniques...

    1. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It's irrelevant whether the code is great our not. Cheats are pricks.

    2. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by suxorzomg · · Score: 1

      I agree that cheaters suck, but I don't think its a good argument that Blizzard is losing sales because of cheats when their policy is to give cheaters a lifetime ban. A banned cheater has no choice but to re-buy all the games linked to the banned account or discontinue playing them.

    3. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      How about all the players that leave or never play in the first place due to the cheats wrecking the game? I've seen it happen several times.

    4. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I open a school that trains kids to be really really good at their game? As good as aim-bots. Am I depriving Blizzard of revenue because everyone will think they are cheating?

    5. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheats are pricks.

      Yes they are, but that doesn't make them copyright infringers, and you don't get to sue someone for copyright infringement just because being a prick isn't illegal. Blizzard is in the wrong here.

    6. Re:Blizzard's neglegence by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like saying your insurance company should be able to claim negligence on your part because the thief that broke into your house and robbed it easily circumvented locks with decades old techniques and therefor doesn't have the pay the claim. You can't avoid certain types of common cheats without also having your game run some obtrusive code that's snooping on the rest of the user's system, which is far worse in my opinion.

    7. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading memory or code from disk, as the bot likely does, would be unauthorized use and thereby copyright infringement. Assuming EULAs mean anything and first sale has been completely subverted.

    8. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What if you stick to real world examples where cheats are pricks who ruin the fun for everyone else and then blame the game company for not spending billions to stop them.

    9. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. If you've never been accused of cheating on an online game, let me provide you with the reason: You're not good enough.

      I was accused of cheating online in 1992 and many times since, in different games, in different formats of games. People have stopped playing on specific servers because my friends and I were just too good for them.

      Cheating isn't needed.

    10. Re: Blizzard's neglegence by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Hmmm I have as it happens but it's got nothing to do with my point.

  8. Says a lot about Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So easy to crack that the cheat tools are released "days" after the game is released? Seems Blizzard can't secure their games or can't be bothered to invest in security. Typical corporate thinking.

    If they can't be bothered to secure their game for their own benefit, they sure as heck aren't going to bother with security for the user's benefit.

    1. Re:Says a lot about Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately they had to use all their cash on DRM. They just can't afford to secure the game.

    2. Re: Says a lot about Blizzard by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Pfff. Not everyone plays Alpha / Beta for the same reasons. Many are looking for bugs they can turn into $ via their "cheat" program post launch.

    3. Re:Says a lot about Blizzard by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I hate blizzard as much as the next guy, what they've done in WoD/Legion is a war crime, and I'm not sure why their designer and VP haven't been fired. It takes some brass balls to see your subscriber base drop off the charts, then simply stop talking about your subscribers and not telling your investors how badly you are managing things. String them all up and let the vultures at them.

      That said, the anti-cheat arms race has been going on now for 20 years, and the defense side has never won. I don't think Blizzard can do anything effective. One way or another, someone will build a better cheat, it is impossible to stop. In fact at a certain level beating the cheat becomes more fun than the game, much like some "hackers" enjoy finding exploits just because they can, not because they intend to steal, defraud or vandalize.

  9. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.

  10. No contradiction by phorm · · Score: 1

    "And your honor, my peeing on feet at the urinals and spilling my beer on everyone in the stands at the hockey game did absolutely NOTHING to ruin sales from current attendees, as they had already bought their tickets"

    Something that detracts from the quality of a product/service tends to discourage future purchases from the same vendor, or new users from purchasing once it becomes common and word gets around.

    1. Re:No contradiction by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      or new users from purchasing once it becomes common and word gets around.

      Such as using a torrent or The Pirate Bay causes a lost sale for a song or movie because torrents and TPB are common and word gets around.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:No contradiction by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Such as using a torrent or The Pirate Bay causes a lost sale for a song or movie because torrents and TPB are common and word gets around.

      Someone using The Pirate Bay Edition doesn't affect anyone else, now does it? They simply have a superior version with DRM and unskippable ramblings about downloading cars removed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:No contradiction by phorm · · Score: 1

      Not exactly - because Torrents don't detract from the quality of the product - so in some cases a download will equal a lost sale if the person has limited funds or the product quality is bad, but in others it will spur other sales as word of the game being good spreads.

      But yeah, I know one of the reasons myself and many others have pretty much abandoned certain FPS's is the toxic community of cheaters, trolls, and generally shitty experience not necessarily related to the core of the game itself. Overwatch may do a bit better in this regard because it doesn't have the stupid "levelling unlocks" seen in games like Battlefield etc, so a bunch of us can get together and play anytime, but I'm not sure how well it works for LAN/group play.

  11. Overwatch has microtransactions by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Players quitting earlier == less microtransactions. Not all players will spend money on them of course but some will.

    1. Re:Overwatch has microtransactions by Kjella · · Score: 1

      None of which affect the game, it's just poses and voice lines and whatnot. But people quitting early = not pulling your friends along to play it too. passing recommendations etc. as well. I think that's a much bigger deal than the micro-transactions.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Overwatch has microtransactions by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Also, if players are having a bad experience, word of mouth will spread. Players who might have bought the game may decide to stay away.

    3. Re:Overwatch has microtransactions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "None of which affect the game"

      Say what, the game has online drm, has no dedicated servers to speak of so that they could have "microtransactions" microtransactions means drm and losing control of the game you paid for and who's multiplayer can be "shut off". "cosmetics" are not innocuous, they are an excuse to confiscate game ownership.

  12. don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturers by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturers can use the same line in locking out 3rd party shops.

    They can say that 3rd party parts and shops are hurting our income.

  13. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by xuchilpaba · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If you cheat banks, you go to jail

  14. Bliz by mfh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They have a right to police their servers. They have a right to prevent cheats from functioning. They have a right to ban players for using cheat systems.

    They do NOT have a right to sue because it's their own responsibility to build software checks and balances that would prevent cheating but THEY ARE TOO TIGHTFISTED to do so. That would cost money. That would require hiring enough competent coders and paying beta testers a living wage.

    Blizzard "Entertainment" lost my faith completely, long ago, since the Wrath of the Lich King WOW expansion. They are morons who are managed by people who hate gamers and want to break gamers down rather than offer something fun and enjoyable. The rule at Blizzard is that if something is fun, they must find a way to remove or break the fun. Fuck those guys.

    I hope this company gets the court venue switch to somewhere neutral, because California will try and convict with prejudice, regardless of the law or moral inadequacy.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Bliz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mate, WotLK, really? Burning Crusade cut raiding from 40/20 to 25/10, that's a bigger nono than anything after that. But just fyi, Blizzard has always sucked, since you might have forgotten, just one word to jog your memory:

      bnetd.

    2. Re:Bliz by xlsior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They do NOT have a right to sue because it's their own responsibility to build software checks and balances that would prevent cheating but THEY ARE TOO TIGHTFISTED to do so

      They DO have a right to sue. Anyone can sue pretty much anyone. That doesn't automatically mean they stand a chance of winning of course.

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

      They DO have a right to sue. Anyone can sue pretty much anyone. That doesn't automatically mean they stand a chance of winning of course.

      Yeah, it was a real dumb argument. Sadly the standard of legal debate round here is - these guys suck so they will lose in court.

    4. Re:Bliz by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      They do NOT have a right to sue because it's their own responsibility to build software checks and balances that would prevent cheating...

