Blizzard wins multimillion dollar lawsuit against cheaters

[JudasSheep]

Bots certainly are annoying to legitimate players. So is cheating.

But it's not always so clear-cut.

Game publishers present to the public their games, coded as they are pleased to code them, and ask for players to pay them - either with microtransactions, or a one-time fee, or a recurring fee, or in some cases a combination. Should we blame players if the game publisher, which has total control over its code, says 'wait, I didn't mean for players to do that, even though the game code permits it?'

And then they can sue their customers over it, and win big bucks from them?

It doesn't exactly add up.

The annoyance players feel towards cheaters is really annoyance at the game publisher, for putting code out there for players to use which doesn't prevent the behaviors that annoy players. There is only one truly culpable party: the game publisher, the entity with total control over a game's code.

I agree and disagree with what you say. You do know bots can be two things, right? Either in game program controlled characters built into the game so the player can play the game without being online with other players; for example Quake 3 bots. Then there is bots as described in this article. That the cheater company "reverse engineered" their code to implement a program that enabled cheating. Typically an AimBot is a program that runs in the background to make you hit 100% or whatever you set it at. Extra programs have nothing to do with the developer. To lock down a game completely could do a few things. 1) cause a delay in release. 2) add complexity to the code that may not work well on a wide range of hardware 3) make it harder to patch 4) could stifle mod creation if that ability is there.

No one makes a 100% perfect product, but I do agree the Devs should not be so lazy and at the very least patch their games (frequently)! The short term answer is... Git Gud, Don't Cheat!

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

I don't condone cheating in games and never understood the appeal of it, but one could very easily argue that in a lot of these games, the developer themselves are cheating players out of real money by updating clients that introduce or reintroduce game-breaking bugs and sometimes even give certain player characters or teams an unfair advantage. I would totally be latching onto that fact with a countersuit for way more money than a measily $8 mil.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Think about it...how many times have you not been able to play a game that you've paid for because the developers servers are down in your region while other players elsewhere can just keep right on going...or how about when an ISP fails to provide connectivity at a time that costs you and the game developer time and money. In fact, what if you're web business suffers due to a down ISP? All this is the same concept.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

If people are willing to do that then so be it, it's their money after all and it's their choice, they're not being coerced into doing it. I recently downloaded and played the demo of Mafia III and quite enjoyed it. When it drops down to a reasonable price I'll think about buying the full game then.

Right. Being a frugal player myself I don't spend much on microtransactions either and often will wait for a game to price drop (unless I need to review it) as well. But we are not the ones that the company relies on to buy those micro-purchases. However, those people are out there and the companies know this and that is who they cater to. Regardless of how well a company is doing they still have an obligation to shareholders to make as much off a title as they can. I was coming from the standpoint that demonizing a game company for using a microtransaction business model is only slightly different than saying they don't deserve to get paid for their work. Remember, even though you paid a full $60 for Diablo 3 (hypothetically) That base game is not all you are getting. You are also getting every patch for the game that not only fixes bugs abut adds free content. This is all stuff that you don't have to pay extra for, but the devs DO have to work extra for. So if they decide to charge for the next DLC, or introduce in-game purchases to continue paying the devs, then it shouldn't automatically fall into the "ripoff" category. Just consider all the free labor they continue to do after releasing the game.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

If people are willing to do that then so be it, it's their money after all and it's their choice, they're not being coerced into doing it. I recently downloaded and played the demo of Mafia III and quite enjoyed it. When it drops down to a reasonable price I'll think about buying the full game then.

Right. Being a frugal player myself I don't spend much on microtransactions either and often will wait for a game to price drop (unless I need to review it) as well. But we are not the ones that the company relies on to buy those micro-purchases. However, those people are out there and the companies know this and that is who they cater to. Regardless of how well a company is doing they still have an obligation to shareholders to make as much off a title as they can. I was coming from the standpoint that demonizing a game company for using a microtransaction business model is only slightly different than saying they don't deserve to get paid for their work. Remember, even though you paid a full $60 for Diablo 3 (hypothetically) That base game is not all you are getting. You are also getting every patch for the game that not only fixes bugs abut adds free content. This is all stuff that you don't have to pay extra for, but the devs DO have to work extra for. So if they decide to charge for the next DLC, or introduce in-game purchases to continue paying the devs, then it shouldn't automatically fall into the "ripoff" category. Just consider all the free labor they continue to do after releasing the game.

