Blizzard banned/suspended Starcraft 2 single player cheaters lulz

[Anubis]

I dont have any sympathy for people who believe "achievements" are actually achievements. They are merely nerd badges signifying you have more free time than other people. I feel sorry for folks whose enjoyment is somehow magically decreased by something else someone didnt or didnt perform. It makes absolutely no difference to their lives in the virtual world and shouldn't cause repercussions in the real world. Its stupid.

this post is correct

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Woah, you can only play single player by logging into bnet in SC2?

If this move to ban single players doesn't encourage someone to write some bnet bypass hack, I don't know what will.

I don't think you have to except once a month or something, but it seems highly encouraged to log in. Not really sure I don't own the game. I think bypass hacks already exist.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I don't see how anyone could be legitimately upset at Blizzard over this.

There are cheat codes built into the game that disable the ability to earn achievements when legally cheating using these cheat codes intended to be used for fun.

What Blizzard is doing is banning people who are using 3rd party cheats/hacks to help them illegally cheat to earn achievements.

Sure, its just single player so one could argue that its lame to ban a cheater for single player, but ITS FUCKING SINGLE PLAYER, its even more lame to cheat in single player than it is to ban someone for it.

 

[Barfo]

Uh, no, they're not right. They can ban cheaters from Bnet, and they should. But since you have to log into Bnet to even play SP, banning you effectively renders the game unplayable and worthless. I must have missed the part where Blizzard can dictate how I play a single player game.

I take it you didn't read the EULA then.

I'm care a bit about achievements, I like to have a shiny number next to my name. I couldn't care less about others' achievements though so I don't care if they're banned or not for cheating to get them in SP.

Now, how retarded do you have to be to use a trainer for SP cheating when the game has built-in cheats in it? Perhaps they deserve the ban for this alone.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Uh, no, they're not right. They can ban cheaters from Bnet, and they should. But since you have to log into Bnet to even play SP, banning you effectively renders the game unplayable and worthless. I must have missed the part where Blizzard can dictate how I play a single player game.

Well, the EULA for starts but, you're missing the point. Blizzard isn't telling you how to play, they're telling you if you use hacks/cheats/trainers, you may be banned. So, the responsibility is yours. Don't like it? Don't buy their games.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Couldn't Blizzard just revoke all the achievements for cheaters instead of rendering their game inoperable? I really can't believe all the defenders in here, this is pretty poor behavior on Blizzard's part.

 

[Barfo]

Couldn't Blizzard just revoke all the achievements for cheaters instead of rendering their game inoperable? I really can't believe all the defenders in here, this is pretty poor behavior on Blizzard's part.

Why would they? it would be more work to do that and the banned accounts already paid their $60 and there's a chance some of them will buy another copy of the game so, more money.

 

[gorcorps]

Why would they? it would be more work to do that and the banned accounts already paid their $60 and there's a chance some of them will buy another copy of the game so, more money.

You're ignoring the lost sales of people who haven't bought SC2 yet, or would buy D3 and are now being driven away from such overreaction. There's no way of knowing whether this made them money or lost it, but it's definitely not guaranteed they made more this way.

 

[PCboy]

And this is why people torrented SC2 campaign... I knew this would happen when Activision merged with Blizzard.

SC2 sucks anyway, was way too easy to get diamond in all brackets. I went back to SC1... you know when Blizzard was actually cool? And you can actually play LAN. Yep, that Blizzard.

 

[Dumac]

SC2 sucks anyway, was way too easy to get diamond in all brackets.

Are you really this retarded?

 

[BladeVenom]

Funny stuff. All cheats must be Activision approved.

 

[Aikouka]

Are you really this retarded?

No, he's a 4-gater .

 

[eLiu]

I HIGHLY doubt Blizzard bans people from SP b/c they don't want to "devalue" the achievements. This notion is laughable:
1) Blizzard has repeatedly stated that it doesn't support achievements. See the numerous bugs experienced by users w/achievements fucking up ("Raid Night" is a good example).
2) It's easy enough to download a savegame from another player where the save happens right before X achievement is earned. Load up the save and voila, instant achievement. Blizzard has made no efforts to stop this... certainly seems easier than detecting trainers.

That said, I've gone through & gotten almost all of the SP achievements & thoroughly enjoyed the process (ok ok fine, some of them were fucking annoying), but I don't have any illusions of "value" in my time spent, lol.

 

[Qbah]

Why can't the cheaters play on the guest account? At first I thought it was also lame of Blizzard, but there's a fully functional off-line mode called "GUEST". No achievements and no multiplayer on the guest account. But there's a full single player campaign with saves available (3 unique guest accounts on each computer!). All that's required is that the copy is authorized with battle.net (once every 30 days, but everybody knows that). If you haven't played for a while, just log in on your battle.net account, log out and log in as guest. And voila ! Cheat as much as you want - Blizzard doesn't look on guest accounts, no statistics are taken from the guest accounts and you don't use your battle.net account.