      This is not a good argument. It's similar (similar, mind you) to arguing that you just need to suck it up when someone breaks into your house, because clearly you didn't do enough to keep them out.

      The simple fact that someone was able to bypass your security does not necessarily prove you negligent, nor does it absolve the perpetrator of all responsibility for any harm caused by their actions.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    5. Re:Bliz by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It is generally taken to mean that "having the right to sue" means that one can "rightfully sue", which is to say that their case has legitimate merit, and they are objectively and justly deserving of either compensation for it, or some legal action on their behalf against who they are suing in consideration of such merit.

    6. Re:Bliz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Just pathetically no. If someone breaks into your house, you can't rightfully sue them for copyright infringement. That is just asinine.

    7. Re:Bliz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent to your comment took extra care to qualify his analogy TWICE, that it was similar (similar, mind you) and not exactly the same. And the parent to that parent was only as specific as to say "right to sue" - not "right to sue for copyright infringement". And the parents point is correct... because something CAN be broken into/circumvented/etc doesn't mean it was through negligence from the manufacturer, and that the infringer/thief/whomever shouldn't be held accountable for whatever damage they may do. Good grief.

    8. Re:Bliz by mfh · · Score: 1

      >Anyone can sue pretty much anyone.

      This is true for American courts, but other countries won't allow bogus suits. This is a bogus suit.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    9. Re:Bliz by mfh · · Score: 1

      I won't go too much further into this except to beg you to reconsider your argument. It's bad for video games overall because if what you argue is upheld, then all the gaming companies will code their games without any security at all. Why should they?

      I mean, they can make more money later on suing, and keep a large portion of the community happy at one point or another, while generating all kinds of free press in the process.

      Because the way Bliz does security these days is not anywhere near as strong as it should be.

      To follow your analogy, it was as if Bliz had the front door wide open with a giant neon sign saying, "NO SECURITY, NO DOG, VALUABLE CHEDDAR INSIDE." And then they blame the mice for dashing in and dining out on it...

      No I think there is a happy medium and Bliz simply isn't living up to the requirements of a gaming company.

      They don't sue people who get caught duping items in wow. Why are they really suing this company? Something else is going on.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    10. Re:Bliz by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Worse, they took raiding from '40 people but 25-30 good enough and well enough equipped people will do' to '25 people, must all be fully equipped, must all coordinate perfectly, and one individual making one false move costs everybody a full hour'

      It stopped being gaming and became a punitive choreographed dance. I stopped playing.

    11. Re:Bliz by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Mate, WotLK, really? Burning Crusade cut raiding from 40/20 to 25/10, that's a bigger nono than anything after that

      You sure about that? Do you know how unmanageable a 40-man raid was? Do you know how difficult it was to get that many people together, to recruit and maintain such groups? There's a reason why plenty of people had played Molten Core and Blackwing Lair, while very very few groups made it inside Naxxramas, and it wasn't just that the latter with f'n hard. At that point, most raid groups had broken down, and it was harder and harder to find people capable of doing the later content, because the barrier to entry for the earlier content was so high, and this time I don't mean content difficulty. Organizationally, it was rough trying to put together a 40-man to do earlier content. It didn't help that the 20-man raids, Zul'Gurub and Ahn'Qiraj, gave gear that was much lower in level compared to the 40-mans, and it was usually off-spec or experimental gear that wouldn't help you in the 40-mans. So there was no shortcut to the latter steps in progression as there were in later expansions. You'd get to Naxx and you'd end up starting raids with 32 people instead of 40 people because of raid attrition, but there weren't well-geared people to add. That doesn't happen nearly so often now.

      I feel usually the people who say "40 man raids.. man, those were the best" were not the ones who had to organize them. Most servers only had one or two groups capable of doing Naxx, and if you didn't like your raid, well, sucks to be you! That was before server transfers, in the days when leveling to 60 took months, and when you finally got that far, you were so far behind the gear curve you'd never catch up.

    12. Re:Bliz by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No. Just pathetically no. If someone breaks into your house, you can't rightfully sue them for copyright infringement. That is just asinine.

      The primary part of the lawsuit involves the DMCA's anti-circumvention section. It's difficult comparing meat-space with online actions, but this comes close.

  15. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and anyone using said tool should feel the power of the banhammer.

  16. I own You a nice subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, try to kick ass in any game and have a girlfriend who only laughs when she plays videogames and uses cheat codes, because she is a bible freak and can't do pot. People rape kids nowdays, but nobody can't hit a joint? FUCK.

  17. Good luck on that one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be doing copyright infringement they would have to distribute part of the material. unlikely unless they were dumb enough to make instruction video, in which case only the video can be hit by take down. Furthermore mentionned DMCA will not be useful outside of US or in country where fair use is somewhat stronger, that is even if they get a judgement in the US, it is highly unlikely to have any effect on the german firm. Basically they will get nowhere. Their only hope is *maybe* to convince the local US payment firm to not do any business with the german firm, like CC provider or paypal, which would set such a huge precedent any court is unlikely to respect that and far more likely they are getting the ire of many other countries if they get the precedent.

  18. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see. You think Blizzard having bad code and bad business model (selling poorly written games) and then suing people who created a valuable business model built around their bad coding practices should sue instead of fixing their code.

    You are smart!

    How long have you been a mindless Blizzard fanboi?'

  19. Sue yourself by Doub · · Score: 1

    They should sue themselves, because by releasing 'Overwatch Open Beta' just days *BEFORE* the release of 'Overwatch,' Plaintiffs are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm their own game before it even has had a chance to fully flourish.

    If you're going to make a shitty rip-off of a ten-year old game, sell it *before* you let people play it.

    1. Re:Sue yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. Not sure if a troll or not, but still was an entertaining comment.

      I hate TF2, but love Overwatch. Tickles me whenever someone claims Overwatch is just a rip off of TF2, let alone a shitty one.

      Definitely has elements of TF2, and elements of MOBAs, but feels like a much more enjoyable game than TF2 or any MOBA I have played.

  20. Re:don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturers can use the same line in locking out 3rd party shops.

    They can say that 3rd party parts and shops are hurting our income.

    Nope, for one thing, there is existing law.

    For another, it's relatively easy to distinguish between something that modifies your own personal vehicle, and something that interferes with a controlled driving experience.

    Besides, Blizzard can always let somebody like Logitech hook into the game API for their LCD display without allowing another usage for a bot.

  21. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try starting a company that sells cracks for Windows activation and let's see how far you'll get.

  22. Re:don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturer by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and something that interferes with a controlled driving experience. We can just put stuff in the cars like an force limp home mode if you don't have the dealer use there software to reset the oil change counter.

  23. Fine by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    So put some servers in Germany and let them do as they will. Ban German networks from hitting any other servers and done.

    The problem will solve itself, no lawyers needed.

    -Don't even say VPN. Works great for Netflix and the like, not so much for low latency requirements.

    1. Re:Fine by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      The problem with separate "cheater" servers is that it would give the cheat makers a fully functional and risk-free testing ground to improve the cheating tools upto a point where they become indistinguishable from a really good human player. When they get to that point, there is nothing stopping the grievers from cheating on the normal servers too. Having servers where cheat makers are allowed effectively accelerates cheating on normal servers in exchange for a very short and only marginally improved situation.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  24. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We aren't sure how to patch our game so the cheats won't work so we are going to try to compel you to provide your source code to "prove" you didn't violate copyright law. Don't get me wrong cheaters can go @#%@ themselves as can those making/selling the cheats but let us not pretend that this is about much more than getting their hands on the source code.

