Cheating apology videos VIDEO GAME TOPIC BOOMZILLA KEEP OUT SECRET FORT!
-
No, you're still saying nonsense. If I buy the rights to stream a concert over twitch with comments, and then get banned from watching the stream because I made an offensive comment, I'd be pretty unhappy. Banning from chat is acceptable.
-
Or maybe the players shouldn't be dicks and cheat
"We from Ford think your radio is too loud and music taste awful. You're ruining the driving experience for out other customers. Therefore, we'll just come and take your car away. No refund."
-
And then, they not only kick you out from one show, but void your ticket for all the remaining shows. Without paying the difference.
Even that's wrong IMO.
But if you signed up to those rules by buying it, then you broke your end of the agreement, why should they uphold their end of it?
They shouldn't. So they don't need to give you the money back. Don't do something that gets you thrown out.
-
But if you signed up to those rules by buying it, then you broke your end of the agreement, why should they uphold their end of it?They shouldn't. So they don't need to give you the money back. Don't do something that gets you thrown out.
Then it's an amoral predatory agreement and should be prohibited. Like many software license agreements, that are one court case away from being thrown out.
-
How difficult is it to flip a bit in a database, and disable the ability to see any other players or have them see you in any way?
-
You mean other than having to rewrite all the logic in the code in the entire application?
-
In a multiplayer game how is that any different from banning them?
-
Then it's an amoral predatory agreement and should be prohibited. Like many software license agreements, that are one court case away from being thrown out.
Or just don't cheat at a game you agreed not to cheat at when signing up. It's not rocket surgery.
Why should someone be allowed access to something in any flavour when they've broken a rule they agreed to abide by when signing up, knowing that was the penalty?
-
They can play the game. We're talking about an MMO here. All you have to do is make their cheating have no effect on anyone. They still bought the game.
You mean other than having to rewrite all the logic in the code in the entire application?
I'm sure. All logic is equivalent to a bool.
-
"So, now that you gave us your car,
FTFYwe've decided we're not going to sell you that new one. The metro station is that-a-way,we have you over a barrel, because you have to buy a new one from us if you want to get home. Good luck negotiating for a good price now, and have a nice day!"
-
An MMO without being able to see, or interact with, anyone else isn't an MMO because you're missing the multiplayer element.
-
But it's still a game that you paid for. You just lost multiplayer. Cool? You proved you can't play well with others. Why does that mean you should have no access of any kind? You still paid them.
-
Not only that, but you'd have to not be able to see or interact with the environment in a way that would affect other players.
In other words, the only reasonable way to do this, particularly in a game where grabbing limited resources and killing other players is a major component, would be to have separate servers for them.
Which would mean the company is giving tacit approval of cheating.
-
Why does that mean you should have no access of any kind?
Because you agreed to that when you signed up.
-
Or just don't cheat at a game you agreed not to cheat at when signing up. It's not rocket surgery.Why should someone be allowed access to something in any flavour when they've broken a rule they agreed to abide by when signing up?
Because you don't get to negotiate those rules. It's "our way or highway" kind of situation with all these "click to agree" contracts. With a bunch of high paid lawyers on one end, and uneducated busy people on the other.
That's why there are rules to prevent those contracts from having you sign your house away to the game company and other shenanigans.
And those anti-predatory rules should also cover the case where the company disables your product because they don't like how you're using it.
-
would be to have separate servers for them.
Which would mean the company is giving tacit approval of cheating.
Make it local.
-
@powerlord said:
would be to have separate servers for them.
Which would mean the company is giving tacit approval of cheating.
Make it local.
MMO creators don't generally give out the code/binaries for their servers.
-
In other words, the only reasonable way to do this, particularly in a game where grabbing limited resources and killing other players is a major component, would be to have separate servers for them.
Which would mean the company is giving tacit approval of cheating.
They don't have to do that. They can just give you your money back.
If it's just a "few bad apples", then the refunds won't hit their bottom line at all.
And if it does, then there's something wrong with their game if so many people would rather cheat than play fairly. They should rethink their design and incentives.
-
It's a used product at that point. How would that even be prorated?
-
It's a used product at that point. How would that even be prorated?
Hmm.. Determine reasonable length of time to play the game. Divide with the "time played". If played longer than expected, no refund.
Let's say, a month?
-
there's something wrong with their game if so many people would rather cheat than play fairly. They should rethink their design and incentives.
they recently banned a whole shitload of players for cheating. Something like 30,000+.