It fixes bugs that shouldn't have been in the product you were sold and any "free" content might have also needed to be there, as well. Keep in mind many games are sold with problems in place and content that should have been there. I'm not discounting some good will on the part of some companies, but don't paint it to be entirely something it's not.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

This is not to mention that most of the time those micro-transactions aren't to pay for bug fixes, etc., but to pay for cosmetic items that people prefer to buy. In other words, I wouldn't be paying for a fix for a bug that shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'm buying that cool-looking champ I want to play or his/her awesome new outfit.

 

[NatalieEGH]

First I have been probably playing computer games more years than most of you have probably been paying taxes and maybe longer than some of you have been alive.

I remember when $20 ($60 or $70 when adjusted for inflation) would buy you your own copy of a game. You got all patches, updates, anything that came out from the company for that game. They even had multiplayer versions of many of the games, it was just the players computers that were used as the servers. As a rule most of the games were a lot more interesting, not all, but most. The graphics was often horrible, sometimes little better than ASCII art, Hack was a perfect example of that.

I play a few microtransaction games. If I like the game enough to play for at least 50 hours, I usually donate some money in the form of a minor purchase. There is one major exception, Dungeon and Dragons Online (DDO). I have been playing that game for close to a decade and been a subscription player almost all that time. I strongly suspect I have as much if not spent more money on that game than I have on all others combined whether Nintendo, Playstation, Atari, PC, ... At least $2000, maybe over $4000. Someone said, most of the microtransactions are cosmetic. No, but most are things like more inventory, more characters, minor temporary boosts like a potion of mana for when your spell points run out. The only real cheats are being able to purchase special character classes or races with special abilities or being able to buy experience. That is usually used to get to the point of being able to reincarnate because you do not like the class.

My problem with microtransactions is when the game developers put the purchases where you can do them by accident. A lot of games makes this very easy to do. With the exception of DDO, I try to only play games through google play because it by default has an option that when you start to do a purchase immediately routes you to google and requires you to enter your google password and verify the purchase. It has stopped accidents many times for me. DDO has a problem with accidental microtransactions too. Luckily it has fairly good protection in it for stopping spending real money to buy the tokens used to purchase the upgrades by accident. It is spending the tokens you bought with real money that has poor protections.

Do I consider I have spent too much on DDO, yes. But it is much cheaper than a night at the cinema. It is also a social outlet. So I do not really mind until I start adding up my expenditures, on average I am guessing about $30 - $40 per month.

Cheaters, I do not really care about. I do not think I play with them. I look at is like you get what you want out of the game. If you cheat you get to the top fast and can do a lot of crowing but inside you will know you really did not do anything. There would be no sense of accomplishment. That is really kind of empty victory. Sort of like those people that pay someone else to run the Boston Marathon in their name. ??? Just so you can say you ran it? You would know inside it is 100% lies so where is the satisfaction?

No, I really pity the cheaters. There life must be so empty.

 

[ddferrari]

Just google GmbH, that'll give you a understanding of how shady things are done in Germany. While it is a German company, it's name translates to, "company with limited liability". Wtf, an they wonder why they are being sued.

Bots are and should be illegal when they are being used for cheating or exploting a game. I'd say go after them all. It's time Ubisoft stop being soft and go hard after these companies that give players access to cheats. Ubi's games like Tom Clancy's R6 and The Division all fail at stopping cheating.

Um, limited liability companies are everywhere. You've never seen an American company who's name ends with LLC? That stands for Limited Liability Company.

 

[Urgelt]

I agree and disagree with what you say. You do know bots can be two things, right? Either in game program controlled characters built into the game so the player can play the game without being online with other players; for example Quake 3 bots. Then there is bots as described in this article. That the cheater company "reverse engineered" their code to implement a program that enabled cheating. Typically an AimBot is a program that runs in the background to make you hit 100% or whatever you set it at. Extra programs have nothing to do with the developer. To lock down a game completely could do a few things. 1) cause a delay in release. 2) add complexity to the code that may not work well on a wide range of hardware 3) make it harder to patch 4) could stifle mod creation if that ability is there.