  25. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Megol · · Score: 0

    I think that went over your head... Try reading the post again - keyword "imagine"...

    Personally I think he* is partially right, the DMCA and associated shit shouldn't be used for something like this. If a game developer have a persistent world where money transactions are involved (subscription fees should be enough) they should also be required to make cheats and security intrusions (almost**) impossible. Maybe not to the degree that they should be considered banks but something close to that would be logical. Many hacks in games are due to a fundamentally fucked up development environment, hacking instead of developing mostly due to pressures to deliver something rather than deliver something working.

    (* sexist, most likely true)
    (** given the current state of art for programming almost impossible is the best possible level of security)

  26. Wouldn't the cheat writters by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    be violating the EULA in the process of making their software work? Is it even possible to do a 'clean room' implementation of something like this? If nothing else the crazy broad anti-hacking laws can be invoked. But I suspect Blizzard would prefer not to do that since it makes it a criminal matter. That's not just bad press. I honestly think nobody wants that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how they're going to force a German company appear in courtin the US, hehe.

  28. Re:don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturer by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Hurting revenue is not the basis in law for the suit, it is the basis of restitution and harm proving merit of the suit for standing. Although copyright has statutory damages and statutory rights to sue, most other cases need to show standing. These lawyers are throwing everything possible out to ensure something sticks.

  29. Hosted server security is Job 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blizz are control freaks and grip tightly to the software as a service model HOWEVER the one thing they should have learnt from Valve and their team-based shooter was hosted server security is extremely important and that people are FOR SURE going to figure out your shit to exploit it for fun and profit.

    I have to say this again, give us the ability to run our own dedicated servers. Sometimes gamers do want to configure weird shit, sometimes they don't want to wait in queue for ages to play a pickup game with friends and / or incorrectly matched team comps. Sometimes they want LAN mode to run private tournaments.

    I haven't looked but I'm sure by now if there aren't several "pirate" servers out there already there will be soon (the game is just too huge), and Blizzard will put all this effort into litigating the fuck out of fans instead of locking down their servers.

    Side note Blizz recently went on a porno witch hunt and DMCA'd tons of artists off the face of American hosted sites for "damaging the brand", like if you want to encourage people to be shitty do shitty things...

    1. Re:Hosted server security is Job 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't looked but I'm sure by now if there aren't several "pirate" servers out there already there will be soon (the game is just too huge), and Blizzard will put all this effort into litigating the fuck out of fans instead of locking down their servers.

      I've seen this same sentiment in a few comments... why are people assuming that they aren't spending resources to detect/deter cheaters technologically just because they are also pursuing legal measures? I think its safe bet to assume they are doing both. Of course, the former is easier said than done, even with Blizzard-level resources - and no matter what will always be somewhat of a cat/mouse game. Legal action could be one way to slow the cheat devs down a bit (or maybe not, I dunno). As long as no bad precedents are set by their case, I hope they nail the fsck'ers to the wall.

  30. Re:don't set a bad precedent that car manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and something that interferes with a controlled driving experience. We can just put stuff in the cars like an force limp home mode if you don't have the dealer use there software to reset the oil change counter.

    Been there, done that..

  31. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but none of those things are illegal, and shouldn't be. Claiming DMCA infringement is disingenuous.

  32. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but none of those things are illegal, and shouldn't be. Claiming DMCA infringement is disingenuous.

    Why shouldn't Blizzard have a means to deny people from engaging in this conduct on their servers? Do they not have rights?

  33. The weak hackers target games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't fun when people cheat. I'd wish hackers would target something else than fun video games.

  34. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.

    That would be a perfectly valid philosophy in a situation with a small population of people that know each other. Most people are honest, and most people don't want to be the jerk that screws things up for everybody. But that kind of thinking doesn't scale to large populations, especially where the "anonymity" of the Internet is concerned. There are people in the world, admittedly a small minority, that actually enjoy making life miserable for others. And if you have a sufficiently large population, it will include some of the those people. So building software with proper security shouldn't be limited just to banks.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  35. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of those things might currently be illegal, but I am not a lawyer and ultimately that is really for the courts to decide.

    Whether they should be illegal, well I'm not even sure of my own opinion on that. If you produce a product whose sole purpose is to allow users to break the EULA of products they purchase, and in making that product you had to break the EULA as well, then I suppose the opinion on what the legality of that is comes down to your opinion on EULAs in general.

    As for DMCA infringement, since the DMCA includes anti-circumvention provisions it seems likely that the product does indeed violate the DMCA. If the game executable has integrity checks to ensure it has not been tampered with before launching then that is a technological measure used to control access to a copyrighted work. If the cheat needs to modify that in order to run (which I suspect it would) then it has seemingly violated the DMCA in doing so.

  36. if you didn't want people to cheat... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    then you shouldn't have released the game. -_-

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:if you didn't want people to cheat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the game, it's the in-game transactions. Scrap them, make it a level playing field, job done. Alas, publishers view the increasing usage of (not so) micro-transactions as another income stream and will hold back content. The public doesn't care. New new shiny shiny buy buy buy!

  37. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Completely different! Cracks for Windows activation allow people to use Windows without paying for it; people using the cheat still have to buy Overwatch and pay Blizzard for access to their servers. This is more akin to writing software that makes certain Windows tasks easier, something a good many companies make an absolute killing doing, perfectly legally.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  38. Re:Cheaters gonna cheat... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Generally, that's more of a reflection of a flaw in the person that needs to cheat to have fun than it is of a flaw in the game.

  39. a lot of people already have worked hard at it by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

    You really can't build games like you build bank systems.

    Banks don't care about things like smooth game play in the face of latency, dropped packets, server main loop update bottlenecks, etc.
    Yes, a bank can implement a proper client-server architecture that never trusts the clients.

    Given the limitations of the speed of light and modern computers you really can't do that for games and have an enjoyable entertainment experience.
    In my experience, multiplayer games have to trust the client to some degree and are much better off doing deferred cheating checks, memory scanning anti-cheat, and statistics to get rid of cheaters after they cheat rather than make the game unplayable for everyone and prevent cheating in the first place.

    Just imagine having an fps game that had a captcha you had to fill out every time you tried to shoot your gun so that you could prove you were a human.

  40. Games are no longer products by Lirodon · · Score: 1

    They are now services. One that the publisher regulates, and may discontinue at any time. The EULA might as well be called the "terms of service".

  41. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

    Ok, but none of those things are illegal, and shouldn't be. Claiming DMCA infringement is disingenuous.

    Why shouldn't Blizzard have a means to deny people from engaging in this conduct on their servers? Do they not have rights?

    *facepalms* Um wut? Saying that suing the people making cheats under the DMCA is dangerous is not saying they can't keep people from cheating on their servers. What kind of stupid guff is that?

    --
    If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  42. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) The game has cheat detection.
    2) Cheat detection has anti-circumvention mechanisms.
    3) The cheats must disable or defeat anti-circumvention mechanisms to work.
    That is textbook DMCA violation. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing the DMCA was created for.

  43. You live a sad sad sad life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have to cheat at a video game.

    1. Re:You live a sad sad sad life by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I cheat all the time in video games. Why, just a few minutes ago I reloaded my saved game so that I could retry the fight I lost.

