Blizzard sues StarCraft II hack developers

madtownidiot · 20 Oct 2010

This wasn't about someone making a game free by using a hack. It was about people who created and distributing for sale a hack that allowed people to cheat online. It's nothing that hasn't been done before. This is the first time I've heard of creators of a hack being sued for it, which is why programs like punkbuster were invented... kind of a faulty concept right from the beginning. IMO, no game that requires you to compromise the security of your system with spyware in order to play it online is worth the box it comes in, but some people enjoy those kinds of games. Sure it's wrong to cheat, but on the other hand, if it was that easy to hack the game, the developers didn't do a very good job setting it up in the first place. There are always going to be people who will look for ways around the rules. If one hack was found already, who's to say there isn't someone else out there smart enough to have come up with a more insidious hack that won't be detected? If it's possible for someone to create a hack that allows others to cheat online, that means online part of the game itself is defective.

mikedl · 20 Oct 2010

Interesting points, madtown. Your perspective presents an important thought regarding the inherent quality of a multi-player game that can be hacked so relatively easily.

You are right, also, in mentioning the discussion here is about hacks, not cracks.

mckillwashere · 20 Oct 2010

The hacks were developed while the game it was in beta. The majority of the code stayed the same. The people who developed the hacks decided to wait until day one to publish the hack(s).

Trucidation · 20 Oct 2010

madtownidiot said:

Sure it's wrong to cheat, but on the other hand, if it was that easy to hack the game, the developers didn't do a very good job setting it up in the first place.

Software isn't 100% hackproof, let alone popular software which attracts dirtbags out to make a profit. By your reasoning cars will always be defective since we will never be able to manufacture one that doesn't kill people. Developers shouldn't protect their multiplayer environments (e.g. punkbuster) and just throw it to the dogs? That's absurd. We're not talking about bug exploits (flaw in car design, leading to accidents), we're talking about hacks (planting a bomb in your car). Poor analogy, but it shows accident vs intent. We're not talking about shoddy software, we're talking about people deliberately vandalizing it.

And don't kid yourself, it is not easy to hack these games - if it were, people would not be buying the hacks. Let's not pretend the demographic most interested in these hacks are decent upstanding gamers either - you think they'd spend actual money on these hacks even if they could pirate them for free?

As I mentioned in my previous post, Starcraft 2 comes with a powerful editor. Godlike units, new maps, mods, the game caters to virtually all your desires. Go nuts in a private environment, do whatever you want. You can. The game lets you. On the other hand, these hacks exist for the sole reason of committing fraud in a multiplayer environment.

mickey megabyte · 21 Oct 2010

madtownidiot said:

Sure it's wrong to cheat, but on the other hand, if it was that easy to hack the game, the developers didn't do a very good job setting it up in the first place.

you haven't played many online games have you? who said it was easy to hack games? i'm sure it's easy to buy hacks - it's just software after all; but cheats who use them rarely write them. the sort of idiot who would use a hack to gain advantage online probably wouldn't have the grey matter required to reverse-engineer complicated programs.

any why call punkbuster spyware?

mikedl · 21 Oct 2010

I don't play online games at all.

However, having said that, a manufacturer of an online game that has been hacked should examine their code to determine how it was done and correct the weak code which allowed such to occur.
They also have an obligation to deter the use of the hacks as it degrades the game experience for those desiring to "play by the rules."

Unless, of course, it comes down to "rules, we don't need no stinkin' rules!"

madtownidiot · 21 Oct 2010

Trucidation said:

Software isn't 100% hackproof, let alone popular software which attracts dirtbags out to make a profit. By your reasoning cars will always be defective since we will never be able to manufacture one that doesn't kill people. Developers shouldn't protect their multiplayer environments (e.g. punkbuster) and just throw it to the dogs? That's absurd. We're not talking about bug exploits (flaw in car design, leading to accidents), we're talking about hacks (planting a bomb in your car). Poor analogy, but it shows accident vs intent. We're not talking about shoddy software, we're talking about people deliberately vandalizing it.

And don't kid yourself, it is not easy to hack these games - if it were, people would not be buying the hacks. Let's not pretend the demographic most interested in these hacks are decent upstanding gamers either - you think they'd spend actual money on these hacks even if they could pirate them for free?

As I mentioned in my previous post, Starcraft 2 comes with a powerful editor. Godlike units, new maps, mods, the game caters to virtually all your desires. Go nuts in a private environment, do whatever you want. You can. The game lets you. On the other hand, these hacks exist for the sole reason of committing fraud in a multiplayer environment.

You're correct even if you made a really bad analogy...
The software itself isn't shoddy. What makes games like that defective is that it's possible to alter online game play by making changes to the software on the individual computers used to play it and then expecting that nobody is going to try to make those changes. A more accurate comparison would be an online banking system based on individual storage of account balances... Thankfully nothing like that exists ...but if it did, do you think nobody would try to hack their own bank account? Blizzard's flawed strategy, and that of most other developers of online multiplayer games is in trying to make software critical to RT online game play secure when it's installed on someone else's computer. Punkbuster is nothing more than another step in the wrong direction. That's why it's a defective design. If they wanted to eliminate the kind of hacks that are used in starcraft and warcrack they should have centralized more of the individual player stats instead of trying to get away with the absolute minimum load for their own servers.

mckillwashere · 21 Oct 2010

madtownidiot said:

Your analogies are completely irrelevant..
The software itself isn't shoddy. What makes games like that defective is that it's possible to alter online game play by making changes to the software on the individual computers used to play it and then expecting that nobody is going to try to make those changes. A more accurate comparison would be an online banking system based on individual storage of account balances... Thankfully nothing like that exists ...but if it did, do you think nobody would try to hack their bank account? Blizzard's flawed strategy, and that of most other developers of online multiplayer games is in trying to make their software secure when it's installed on someone else's computer. Punkbuster is nothing more than another step in the wrong direction. That's why it's a defective design. If they wanted to ensure a level playing field they should have had their servers doing more than just the bare minimum needed for RT game play.

I see where you are coming from but when the servers do nothing more than authenticate the accounts to make sure there license of the game is valid via the battle.net account. The actual servers are based the same way many Console games are, a player actually hosts the game. Battle.net records the game and you can report someone who you feel is "breaking the rules."

Trucidation · 21 Oct 2010

They needed to allow players to protect LAN games as well, that's why Punkbuster was distributed with the client. In the "wrong direction", as you say. But how else are you going to do it? If they only harden their corporate multiplayer servers, people would never have fun playing LAN games because of the rampant cheating. And LAN gaming was a big thing with CounterStrike. I dunno about the current state of things though because I've had my fill of multiplayer, but I sure do remember the endless rants in cheating forums about how to get around PB because some retards thought it would be fun to grief other players.

Online banking is a different animal, there are no equivalent "LAN" banks which need to be protected as well, so all the security stuff can be kept in the corporate side and only doling out thin clients for users to use.

Edit: Thanks for the clarification mckillwashere.

DarkScorpion · 21 Oct 2010

I enjoyed Blizzard before the Activision merge. I don't feel like paying 20 dollars to buy a map pack. That's just retarded, you spend 60 bucks on the game initially. Blizzard has horrible support as well. And no, it doesn't cost 500 million to make a game. you kidding me?

Blizzard is a wealthy company, and doesn't need to be a dictatorship.