No one makes a 100% perfect product, but I do agree the Devs should not be so lazy and at the very least patch their games (frequently)! The short term answer is... Git Gud, Don't Cheat!

There aren't many multi-player games that can be modded by players. I regard that as an example of 'padding the argument.'

The rest is about the balance between QA and the need to get a product to market fast and cheap so as to maximize profits.

Game publishers who ship deficient products in search of a buck are going to lose some customers when they become annoyed at the gameplay characteristics - including the game's susceptibility to cheating. They know this and factor it into their profit projections - but this doesn't result in a uniform gaming experience across all games. Some publishers emphasize QA in that trade-off, some don't.

My argument isn't that publishers should always produce perfect game code. The market is diverse, and there are profits to be made at the various levels of QA.

My argument is that it's disingenuous to produce a poor-quality product, then sue players for exploiting its poor-quality code for advantage.

There are coding answers to every exploit, even aiming bots as mentioned in your argument. It's trivial to detect when a player is scoring hits at a ridiculous rate; it's trivial to hire customer assistance staff to challenge outliers and ban them where necessary. Trivial as in 'not difficult', mind you. I won't claim it won't cost the publisher money; solutions to exploits certainly do cost money.

I'm indifferent as to which business strategy various game publishers might take. If I don't like the gameplay, of which vulnerability to exploits and cheats is a part, I won't play, that's all. But when publishers take the low road on their products, exploits *will* happen. It's a game within a game, or 'metagaming,' irresistible to a certain kind of gamer. That kind of gamer plays games with poor QA and little regard for the overall player experience *because* it's vulnerable. A well-crafted game with high QA and plugged holes for cheaters is a waste of their time.

What we have in this court case is a publisher who produced a poor-QA game to skimp on costs and maximize profits, then sued the inevitable exploiters and cheaters to add even more profit to their bottom line.

There are no heroes in this tale, only villains.

I'm not defending the cheaters. A pox on them. But to report on this court case without touching on the culpability of the game publisher is poor journalism. And I'm uncomfortable with the game publisher setting the precedent that it can sue and win against gamers for playing the game as coded, instead of playing the game the publisher claims it *wanted* to code, but didn't.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

I'm not discounting some good will on the part of some companies, but don't paint it to be entirely something it's not.

I'm not painting it in any such way. Game makers have just as much right to charge or not charge for content as any other manufacturer. If they don't get it quite right they fix it for free. If they offer extra they may or may not charge extra. Take a car manufacturer for example. If the model you wanted didn't come with a 6-disc CD changer, chances are you are going to pay extra for it. Sure a dealership may throw it in for free to make a sale, but anybody automatically expecting to get it free would be called crazy. So why should a game company that has spent extra time to produce fresh content to add to the playability of a game be expected to hand it out for free. Sometimes they do, but it shouldn't be expected. Those that do expect it (and I've seen a lot who do) are being unreasonable.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

My argument is that it's disingenuous to produce a poor-quality product, then sue players for exploiting its poor-quality code for advantage.

You bring up some good points, and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I'm wondering if you only read the headline without reading the article. Blizzard did not "sue players" they sued the company Bossland for copyright infringement (nearly 43,000 counts).

Due to deadline restrictions, I did not go in-depth about the exact nature of the infringement, but to clarify that here, Bossland reverse engineered Blizzard's code and then used and altered it without authorization to create bot software. So players were never a part of this equation and it's highly unlikely that any company would sue players for exploiting glitches or any other kind of cheating unless it a) violated the law, or b) cost them damages in excess of several thousand dollars (even though they would be within their legal right to sue for damages totaling as little as $1000).

As far as exploiting glitches goes, Ubisoft never did punish the players that exploited the wall glitch in The Division even though they had considered it. I think that was the right choice for Ubisoft. Punishing those players with bans or suspensions would have just alienated them. In their eyes, they didn't do anything that was wrong, and I tend to agree to a point with that. Glitches are not hacking the code or purposefully malicious cheating. Additionally, the particular level that this glitch occurred on as I understand, was practically impossible. I believe I remember reading that the devs couldn't even beat it. So who could blame any player for exploiting a glitch that produced a win, especially after countless losses?