      Cheating is perfectly acceptable, in context.

  44. boo-hoo by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

    The problem is that no matter how many people Blizzard sues, the cheat still exists, and more cheats will come.

    Blizzards solution has to be to find and eliminate the exploits.

    That said, I don't have much sympathy for Blizzard "losing sales". Even with the Field of View slider they implemented, they have the FOV maximum locked low enough that people with motion sickness can't play the game. Reading through forums on Overwatch, it seems that the FOV settings might even be over-exagerated, with 103 being more equivalent to a setting of 90 in other first person shooters.

  45. Let me be brief about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you can't sue and win from somebody who's trying to solve your own created puzzle ! HAHA ! Be it by hand or automated ! Or are we now going to discriminate automation ?! Vvvvvery dangerous for the future hybrid or fully robotic human ! ;)

  46. Funny by lapm · · Score: 1

    Blizzard does realize california cant dictate laws in Germany? Nor does Germany have any sort of DMCA laws... In fact most of europe allows reverse engineering in order to make compatible software, witch cheat software clearly is....

  47. Obviously guilty of atleast one count by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    At the very least, the cheat makers are guilty of the "unfair competition" claim; it's their main selling point ;)

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  48. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fault for cheating lies with the cheaters. The fault for not securing the game against cheating lies with the manufacturers. More than one party can be independently responsible for the same situation, and the failing of one does not absolve the failing of the other.

  49. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Calydor · · Score: 2

    I would compare using a bot (with its improved reflexes, perfect aim etc.) to using doping in sports.

    Try doing that and see how far you get after a blood test.

    It is about having a level playing field where it is personal skill that determines your success, not whether you come up against a near-perfect computer program instead of another human.

    Full disclosure: Never played Overwatch, not my preferred kind of game. I do believe in fairness, however. And I just can't wrap my head around why people would pay for a game, pay to play that game, and then pay MORE for a program so they DON'T have to play that game.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  50. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by untoreh+ · · Score: 1

    You are talking about a company that took three years to add extra deckslots to a card game

  51. But why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    I have always been puzzled by people subscribing to a game, then cheating. I can understand the temptation to cheat a little to get over a hurdle that seems impossible, surely the pleasure of playing a game lies in knowing that you have achieved it all, or most of it, simply by your own effort? How much fun would it be to get a professional chess player to play for you right up to the last move, just before you say 'check mate'?

    1. Re:But why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying to my own post - I just had a thought, and it happens so rarely these days. Perhaps some players are not so much interested in doing the hard work of gaming, but still enjoy watching, seeing the landscape, exploring or whatever. Game makers could cater for them by allowing a "tourist mode", where you can travel around everywhere and won't get killed, but can't take part in the action; perhaps this already exists - I don't play games much. Or at all - there always seems to be more important things to do.

    2. Re:But why? by abies · · Score: 1

      It is a tool for griefers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer) to harrass other players. Plus, a tool for achievers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types#Multi-player_appeal_to_the_Achiever) to show that they are better then others (which are losers because of not using cheats, playing unfair is not an issue for some of achievers).

    3. Re:But why? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Divinity: Original Sin has a tourist mode, and many games have mods that let you enable 'god mode' (can't die) or other tweaks/cheats to allow exploration.

      Overwatch however is an online player vs player game. I haven't played it but I suspect you could explore it offline without cheating, or online by ignoring the mayhem around you.

      The people cheating will be motivated by different reasons, although some of them boil down to 'Player is a twat'.

      Some people legitimately have disabilities that prevent them competing effectively and seek aids to bring them to 'normal' levels. Don't ask me how they calibrate that normality.

      Some games (not sure about Overwatch) let you unlock in-game features through play. An example here is World of Tanks where you need several weeks of online playtime to unlock the full content in the game. There are a lot of people that use cheats in that game (enough that I gave up playing it) to play the game for them, letting them avoid the drudgery of playing just to unlock content. Any game with substantial 'grind' will have people trying to automate that, whether through putting a heavy weight onto a single key on the keyboard, using macros, using cheat software or even paying someone else to play the game for them (not uncommon on World of Warcraft a while back).

      It's easy enough to design a game and game ecosystem to suit most gamers' needs, but that just wont help with the twats out there. Sadly those twats are most visible where the cheating impacts other players: online player vs player games. It's been an issue for years and nobody's found a good answer yet.

    4. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always been puzzled by people subscribing to a game, then cheating. I can understand the temptation to cheat a little to get over a hurdle that seems impossible, surely the pleasure of playing a game lies in knowing that you have achieved it all, or most of it, simply by your own effort?

      About twenty percent of human beings are sociopaths, and these are the people that are cheating. You can't apply the kind of rational thinking that mentally healthy people do to the decision making process of the mentally ill.

      The cheaters are not all that different from corrupt politicians, or unethical lawyers or most business executives. All they care about is winning, by any means, and being seen as winners.

    5. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to relentlessly hunt down and report botters and real-money traders, and even scam them like crazy for my own amusement. Nowadays, I don't even bother with that because doing repetitive tasks over and over is NOT playing the game. I should not have to fight a boss more than once, nor should I have to run around in circles doing fetch quests.

      The developers are bringing this upon themselves. If I do 100% of all quests in an area and I still can't beat the boss without additional grinding, the developers have failed to balance the game properly. End of story.

  52. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a considerable portion of people play games these days only to illicit a negative emotional response out of others and ruin their experience. The level of borderline sociopathic behavior I see while playing multiplayer games today is rather alarming. As long as they're having "fun" they don't care whose cheerios they piss in. The more the better to them, even. "It's Just A Game"

  53. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Aereus · · Score: 1

    This is the new normal in multiplayer gaming though—a rapidly growing portion don't see past their own personal enjoyment... which also coincidentally happens to be ruining the game for others.

  54. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, I can go with that. How often does, for example, the IOC sue drug companies?

    Full disclosure: Never played Overwatch, I prefer much more casual games, though I do get something of a kick out of watching others (of any skill level; I often find myself as much in awe of pepoles' mistakes in games as I do their successes) play these types of games. That said, also never watched Overwatch.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  55. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Calydor · · Score: 1

    The difference is that drug companies make a bunch of good and totally legit stuff.

    Bossland's business model is literally to create programs that circumvent the rules of computer games to a point where the players not paying Bossland for the cheat are essentially held ransom as they can't realistically compete.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  56. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofi by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    How is it the manufacturer's fault for not writing perfect code? Writing perfect code is really hard and expensive. It's a game, not an investment bank.

