The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Lemme get this straight: somebody develops a hack, ruins the game experience for himself (sort of playing minesweeper while knowing where the mines are), and makes the game more challenging for the honest players. And you want to punish him?
Did you pay for playing the game or for winning the game?
Of course, I don't know the details of your particular situation. If that person makes the game unplayable for a significant amount of time, the game owners should look at the game implementation, or they'll start loosing customers. But jail time ... I don't think so.
If a wolf (i.e. a quite smart, very bad-tempered, sly and reckless being) kills and eats a farmer's sheeps, the farmer goes after that wolf and shoots it. Similarly, if the cheater kills your game experience, you leave the game, and the game owners don't do anything to bar access to the game for that cheater, they're simply bad farmers.
IMO you shouldn't expect the government to step in and make up for the bad farming skills of the game owners.
Lemme get this straight: somebody develops a hack, ruins the game experience for himself (sort of playing minesweeper while knowing where the mines are), and makes the game more challenging for the honest players.
The point being made is that the hack makes the game impossible for the honest player.
I am not advocating punishment...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
He isn't, however when there are a few players on a server that are, it makes the game no fun...
A friend and I have been playing UT99 (the first one) Assault since it was released, over the last few months we've given up on the game as the servers are now full of cheats using aimbots,
This has been a problem before, but before now the community modders have managed to detect and remove these cheats from the game, but the latest bots seems to be undetectable.
So for a lot of players a fun challenging game has become pointless playing, because of a few cheats who can't play without computer assistance.
You see the same thing on counterstrike and halflife deathmatch servers, players using radar who know you are hiding around corners etc, they are pretty obvious as they just walk around the corner and shoot straight at you, but they claim they are just 'better players'.
It's a major problem in online gaming, and it would be nice if it could be dealt with somehow.
ou see the same thing on counterstrike and halflife deathmatch servers, players using radar who know you are hiding around corners etc, they are pretty obvious as they just walk around the corner and shoot straight at you, but they claim they are just 'better players'.
I play HL2 quite a bit. I quite often get accused of hacking because it appears I walk round a corner and shoot someone, or get three headshots in a row, or whatever.
I wouldn't know how to hack - I'm just a good, experienced player.
I listen, I know places people often hide on maps, and I'm quick.
It's apparent that some people do use hacks - but in my experience the best thing to do is just to leave the server they are on - assuming you know they are using hacks and it isn't just because they pwned you!
I quite often get accused of hacking because it appears I walk round a corner and shoot someone, or get three headshots in a row, or whatever.
Yes, this is quite normal, the difference is when a player comes around a corner facing into an alcove where another player is hiding, and shoots as soon as they are visable, and does it repeatedly in different locations, it becomes obvious it's not skill or luck.
best thing to do is just to leave the server they are on
I agree, but when there are not many good servers for these older games, there is just nowhere else to go.
Love your tag from Hitchens, just had to mention that the nutcase radio I listen to for entertainment's sake and to see how these bozos attempt to internalize and justify their bizarre worldview (AFR - American Family Radio)[^]
One of their commentators, Crane Durham, in his "Nothing But Truth" (which I view as anything but), asserted that "Even Christopher Hitchens will admit there is a God now."
I thought that was priceless. Since he is dead now, we can make any statement we want because he is not around to argue it.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
Towards the end of his life Hitchens admitted that when he was near the end, out of frailness, he might say something that led others to believe that he believed in God. He then went on to say that people were not to use this as an excuse to claim that he was now 'saved'.
I certainly did not agree with all that he said, however I found him to be brave, intelligent and did agree with a lot of what he said.
People like Daniel Dennett are still around to carry the flame
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
It's like they wake up and think: Oh, a new game. How can I ruin it for thousands of people?
But that's not what they're thinking at all. They are thinking that they are very good at this and they can make some money or impress some people with their cleverness. Really: they're not out to get you (well, some are) at all. Your ire should be directed at the game maker for allowing these hacks in the first place. The game makers are the ones who should go to jail (just kidding).
For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered. -- Voltaire
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. -- Steve Landesberg
It seems pretty clear from the diversity and tone of the replies that there are two camps here. One of people who have become frustrated by a poor online experience, and the other who seem rather blase about it, to the point where I would have to assume, since they see nothing wrong with the practice, that perhaps they too have used these hacks.
Aside from the likelihood that the hack-users are probably losers in real life (since one can only hold down a decent job for so long as an active fraud), they are also diminshing the community they play in. The most affected are those who are not themselves extremely skilled - who are also mosg likely newer players. If you deter newer players, then you shrink the hobby. If you shrink the hobby, then you end up with less places to play, and less opponents to face, until you are in a pool with nothing but other hackers.
Perhaps that is punishment enough - but it fails to address the real money and time invested by people trying to enjoy the hobby without cheating.
You see, they usually aren't causing much actual damage. They're just pissing a handful of people off for a bit, cause a couple of ragequits.. But they'll get over it.
That's why your analogies are flawed - it's not an actual problem, it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them.
And anyway, developing any kind of program should never be illegal. That's basically censorship and the tools aren't the problem - using them is.
1: You and your friends invest big $$$ to develop a game.
