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."

Comments

Blizzard takes games seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Blizzard takes games seriously

[Shados]

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)

Re:Blizzard takes games seriously

[guises]

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.

Germany + DMCA = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Germany + DMCA = ?

[Yvan256]

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

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

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

And here I sit...

[brwski]

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

Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing

[BitterOak]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[Mr. Spock]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[mark-t]

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.

Overwatch has microtransactions

[The MAZZTer]

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

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[NormalVisual]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Bliz

[xlsior]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[Chryana]

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.

Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:There's a contradiction there.

[NormalVisual]

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.

Re:Fine

[mwvdlee]

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.

Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model

[Calydor]

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.

Re: Blizzard: Get a new business model

[BronsCon]

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.

Re: There's a contradiction there.

[CronoCloud]

Except the millions of people playing shooters on consoles.