  57. and this is why blizzard is awesome and EA is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the difference right there between Blizzard and Dice, the difference between them and Electronic Farts

    Look, i dont really like overwatch (from Blizzard), the only game from blizz i ever liked was wow, but even me not really digging overwatch, thats a game i could eventually buy just for the simple reason that is a game where they care about the cheating situation

    Im sick and tired of cheaters in battlefield 4 (from Dice and Electronic Farts), i see them every single fucking minute, they have NO protection NO bans And NO policy whatsoever, and its FULL OF THEM, ive never, ever, in my entire life seen a game with more cheaters than battelfield 4, every single time they drop the price of the game, more cheaters come, some matches, 64 player matches, theres like 8 or 10 players easily with either a good ol wallhack, a bot, or a combination of both (active bots, reactive bots, wallhacks, speed hacks, health hacks, damage hacks, ive seen it ALL). And there are more and more every single day
    The company policy is the reason of it and its the reason i will never buy Battlefield One even tho i consider BF4 as one of the best games ive ever played, because everybody knows its the same engine and will have cheats from day one, so even tho i consider the game one of the funniest games ive ever played, im NOT buying Battlefield One, ever, no matter the price, from the videos you can see its an obviously worse game, and its going to be full of cheats, so theres literally no reason to play it

    I see one of this companies spending a lot of money in stuff like denuvo copy protection while leaving the people that actually bought their games to deal with MASSIVE amounts of hacking and others like blizzard doing whats RIGHT and going against bot makers, and even tho i dont like overwatch at all, at least they are doing the right thing so its something i could consider buying if they made something out of it with more time and game modes.
    And that is why electronic farts makes the top every year in the worse company in america list, and gamers love blizzard (even tho they are lazy as hell and their games are pretty mediocre). Because they dont actively hate on their customers

  58. Sure by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Forget Blizzard getting off their lazy asses and fixing these problems, let's just go after those who find and exploit Blizzard's sloppy work....

  59. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    I think those guys...and yes they are almost ALL young men, should lose their internet connections.

    Or failing that, their IP (and voice chat) should be logged, the ISP contacted, and a call made to their location.

    "Hello, Smith residence? This is Blizzard, one of the computers at your location was logged as cheating and being a general Internet Fuckwad in our game Overwatch. Here's some of the voice chat"

    Blizzard plays bit of homophobic "shitcock" style speech.

    "Oh, that's your son? Well doing what your son has been doing is actually against your ISP's TOS....they could cancel your service."

    Blizzard rep listens while a modern version of the Christmas Story scene where Schwartz gets punished for supposedly teaching Ralphie the Eff Dash Dash Dash word plays out in the background

  60. Private servers anyone? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    I think private servers, where only a small population of people that know each other has access, would help here.
    Sadly, very few games these days offer such things. In the 90s and early 2000s, many games came with software that allowed to host your own multiplayer server, but today this seems to be the exception.

    Blizzard in particular has a history of trying to prevent this kind of self-help, see the bnetd lawsuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd). Which makes them arguably part of the problem.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  61. Dedicated Servers by Tukz · · Score: 1

    Allow us to run dedicated servers and moderate them our self, like in the old days.

    Then cheating software will be less effective for the general public as active servers will moderate them self and the players will be less bothered by them.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  62. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just a symptom. What you are describing is in no way singularly related to gaming, it comes from the greater society, where everyone from politicians and business leaders have become shameless "I'm all right Jacks". You can't have such a massive trend and expect online gaming to stay free from it.

  63. Blizz using the law to fix poor design choice by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    Whatever overwatch tyrant is doing, it is merely exploiting design weaknesses in the published interface for third party devs. It is not an MMO Gider; Blizz can't leverage the DCMA, but Blizz could and did claim tortious interference against MDY (the company the created and sold MMO Glider to hundreds of thousands of WoW players.) Blizz extracted $6M in damages after its claims of tortious interference against MDY were upheld, and I won't be surprised if Blizz makes the same claim against the makers of overwatch tyrant.

    And that is why Blizz is on the wrong side of this. Knowing where enemies and friends are in a game where combat is a significant part of the experience would be a decided advantage, so Blizz probably should have considered that and shut down (read: made private) that part of the published interface that exposed location information. If you are going to open up the interface to encourage third party devs (yay Blizz!) don't complain when the more unscrupulous segments of the dev community decide to try to exploit your generosity for their own gain.

    Overwatch tyrant is not doing anything that Blizz's game developers didn't let it do, and now that it is commercially successful, Blizz wants a piece of it and is trying to get by law what it couldn't get through good design.

  64. Performance by phorm · · Score: 1

    Anti-cheating and DRM both have some performance implications, and - depending on how you do it - this may especially affect server vs client and network communication.

    Now obvious one rule if you want something to be *really* secure is "never trust the client." However, in gaming the client is going to be the one with the fancy video card and/or other hardware. If you can't run something on the client, you need to run it on the server, which means
    * Potentially really beefy server/hardware requirements
    * Increased network traffic (for all the extra data that's not processed locally)

    Too much of the above, and you have a platform that's simply cannot run in real-time. The only way you'd have a game that's 100% uncheatable would be if it essentially ran it all on the remote server and did remote display, which would obviously be crazy in terms of bandwidth and lag.

    It's different from something like banking, email, etc where you essentially have a transactional experience. In those cases the client can be almost like a dumb terminal and you can do all your checks-and-balances on the server side.

  65. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >"Oh, that's your son? Well doing what your son has been doing is actually against your ISP's TOS....they could cancel your service."

    And that would be an actionable lie. So yeah, that's retarded.

    Blizzard needs to allow private dedicated servers like games used to have. They don't like that, so they should have to deal with the resulting fallout.

  66. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by ranton · · Score: 1

    I wonder how they're going to force a German company appear in courtin the US, hehe.

    This is exactly why we have trade agreements with other countries, although I have no idea if our trade agreements with Germany or the EU specifically cover this case.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  67. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    The difference is that software companies make a bunch of good and totally legit stuff.

    See what I did there? In case you didn't: I pointed out the gaping hold in your argument.

    Now, compare Bossland to the drug company making the black-market anabolics. See my point yet?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  68. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    And that would be an actionable lie. So yeah, that's retarded.

    If you closely read the TOS of many ISPs you will find that violating a TOS of a service provider/hack/etc is also considered a violation of the ISP's TOS.

  69. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You little kids take your video games way too seriously.

  70. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    Completely different! Cracks for Windows activation allow people to use Windows without paying for it; people using the cheat still have to buy Overwatch and pay Blizzard for access to their servers. This is more akin to writing software that makes certain Windows tasks easier, something a good many companies make an absolute killing doing, perfectly legally.

    Actually, it's not like that at all, what it is like, if you want another real-world comparison, is this:
    It's like a company that analyses speed trap cameras, and then makes a device that fools the cameras into thinking you are not speeding when you are.

    All the other drivers on the road who aren't using this (illegal) device are impacted by those who do - destroying honest driver's road experience, making it unsafe, etc.
    The company making these devices ... well they're gonna pay some huge fines and go to jail, automatically, cause they broke the governments ToS. As Blizzard isn't the government and they're enforcing their own ToS they need to go through the courts themselves to get the appropriate result.

    Now if they lose, we (gamers) are in for dark times. Why would companies bother making quality products if they have no recourse to hackers and abusers?
    And it'd be a legal precedent that'd quickly be applied to areas outside of gaming.... But Blizzard aren't going to lose, cause they're just following proper business and legal practices.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  71. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    The difference is that software companies make a bunch of good and totally legit stuff.

    See what I did there? In case you didn't: I pointed out the gaping hold in your argument. Now, compare Bossland to the drug company making the black-market anabolics. See my point yet?

    Black market antibiotics are made without regulation, and are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic resistance.
    Assuming they were making good clean helpful drugs, then they aren't like Bossland, who aren't helping.
    It's like blizzard built a carpark, charged everyone $5 to park there, then some unaffiliated company sets up out front, stops people driving in, and offers them "easy parking service" for $10, pockets the money, drives round back, in through a no-public-access service entrance, then starts parking the cars wherever they like, blocking other genuine customers parking.
    Damn straight blizzard will march out front, tell them to take off, and that if they stop breaking the lock on the private entrance and bringing cars in illegally, oh, and all that money you've been collecting, taking out of our pocket, we want restitution for that too.

