Blizzard sues StarCraft II hack developers

[mikedl]

Copyrights and EULAS are meant to protect the investment in research and development that went into a particular product.

The demarcation of that ideal is evident in software such as Windows, Office and a myriad of other offerings.

When it comes to games (which I do not play) the demarcation evident in my above statement can become less clear.

If cheats degrade the intent of a game giving priority to those aware of the cheats or able to buy them, a game maker has a right to seek redress. So do those that bought the game only to find themselves disadvantaged in game play because they chose to play by the rules. I'm with Trucidation on this one and I'm not even a game player.

DISCLAIMER: I have cheated on Pinball, Minefield and Duke Nukem. (but never in a multi-player environment)

 

[Crispy]

I gave hacking a go in CS 1.3 after 10 min I sead to myself, this is stupid I don't know how people can hack and have fun doing it it just rewens the game for everyone else and ya I got band from that server but I quit playing CS back then anyway.

 

[mckillwashere]

Hacking makes things unfair for the other players.... till you find a server with a super admin, that knows how to abuse his powers and knows his way around Fire walls

 

[madtownidiot]

Well.. activision does have a right to determine how their own servers are used.. but if anyone is entitled to compensation in a lawsuit for the having their game ruined by cheaters that used hacks, the people who got cheated have just as much a stake in the lawsuit as activision, if not more, and should be entitled to refunds for anything for however much it cost for the multiplayer part of the game.. no clue how much that would be

When you sign up for the battle.net account it gives you a EULA stating what can and cannot be done on there servers and reason why they will ban you. They should net be refunded anything.

I was referring to the people who weren't cheating

 

[Fayla]

Blizzard is a very good company that writes good games. They spend a lot of money and time
creating these games.

They are right to sue and stop this illegal activity from happening.

My younger brother has worked with Blizzard for some years now. They are very good to their staff-- lots of bonuses, lots of free game related items, free dental health care, free McDonalds meal passes, etc.

 

[mickey megabyte]

they would need the dental health care after all that macdonalds...probably.

 

[Bootz]

Blizzard is a horrible company now anyways, since they got merged with Activision, they just Sue people for sh!t reasons, and charge you money monthly to play their games. That's why I WILL NEVER BUY AND PLAY a Blizzard game EVER again. MY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE OF HACKS... Blizzard is just Spewing Excuses to make money.

Ya you can say that again, they do make good games but ever since WoW got brought in it just went to s*** after that.

Why do you say that? because WOW is the most popular game ever made revenue wise?

What other game can claim a 10million+ player base for the last 5+ years?

 

[mickey megabyte]

minesweeper?

 

[Crispy]

Wow is only good game because Blizzard know how to make games but people get over playing to playing online but this is when I saw Blizzard throwing out law suits 24?7

 

[DirtyElf]

i dont understand why some people think that the creators of these hacks/cracks DONT deserve to get sued...

I'm company A. I produce game AA. It cost me $1,000,000. I sell AA to make back that money plus profit. Guy B makes my game free via a crack. Guy B causes me to lose money. Guy C makes my game unenjoyable for my intended audience. Guy C causes me to lose money. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

 

[madtownidiot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.