Again, why can't the cheaters use the guest account?


EDIT: A.I. Skirmish and Challenges are also available as a guest.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I do not cheat, so I guess I don't care if people are getting banned over it.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You're ignoring the lost sales of people who haven't bought SC2 yet, or would buy D3 and are now being driven away from such overreaction. There's no way of knowing whether this made them money or lost it, but it's definitely not guaranteed they made more this way.

You're thinking like Blizzard. This is Activision-Blizzard now though; it's more about sales right now than sales a few years from now. Also, Activision has learned well you can shit on your customers and they'll keep coming back for more.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Why are people complaining, everyone signed the EULA before playing this game. If you had problems with Blizzard doing whatever they want in their game, you shouldn't even buy it.

 

[JTsyo]

Why can't the cheaters play on the guest account? At first I thought it was also lame of Blizzard, but there's a fully functional off-line mode called "GUEST". No achievements and no multiplayer on the guest account. But there's a full single player campaign with saves available (3 unique guest accounts on each computer!). All that's required is that the copy is authorized with battle.net (once every 30 days, but everybody knows that). If you haven't played for a while, just log in on your battle.net account, log out and log in as guest. And voila ! Cheat as much as you want - Blizzard doesn't look on guest accounts, no statistics are taken from the guest accounts and you don't use your battle.net account.

Again, why can't the cheaters use the guest account?


EDIT: A.I. Skirmish and Challenges are also available as a guest.

The trouble is that we're not talking about in-game cheats. With the trainers you are changing the game files. When logging into bnet it'll detect the changes in the file and tag you a cheater. Maybe there would be a way to have two installs going and just use one with trainers and the other to log into bnet.
In my opinion people should be allowed to use trainers in offline mode. No achievements available so it wouldn't matter. Those that used the trainers just to get achievements, deserve the ban.

 

[acheron]

lolz. Fantastic. If this is true (do we have official word or is this just someone who was banned saying it?) it's probably a good idea -- if you hack in single player, you'll likely hack in multiplayer too. Just use the built-in cheat codes if you want to lame it up. (I cheated through SC1 single player the first time, but I don't deny that it was lame.)

Also you don't have to log in to bnet to play single player anyway.

 

[Onita]

lolz. Fantastic. If this is true (do we have official word or is this just someone who was banned saying it?) it's probably a good idea -- if you hack in single player, you'll likely hack in multiplayer too. Just use the built-in cheat codes if you want to lame it up. (I cheated through SC1 single player the first time, but I don't deny that it was lame.)

Also you don't have to log in to bnet to play single player anyway.

lmao

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

this is why you pirate your games

 

[GundamW]

Glad I haven't bought it yet. I will wait until they are done with the other 2/3 of the game.
Then I will get their full BattleChest version. Hopefully before the end of the world on 2012....

(I don't torrent/pirate either.)

 

[Schfifty Five]

I HIGHLY doubt Blizzard bans people from SP b/c they don't want to "devalue" the achievements. This notion is laughable:
1) Blizzard has repeatedly stated that it doesn't support achievements. See the numerous bugs experienced by users w/achievements fucking up ("Raid Night" is a good example).
2) It's easy enough to download a savegame from another player where the save happens right before X achievement is earned. Load up the save and voila, instant achievement. Blizzard has made no efforts to stop this... certainly seems easier than detecting trainers.

That said, I've gone through & gotten almost all of the SP achievements & thoroughly enjoyed the process (ok ok fine, some of them were fucking annoying), but I don't have any illusions of "value" in my time spent, lol.

you can load someone else's saved game and be able to play it? Doesn't the whole account thing get in the way?

 

[Schfifty Five]

Glad I haven't bought it yet. I will wait until they are done with the other 2/3 of the game.
Then I will get their full BattleChest version. Hopefully before the end of the world on 2012....

(I don't torrent/pirate either.)

It'll be after 2012 probably when LOTV comes out.

 

[Saga]

Who the flying fuck gives a flying fuck about single player?
Most of the hardcore online guys never even touch the campaign anyways.
And this is PRECISELY why I didnt want a single player game which requires signing in online every single damn time I play. If something god awful happens you are locked out of the game forever.
Ditto Half-life 2 and Steam.

This is part of the grand DRM scheme that is making PC gaming very unpleasant, and sadly too many people are still willing to put up with it and buy games.

Not only does Steam not ban for single player cheating, but even if Steam servers went down forever I'd still be able to play the games. Backup all game files I've downloaded to one of my media or file servers and I'd have them for eternity.