    See what I did there? I pointed out gaping holes in your argument. Now compare bossland to the 'unaffiliated company' profiting off blizzard's infrastructure. See everyone else's point yet?

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  72. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Black market antibiotics are made without regulation, and are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic resistance.
    Assuming they were making good clean helpful drugs, then they aren't like Bossland, who aren't helping.

    I said anabolics, as in steroids, not antibiotics. And they're helping cheaters cheat, which is exactly what Bossland is doing.

    It's like blizzard built a carpark, charged everyone $5 to park there, then some unaffiliated company sets up out front, stops people driving in, and offers them "easy parking service" for $10, pockets the money, drives round back, in through a no-public-access service entrance, then starts parking the cars wherever they like, blocking other genuine customers parking.

    In your example, you've got someone standing outside the parking garage and collecting money in the course of depriving Blizzard of sales while, at the same time, depriving Blizzard of resources they build and maintain (parking spaces). While Bossland does charge for their software, said software does not allow access to Blizzard's services without paying (Blizzard) for them, nor does it deprive "legitimate" (defined by me as someone who pays for access, thereby including users of Bossland's software; if you have another definition, let's hear it) users of access.

    Damn straight blizzard will march out front, tell them to take off, and that if they stop breaking the lock on the private entrance and bringing cars in illegally, oh, and all that money you've been collecting, taking out of our pocket, we want restitution for that too.

    They're breaking no locks, users of Bossland's software pay Blizzard for access and connect to Blizzard's servers using Blizzard's software, the same way everyone else does. They're not taking money out of Blizzard's pockets, as Blizzard is still getting paid. So there's no restitution to be had, no matter how bad Blizzard (and you) may want there to be.

    See what I did there?

    I sure do, but I'm sure you'll see it differently.

    I pointed out gaping holes in your argument.

    No, you really didn't.

    Now compare bossland to the 'unaffiliated company' profiting off blizzard's infrastructure.

    You mean like a 3rd-party computer repair shop or car mechanic? Those businesses actually do deprive OEM repair facilities of sales, yet they're completely legal. Meanwhile, Bossland is actually not depriving Blizzard of anything... so...

    See everyone else's point yet?

    Funny you should ask, I was just in the middle of answering. No.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  73. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.

    I'm a programmer and have done a lot of security work for banks (American and Australian, mostly)
    While giving any specifics would probably land me in jail or at least with a hefty fine, I can assure you that Blizzard has a far better level of security than many/most banking systems. The truth is appallingly scary.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  74. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofi by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    How is it the manufacturer's fault for not writing perfect code? Writing perfect code is really hard and expensive. It's a game, not an investment bank.

    ^This
    Assuming writing "perfect code" was even possible (It's not), and assuming this would be a base requirement for producing an enjoyable game (It's not) the investment required would mean you'd be paying more for your copy of Overwatch than you did for your car, which (I assume) relatively few would be willing to do.
    So our options here are threefold:
    1) stop making software, as it can't be perfect.
    2) assume everyone is/will cheat, and make it part of the game (then it wouldn't be overwatch or competitive or enjoyable - again noone would buy it or play it)
    3) Use whatever legal resources are available to protect your intellectual property and prosecute those who both devalue _and_ profit off of your work

    I know which one I'd pick.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  75. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    This is the new normal in multiplayer gaming though—a rapidly growing portion don't see past their own personal enjoyment... which also coincidentally happens to be ruining the game for others.

    :s/multiplayer gaming/life/
    :s/new/same old/
    ftfy.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  76. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    >"Oh, that's your son? Well doing what your son has been doing is actually against your ISP's TOS....they could cancel your service."

    And that would be an actionable lie. So yeah, that's retarded.

    Blizzard needs to allow private dedicated servers like games used to have. They don't like that, so they should have to deal with the resulting fallout.

    Yeah, I'm also pissed that microsoft won't let me host my own copy of Win Server 2012 as I like. They claim it's their intellectual property or some such crap. So unfair I can't use all their hard work for myself however I like, and even profit off it myself.
    It's like some people think if I want to have my own game server I should have to build my own game server, or find one someone is happy and willing to sell me, and pay for that.
    And don't forget, having my own dedicated modifiable server would allow me to help fragment the playerbase, and subvert the in game expectations of players, so that fair competition (the single core purpose of the software) is unachievable.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  77. Re: Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofin by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    I think that went over your head... Try reading the post again - keyword "imagine"...

    Personally I think he* is partially right, the DMCA and associated shit shouldn't be used for something like this. If a game developer have a persistent world where money transactions are involved (subscription fees should be enough) they should also be required to make cheats and security intrusions (almost**) impossible. Maybe not to the degree that they should be considered banks but something close to that would be logical. Many hacks in games are due to a fundamentally fucked up development environment, hacking instead of developing mostly due to pressures to deliver something rather than deliver something working.

    (* sexist, most likely true) (** given the current state of art for programming almost impossible is the best possible level of security)

    OK, do me a favour, and remember that Blizzard is a for-profit company. Done that? Good. Now try to take the perspective of someone trying to ensure this company continues to profit. A little tougher? Got it yet? Good. OK, so now, you tell your devs you want "almost impossible" security, but to still make a profit. This is where you might imagine a kindly dev pointing out that there's this thing called "diminishing returns" that applies particularly well here, and they tell you that with the budget allowed, they've got as close to "almost impossible" as they can already. Getting "closer" will mean spending significantly more time (exponentially, actually) and turn those profits inside out. Now pretend you want to keep your job, and go hire a lawyer to stop these thieves like every other company in a similar situation does.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  78. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    Black market antibiotics are made without regulation, and are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic resistance. Assuming they were making good clean helpful drugs, then they aren't like Bossland, who aren't helping.

    I said anabolics, as in steroids, not antibiotics. And they're helping cheaters cheat, which is exactly what Bossland is doing.

    OK, I stand corrected on antibiotics vs anabiotics/whatever they're illegally producing but it doesn't change in any way my point - black market drugs are unregulated, and untested by the proper authorities, and as such unsafe, regardless of what they are, and they were developed at great cost by a different company who would like to recoup their cost legally by selling what they developed legally, etc... so sure, nitpick all you like.
    My first point stands

    It's like blizzard built a carpark, charged everyone $5 to park there, then some unaffiliated company sets up out front, stops people driving in, and offers them "easy parking service" for $10, pockets the money, drives round back, in through a no-public-access service entrance, then starts parking the cars wherever they like, blocking other genuine customers parking.

    In your example, you've got someone standing outside the parking garage and collecting money in the course of depriving Blizzard of sales while, at the same time, depriving Blizzard of resources they build and maintain (parking spaces). While Bossland does charge for their software, said software does not allow access to Blizzard's services without paying (Blizzard) for them, nor does it deprive "legitimate" (defined by me as someone who pays for access, thereby including users of Bossland's software; if you have another definition, let's hear it) users of access.

    Bossland is using private methods of access explicitly against the ToS to give game players access to more than blizzard gave those players rights or access to, and are charging these players for this access. Blizzard's regular customers are being impacted and receiving a worse experience, bossland is making a profit off blizzard's intellectual property.