2: You and your friends work endless hours on the game.
3: You and your friends invest additional $$$ to market the game.
4: You and your friends get 100,000 happy customers.
Then some chuckle-head puts together a hack in his spare time and is now making money off a cheat that allows a small percentage of your customers to make thousands of your honest customers angry.
How much income would such a cheat have to cost you before you saw it has a problem?
How much developer time would you have to waste addressing these hacks (instead of adding new content) before you saw this has a problem?
Serious questions - because I don't understand the mindset that holds that freedom includes the right to destroy other people's work.
you develop big money on a game and dont include provisions against hacks, or provide poor provisions you deserve what you got.
and spending time developing against this is time well spent, it is knowledge you can use next time you make a game so you know what is and isnt exploitable.
in the end its a game, that's it. if you are so passionate about it that you wish the cheaters to be thrown in jail you really need to get out more.
its ultimately the job of the developers to make ways to counter cheating, prevent cheating from being possible at all, and/or detect cheating when it happens. if they can't detect the cheaters the law wont be able to do anything either. just let it go, complain to the company if you must, and if its rendered unplayable...play something else.
And anyway, developing any kind of program should never be illegal. That's
basically censorship and the tools aren't the problem - using them is.
Are you serious?! I would like to see you repeating this after some hackers clean your bank account and some malware destroy your work or steal these “special” pictures of your girlfriend and publish them in the web.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Well then it depends. (it did already, but whatever)
Consider these wildly different scenario's:
- man smuggles guns into the country with the intent to rob a bank with them.
- man smuggles guns into the country with the intent to sell them.
- man smuggles guns into the country because he owns them, and later decides to sell them.
Its called 'accessory to a crime'. Its legal definition is very specific..
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal."
Now.. with software it boils down to common usage. If the common usage isn't tailored to a criminal activity, (like for instance using Word to create a document which is used to threaten someone), then the software isn't related. This same argument goes for guns. Guns can kill people, but can be used to both prevent and assist criminal activity. So they don't have in their design a leaning one way or the other. By their very nature they are neutral actors.
The same cannot be said of software who's only purpose is to assist criminals... Word is obviously a neutral software.. but software who's only purpose is to assist in hacking or cracking bank accounts or the like is not immune from this consideration, and the producers of it shouldn't be immune from prosecution (which they would be under your take.. as far as I can tell). Your original argument doesn't hold water.. because it doesn't take this into account.
In this case, I think morality and legality happen to agree (there are many cases where I don't think they agree). You'll have to explain yourself rather than say 'hell no' before I think you have a real point.
Secondly.. are you saying the hacking software is released by these companies? Pretty sure that is not the case. And given that they don't, it just reinforces my point. If the security companies understand it only has malicious intent when 'released into the wild'.. it is further proof that those that *do* release it *do* have malicious intent. I know folks that work in that part of the software industry. Its a constant battle to keep up.. and they take all that very seriously.
Spell out where I'm misinterpreting and we'll discuss. In the absence of real arguments I have nothing to respond to other that to say you are accusing me of actions and intentions without any info to back it up.
I'll place here what I've place in other forums:
I can only go on what I see in your words, not in what you are thinking. My intention is to respond to what I see.. that is all.
Personally I think forums are a difficult place to make complex arguments.. *but*.. some things are worth responding to and getting peoples assumptions and conclusions stated..
I've seen the position you've taken (that I originally responded to) stated in the past.. and it was worth responding to here and now.. hence my motivation to even post...
Call me whatever name you wish, ascribe to me whatever motivation you wish, but the above is my real motivation in posting in this thread.
I've seen many folks try to justify the production of malicious software with arguments that seem logical, until you dig a bit. So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc. I simply am expressing what I think is the truth about your original point.. If you have logical points, by all means make them and I'll respond as I see fit.
Well the crux of it is that writing software doesn't harm anyone .. yet. Using it might, so that is the actual problem. I reject the term "malicious software", it's just bytes, a number in a base 256 essentially - though it may be used with malicious intent.
So far your responses have been less rational and more aggressive.. 'troll', etc.
Yes well so have yours, dismissing everything with arguments that are only tangentially related to my point.
There have been virus's created in the past that were specifically meant to destroy hardware. This does property harm just as much as a vandal destroying/defacing property burning a house down. Its has a direct financial impact on someone.
Most viruses cost money to fix and directly impact businesses, even without direct harm to hardware. That is still financial damage to a company.. and courts would see it that way too.
That 'just bytes' DOES do harm. Either physical or financial.. but it is harm never the less.
it's more like promising people cake and then not giving it to them.
I disagree - your analogy fails.
The game developer should track and throw off, permanently, anyone using bots. The other players have paid for that game. By comparison, it would be like selling me cake, then allowing someone else to eat it before handing it to me.
Jail is definitely too harsh, but bot developers should maybe face hefty fines - after all they are disrupting legitimate business activity. If the game developer hasn't taken reasonable precautions to prevent abuse, maybe they should be liable too. Gamers using such bots should simply be banned.
harold aptroot wrote:
they usually aren't causing much actual damage
They could be - if a game gets to a point where new players are put off buying the game, they are disrupting a legitimate business.