Bottom line is, I don't think we will be seeing Blizzard (or any other) vs. The Players in any lawsuits in the near future. However, companies that infringe upon a copyright can and should be sued especially when they profited from it. And believe me, Bossland DID profit. They charge around $15 per month to use their bots.

 

[Sangheili]

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare game is bad with exploit the company kept them in so the "pro players" that use them don't complain

 

[JudasSheep]

There aren't many multi-player games that can be modded by players. I regard that as an example of 'padding the argument.'

The rest is about the balance between QA and the need to get a product to market fast and cheap so as to maximize profits.

Game publishers who ship deficient products in search of a buck are going to lose some customers when they become annoyed at the gameplay characteristics - including the game's susceptibility to cheating. They know this and factor it into their profit projections - but this doesn't result in a uniform gaming experience across all games. Some publishers emphasize QA in that trade-off, some don't.

My argument isn't that publishers should always produce perfect game code. The market is diverse, and there are profits to be made at the various levels of QA.

My argument is that it's disingenuous to produce a poor-quality product, then sue players for exploiting its poor-quality code for advantage.

There are coding answers to every exploit, even aiming bots as mentioned in your argument. It's trivial to detect when a player is scoring hits at a ridiculous rate; it's trivial to hire customer assistance staff to challenge outliers and ban them where necessary. Trivial as in 'not difficult', mind you. I won't claim it won't cost the publisher money; solutions to exploits certainly do cost money.

I'm indifferent as to which business strategy various game publishers might take. If I don't like the gameplay, of which vulnerability to exploits and cheats is a part, I won't play, that's all. But when publishers take the low road on their products, exploits *will* happen. It's a game within a game, or 'metagaming,' irresistible to a certain kind of gamer. That kind of gamer plays games with poor QA and little regard for the overall player experience *because* it's vulnerable. A well-crafted game with high QA and plugged holes for cheaters is a waste of their time.

What we have in this court case is a publisher who produced a poor-QA game to skimp on costs and maximize profits, then sued the inevitable exploiters and cheaters to add even more profit to their bottom line.

There are no heroes in this tale, only villains.

I'm not defending the cheaters. A pox on them. But to report on this court case without touching on the culpability of the game publisher is poor journalism. And I'm uncomfortable with the game publisher setting the precedent that it can sue and win against gamers for playing the game as coded, instead of playing the game the publisher claims it *wanted* to code, but didn't.

*Warning* This is long! Please do not TLR.

I think you are misinformed and speaking purely on experience with some titles and not from being on shall we say the "inside." I am a software developer myself. I came from a Network Engineer background and working in a data center to where I am now. I have been gaming since 1999 on PC and was in the middle of the growth of CS. I happen to have friends who work for Blizzard and low and behold, one works in QA. He has been there since Star Craft and you can find his name in the Warcraft III credits (not giving it to you). When WoW was coming out, I had the pleasure to partake in the friends and family beta. Blizz made a lot of effort to correct bugs and balance issues in the game. If you remember WoW released in Nov 2004 against the objections of Blizz themselves. Vavendi (Blizzards publisher) had given an ultimatium, get the game out and start making money! So the game came out and had TONS of issues. Horrible lag, server crashes, you name it. Blizzard was unprepared for the success of the game so quickly and if you played at that time, you would know they take every step possible to make it right. People were credited weeks of play time to their accounts. That isn't being money hungry or short sighted, that is being smart as they know the future of their game relies on their reputation. So... WoW released incomplete and it took a long time before we got a real raid (which was supposed to be in the original release when it was ready). What did Blizz tell players before those raids came out? It will be available "when it's ready." My friend told me how his team would spend HOURS jumping against walls in empty rooms to make sure they were completely solid. How he had to kill mobs over and over to make sure their loot tables worked properly. That is some mundane sh*t right there! So for you to say this lawsuit was "is a publisher who produced a poor-QA game to skimp on costs and maximize profits, then sued the inevitable exploiters and cheaters to add even more profit to their bottom line" I can tell you, you are wrong. Blizz made MILLIONS off WoW and used it to create their campus, their infrastructure and all the other wonderful things that have come out since 2004. Blizzcon would not be possible if it wasn't for their awesome games loved by so many. Of all the studios and developers out there, I can honestly say, Blizz is one of the good ones.