    So my first point stands.

    Damn straight blizzard will march out front, tell them to take off, and that if they stop breaking the lock on the private entrance and bringing cars in illegally, oh, and all that money you've been collecting, taking out of our pocket, we want restitution for that too.

    They're breaking no locks, users of Bossland's software pay Blizzard for access and connect to Blizzard's servers using Blizzard's software, the same way everyone else does. They're not taking money out of Blizzard's pockets, as Blizzard is still getting paid. So there's no restitution to be had, no matter how bad Blizzard (and you) may want there to be.

    They hacked into blizzard's code, and use a modified version of it to generate an overlay showing the intentionally hidden information. So yes, they've broken into overwatch. Their customers of course pay for their original copy of the game, and then pay bossland to hack it for them. Their resulting versions ruin the game for legal customers, which means that prospective legal customers will be less likely to purchase it. So yes, they have made money off blizzard's back that has resulted in blizzard losing money, the basic premise that restitution addresses.
    Still failing to actually add anything pertinent to the discussion or make much sense here mate.... but lets keep going:

    See what I did there?

    I sure do, but I'm sure you'll see it differently.

    OK, I guess you didn't so I'll explain: I laid your argument out and pointed out all the gaping holes in it, which is what you attempted to do, but failed at. Unfortunately, I used logic and reasoning, and you're too busy playing semantics and pedant

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  79. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    OK, I stand corrected on antibiotics vs anabiotics/whatever they're illegally producing but it doesn't change in any way my point - black market drugs are unregulated, and untested by the proper authorities, and as such unsafe, regardless of what they are, and they were developed at great cost by a different company who would like to recoup their cost legally by selling what they developed legally, etc... so sure, nitpick all you like.
    My first point stands

    Actually, the anabolic steroids are legally produced, they're either prescribed for off-label uses or obtained illegally, but neither of those are the fault of the companies legally producing them. Their illegal use (again, not the fault of the manufacturer) is against the rules of basically every professional athletic association in the world, but that's between the athletes and the associations, not the associations and the drug companies. If your point stands it's not supported by this argument.

    Bossland is using private methods of access explicitly against the ToS to give game players access to more than blizzard gave those players rights or access to, and are charging these players for this access. Blizzard's regular customers are being impacted and receiving a worse experience, bossland is making a profit off blizzard's intellectual property.

    Did you even google "Watchover Tyrant" to see what it actually does or how it works? It's an overlay, it reads from the RAM used by the game on the user's local system and draws a graphical overlay on top of the game; it doesn't control the player or enhance the player's health, armor, or weapons in any way. It's literally just a graphical overlay. It doesn't use Blizzard's servers in any way, nor does it use "private methods of access", it simply reads (and doesn't write) game RAM. It's questionable whether this violates the ToS in any way, as Overwatch and WoW have the same ToS and similar add-ons for WoW exist with Blizzard's blessing. Where Blizzard draws the line is writing to game RAM, injecting mouse or keyboard commands into the game (though some macro add-ons exist, which do this with Blizzard's blessing) or communicating with the game servers directly. Even if it is, in fact, a ToS violation, that's not a legal or civil matter and Blizzard's recourse is to terminate the offending account(s). Again, if your point does, in fact, stand, it is not supported by this argument.

    They hacked into blizzard's code, and use a modified version of it to generate an overlay showing the intentionally hidden information. So yes, they've broken into overwatch. Their customers of course pay for their original copy of the game, and then pay bossland to hack it for them. Their resulting versions ruin the game for legal customers, which means that prospective legal customers will be less likely to purchase it. So yes, they have made money off blizzard's back that has resulted in blizzard losing money, the basic premise that restitution addresses.

    They didn't touch Blizzard's code, they used a read-only debugger (of sorts) to determine where the game stores various bits of data in order to extract them to enable the generation of a graphical overlay layer. Bossland customers are still legal customers of Blizzard's service, as well; Blizzard has every right to terminate their accounts for violating the ToS, but there is no legal or civil recourse to be had. In fact, Blizzard has done so already; they've already enabled detection of this cheat overlay and implemented auto-bans for its use, so it is no longer an issue.

    Still failing to actually add anything pertinent to the discussion or make much sense here mate.... but lets keep going: Well, at least you recognize it. Oh, wait, you're talking about me, aren't you? Hey, well, I've done my research and know what is actually being discussed here while you, well... clearly, you have not.

    OK, I guess

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  80. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Blizzard... Quality products...

    They do have recourse, though: ban the accounts. That's the point of the ToS.

    And it's already proven effective against Watchover Tyrant.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  81. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    OK, I stand corrected on antibiotics vs anabiotics/whatever they're illegally producing but it doesn't change in any way my point - black market drugs are unregulated, and untested by the proper authorities, and as such unsafe, regardless of what they are, and they were developed at great cost by a different company who would like to recoup their cost legally by selling what they developed legally, etc... so sure, nitpick all you like. My first point stands

    Actually, the anabolic steroids are legally produced, they're either prescribed for off-label uses or obtained illegally, but neither of those are the fault of the companies legally producing them. Their illegal use (again, not the fault of the manufacturer) is against the rules of basically every professional athletic association in the world, but that's between the athletes and the associations, not the associations and the drug companies. If your point stands it's not supported by this argument.

    OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.

    Bossland is using private methods of access explicitly against the ToS to give game players access to more than blizzard gave those players rights or access to, and are charging these players for this access. Blizzard's regular customers are being impacted and receiving a worse experience, bossland is making a profit off blizzard's intellectual property.

    Did you even google "Watchover Tyrant" to see what it actually does or how it works? It's an overlay, it reads from the RAM used by the game on the user's local system and draws a graphical overlay on top of the game; it doesn't control the player or enhance the player's health, armor, or weapons in any way. It's literally just a graphical overlay. It doesn't use Blizzard's servers in any way, nor does it use "private methods of access", it simply reads (and doesn't write) game RAM. It's questionable whether this violates the ToS in any way, as Overwatch and WoW have the same ToS and similar add-ons for WoW exist with Blizzard's blessing. Where Blizzard draws the line is writing to game RAM, injecting mouse or keyboard commands into the game (though some macro add-ons exist, which do this with Blizzard's blessing) or communicating with the game servers directly. Even if it is, in fact, a ToS violation, that's not a legal or civil matter and Blizzard's recourse is to terminate the offending account(s). Again, if your point does, in fact, stand, it is not supported by this argument.

    I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay. Blizzard draws the line where they please. Hell, they have the right to ban you if you don't use any cheating software at all, if you want to get technical. They can ban you for taking advantage of an unintended feature, i.e. abusing a bug. And they define what a bug is, as it's their code and only they know it's intent (though they're pretty crystal clear on their intent)
    Regardless my point stands.

    They hacked into blizzard's code, and use a modified version of it to generate an overlay showing the intentionally hidden information. So yes, they've broken into overwatch. Their customers of course pay for their original copy of the game, and then pay bossland to hack it for them. Their resulting versions ruin the game for legal customers, which means that prospective legal customers will be less likely to purchase it. So yes, they have made money off blizzard's back that has resulted in blizzard losing money, the basic premise that restitution addresses.