Now if you want some agreement... Let's talk EA! I loath that company! They are the poster child of what you are saying above (not Blizz) and they release crap in the name of money. New versions that are nothing but re-skins of previous ones. Buggy issues, bad balance, easily hacked, the list is long for them. I am not saying you are wrong in your statements above, I actually agree and from my experience with various games, there are some real scumbag studios. They should be held to the same standard that Blizzard has set. However people keep buying the crap studio's games in a false hope the new one is going to be a new dawn. I stopped buying EA titles at BF3, I didn't even want to get that but friends convinced me it was better and that with Origin they could ban cheaters like Steam. Boy were they wrong.

In closing... Some studios are crap, some are not (very few). Unless you code yourself, it is unfair to say "release perfect code." There will always be some bugs and if you consider the amount of effort that goes into a major release of say Fallout 4, a WoW expansion, or StarCitizen where unless there was something done before it that the studio can re-use, it is going to take years, many years! People get impatient. People want to play now and most if you ask them will say give it to us and we will help you work out the issues. That is why Blizz does a PTR server. To have the public test their stuff and do things real people do because their in house team can not think of everything.

I am a Blizzard fanboy, because they do games right. Considering their background and what they have done to get here, they are a Cinderella story of a studio. I don't see any other studios with as many #1 titles coming from a meager $20k investment by two college students. Watch the history of Blizzard and learn about them. Their staff are very nice, they are very innovative, they are somewhat humble, and they have fun making what they play. I doubt EA's CEO plays BF or even interacts with their employees like Blizzard does. The only negative I have heard from people about Blizz, is they don't pay very well. They consider working for them and doing what they do to be part of your salary (that is the not so humble part). I had a guy leave us and go work for them and he came back after just a few months because he said the commute, the hours and the pay were not worth it to him. I understand that as your life and family are more important, but Blizzard is still a good company.

Thank you for reading this long drawn out post.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

Of all the studios and developers out there, I can honestly say, Blizz is one of the good ones.

... Let's talk EA! I loath that company! I stopped buying EA titles at BF3, I didn't even want to get that but friends convinced me it was better and that with Origin they could ban cheaters like Steam. Boy were they wrong.

... Some studios are crap, some are not (very few). Unless you code yourself, it is unfair to say "release perfect code."

I am a Blizzard fanboy, because they do games right. I doubt EA's CEO plays BF or even interacts with their employees like Blizzard does.

Well said. I stopped playing EA after BF1 to be honest. It was a good game for the most part, but I found it underwhelming.

I had a background in coding as well and many people do not realize the amount of work that goes into even a small program, and unless you are coding a "Hello World" variant, there is almost no such thing as perfect code. In college, we would work in teams even when developing individual projects so that we could QA our teammates. I made it my goal to break everyone's code and I rarely failed. That's not a brag, it's just to make the point that, you can almost always find a flaw in any code and the bigger the program that easier it is to break.

Eventually, with enough iterations, you can get close to perfect, but even then there is always something that could be coded more efficiently to save cycles or something else that even QA might not find. Point being, programming is not just about sitting on your *** drinking Red Bull. It is hard work and there is a lot that gets done for free to make the gaming experience more enjoyable, and this often gets sold short.

And once again, Blizz didn't sue the gamers. They sued the company infringing on its IPs.

 

[JudasSheep]

If anyone reading this thread would like to experience a taste of what coding is like, you can try Code Academy. I used it when it was just starting. If you want to brush up or learn a different language, you can try it there. If anyone else knows of a similar site I would like to know.
I am no spokesman for Code Academy, I can just speak from experience with the site. That being said, you will find that even the simple code you learn there, you will make mistakes, because it's not as easy as it sounds. Or maybe look at the source in your browser and see how much crap goes into a website. Java Script, HTML, and all the add ins (ex: flash, shockwave) there is a hell of a lot in a site.

In FireFox you can do this by clicking on the menu in the top right corner, then click developer and in that menu click on page source and it will open another tab and show you the HTML for this page... Now go learn HTML to know what it means.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

If anyone reading this thread would like to experience a taste of what coding is like, you can try Code Academy. I used it when it was just starting. If you want to brush up or learn a different language, you can try it there. If anyone else knows of a similar site I would like to know.

I like Code Academy. Have you tried CodinGame? I had fun with that site.

 

[JudasSheep]

I have not, thank you for sharing.