    They didn't touch Blizzard's code, they used a read-only debugger (of sorts) to determine where the game s

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  82. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    Yup, and they will continue to do so as they detect them, and they change their patterns, etc.... It's a neverending battle.
    But that's not a 100% solution, and Bliz has put a lot of effort into this game and wants it to be the best it can be, so they're also pursuing other avenues, like trying to end the battle legally.
    But the law hasn't caught up with the interconnected world, else bossland would never have dared to attempt profiting off them (and us, if you're a paying customer of overwatch or the other games they have done similar things to) this way in the first place. So it'll be interesting to see the outcome of the case.

    There's a lot of interesting discussions about how global connectivity and digital goods and services will be continually at odds with a non-global authority to govern it.
    Meanwhile, Blizz will continue to pursue whatever avenues are available to it both in the US and the EU (and wherever else they do business)

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  83. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.

    Considering that I made the original mention of drug companies, after Calydor mentioned doping, and neither he nor I said anything about black market drug companies. Yes, I did mention black market drugs, but any prescription drug solt outside of a licensed pharmacy fits that definition. You're the one who changed the definition, I merely shifted it back.

    I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay.

    It doesn't "access the code", it accesses the areas of the system's RAM the game uses for data storage. Try again.

    You can keep on saying that bossland isn't doing anything wrong

    I could, if that's what I were saying at all. What I'm saying, however, is that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm sure you can figure out the difference and how it is key to this discussion.

    (that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)

    You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.

    The rest of the diatribe the two quotes above came from is irrelevant, as it's based on an entirely incorrect premise.

    Oh, The US legal system is horrible, most legal systems are, but they're the best we have, and one of the few avenues open to Blizzard.

    But, Bossland has broken now laws and committed no civil infractions, so it will be a tough road for them.

    Of course they'll take it, and while noone thinks the USA governs Germany, I'm pretty sure most here have a decent understanding of trade partnerships, and what happens when 2 countries don't get along.

    Right, and the US and EU have no problems exchanging criminals for trial; however, this is a civil matter and we still (thankfully) don't have civil extradition agreements in place. Imagine that, someone anywhere in the world being allowed to bring suit against you in their home country and you having to travel, at your own expense, to defend yourself. Jurisdictional borders exist for a reason.

    Look at Cuba, think they'll pull the same stuff this time round?

    That was the result is armed conflict, not civil disagreements between US and Cuban businesses. Totally not relevant here.

    Projection of what? You keep making these little comments, but never offer any substance to them.

    You were projecting your head-placement habits onto me. Clearly, you had it firmly stowed when you wrote this reply. I see a second reply, as well.. that should be fun.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  84. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Why can't your other replies be this level-headed?

    See, you admit Bossland hasn't broken any laws (at least in as far as the information available), which means -- GASP -- we actually agree on this point and there was no reason for us to argue in the first place.

    Funny how that works, isn't it?

    And yes, the outcome will be quite interesting, no matter which way it goes. My money's on Bossland's owners simply deciding to ignore it and never setting foot in the US for the rest of their lives. After all, it's a civil matter and civil extradition treaties aren't a thing (yet; thankfully).

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  85. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.

    Considering that I made the original mention of drug companies, after Calydor mentioned doping, and neither he nor I said anything about black market drug companies. Yes, I did mention black market drugs, but any prescription drug solt outside of a licensed pharmacy fits that definition. You're the one who changed the definition, I merely shifted it back.

    Still unclear? are we talking about black market drug companies, or not?

    I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay.

    It doesn't "access the code", it accesses the areas of the system's RAM the game uses for data storage. Try again.

    Yup, and what's in that protected memory they decrypt and modify? Oh, yeah, game code. It's a bit complicated, funnily enough, but that's what the courts are there to decide. You've made it clear you don't know what you're talking about already, however :)

    You can keep on saying that bossland isn't doing anything wrong

    I could, if that's what I were saying at all. What I'm saying, however, is that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm sure you can figure out the difference and how it is key to this discussion.

    No, I've been saying all along that bossland is wrong, that the legal system isn't capable of handling international intellectual property rights, and that Bliz has just cause to take them to court and establish a precedent.
    You seem to think that Blizzard has no merit, period, and should let bossland do as they please. It's laughable, but now I know you're apparently a lawyer, I see why you're on this path

    (that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)

    You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.

    Now it comes clear, you have a lawyers mind.
    As for my logic, I'm still waiting for you to illustrate a single flaw in it, however now I know you're a lawyer I understand that you merely obfuscate what you don't understand, and are trying to jam your personal ideas of what it should be onto it. I can't criticise you for it really, it's what works in the courtroom.
    It also explains why you're continuing to fight a losing argument even when you are wildly unqualified :)

    The rest of the diatribe the two quotes above came from is irrelevant, as it's based on an entirely incorrect premise.

    You keep making statements like this.... I know it's a good court tactic, but this is a forum and you're going to have to back up your statements with something. I know you won't, because you can't, but it'd be nice if you at least tried :)

    Oh, The US legal system is horrible, most legal systems are, but they're the best we have, and one of the few avenues open to Blizzard.

    But, Bossland has broken now laws and committed no civil infractions, so it will be a tough road for them.

    It's going to be a tough road regardless. As for if Bossland has broken any laws, clearly they have, they just are outside of those laws jurisdiction (as those laws were created in and for a time where this kind of predatory business practices weren't even conceived)
    Fortunately it doesn't matter that it's going to be tough (btw, you're a la

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  86. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    Why can't your other replies be this level-headed? See, you admit Bossland hasn't broken any laws (at least in as far as the information available), which means -- GASP -- we actually agree on this point and there was no reason for us to argue in the first place. Funny how that works, isn't it? And yes, the outcome will be quite interesting, no matter which way it goes. My money's on Bossland's owners simply deciding to ignore it and never setting foot in the US for the rest of their lives. After all, it's a civil matter and civil extradition treaties aren't a thing (yet; thankfully).

    I never claimed bossland has broken any laws.... where did I do that? Unless I was pointing out that they've broken US laws in which case I was also acknowledging that they don't operate out of the US.) The legal system is decades behind this sort of issue.
    It's already pretty clear bossland is going to try to just ignore it, they've been doing that for years. But I don't care what bossland _do_ I care about what the courts do. What bossland 'does' has no relevance here.

    And of course you are thankful that people in one country can't be punished for their offences to another country. You're a lawyer.
    It's that kind of attitude that leads to all our international wars - When you can't prosecute someone for stealing your IP/whatever and costing you money, well, what's left to you? Funny how that works, isn't it?
    If Blizzard fail to shut down bosslands activity this way, I'd expect them to sue the german government itself, and progress from there.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  87. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1
    I'm not where where you get the idea that I'm a lawyer... clearly you're either not paying attention, you have a comprehension problem, or you fail at logic as I stated earlier.

    For the benefit of those who haven't read the other thread, the exchange in which Dashiva Dan decided I'm a lawyer went like so:

    (that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)

    You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.

    What part of "one more thing you're wrong about" in relation to "I'm pretty sure you're not [a programmer]" doesn't just scream "Hey, dumbass! I'm a programmer!" so loud you'd have to be massively not paying attention in order to miss it?

    If you're not going to pay attention (and it's clear from your reply in the other thread that you're not) I can't continue this discussion; it would be pointless to do so.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  88. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    ugh... I meant "I'm not sure where"... typos...

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  89. Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    try it out, we might get somewhere

    So, when I point out your logical failure (in the other thread) I get crickets. Yes, we're getting somewhere, alright.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.