That certainly sounds to me like something is wrong with their game. ISTM that a security hole big enough to allow such rampant cheating is a) a priority 1 critical bug, and b) failure to fix said bug in a timely fashion is tantamount to tacitly condoning the exploitation of said bug.
-
This Ford dealer kept me waiting for ages and ages, and since my only transportation was my trade-in car (that I technically would have been stealing if I drove it to a McDonalds or whatever), I had no alternative but to sit there and take it.
I guess that's one more reason people say don't even talk about a trade-in until after you've reached a deal on the car.
-
B) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everett
Greylock is probably a harder hike than Everett. (I haven't, admittedly, hiked Everett, but I've done Greylock.)
-
I have some sympathy for the position that "so many people are cheating that you can't survive 30 seconds without cheating, too." Joining them is not the right response, of course, but I can understand the urge to do so.
Oh, I agree, but a better response is to quit and find a game with fewer cheaters.
-
-
@powerlord said:
It's a used product at that point. How would that even be prorated?
Hmm.. Determine reasonable length of time to play the game. Divide with the "time played". If played longer than expected, no refund.
Let's say, a month?
and what about repeat offenders?
-
That's the point. If you sell me a game that I can't play, then give me my fucking money back. Putting all the cheaters into one isolated map or world or whatever would be acceptable too. But this business with just cutting me off and running off with my money is just unacceptable, IMO.
Somebody should sue one of these companies.
During one visit to my local cinema, some youths were rude and obnoxious shortly before the film started. They were promptly escorted outside the premises.
And guess what? They didn't get their money back.
-
During one visit to my local cinema, some youths were rude and obnoxious shortly before the film started. They were promptly escorted outside the premises.
And guess what? They didn't get their money back.
That's interesting. And irrelevant. See above.
and what about repeat offenders?
Nothing. You can refuse to sell game to them again. But if you do, the same rules apply.
-
Then it's an amoral predatory agreement and should be prohibited. Like many software license agreements, that are one court case away from being thrown out.
You call that "amoral"? I think you have somewhat weird notions of morality and I hope you're never let within a mile of a legislative process.
-
You call that "amoral"? I think you have somewhat weird notions of morality and I hope you're never let within a mile of a legislative process.
I won't. They'll never catch me alive.
-
That's interesting. And irrelevant. See above.
Nope. It's only your twisted notions of what legal codes and agreements mean that you try to throw this away as "irrelevant".
-
Nope. It's only your twisted notions of what legal codes and agreements mean that you try to throw this away as "irrelevant".
Go away. You're boring and late, like my girlfriend.
-
a better response is to quit and find a game with fewer cheaters
This penalizes the non-cheating players who have invested money and time in the game.
The only proper response would have been twofold. Daybreak should have booted each cheater as soon as he or she was discovered. I cannot believe that they woke up one morning to discover 30000 cheaters on their system. They must have known for a while that players were cheating. They should have taken action immediately, rather than waiting and banning then en masse.
The second prong of the proper response would have been, as I said previously, for Daybreak to have made fixing the bug that made this cheating possible their top priority. I just reread the OP and was reminded this game still in beta. (Anyone spending lots of money and hundreds of hours on a potentially unstable beta game is Doing It Wrong™, IMHO, but that's a different discussion.) If anything, that should have made fixing the bug faster and easier. Players are (or should be) expecting some instability, so it's ok (IMHO) to push a fix into production more quickly than you would for a fully stable released version. "Sorry guys, this update may break something. If so, file a report and we'll fix it ASAP, but at the moment making the game fair and preventing cheating is more important than some minor gameplay feature not working."
-
Go away. You're boring and late, like my girlfriend.
What. Ran out of irrational and idiotic things to say? My dear, you seem to labour under the illusion that what you think is right is actually what a court will decide. This is very much not the case.
Unless there's actually a court case where a pretty high court (not merely a local one!) decides that cheaters have to be paid back, your opinion that such contractual agreements are invalid is laughable at best.
There's a reason why we need lawyers and a amateurish layman's interpretation of something he misunderstood on the net won't win you much sympathies should you ever land in court yourself.
-
This penalizes the non-cheating players who have invested money and time in the game.
How are non-cheaters hurt by cheaters leaving?
I'm biased against cheaters and griefers in general ever since UO, where there were entire guilds whose explicit goal was "we're trying to get you to quit".
I agree with the rest of your post.
-
Why would you transact on the trade in at a different time than the new car?
Well I guess I'm just Mr. McStupid Dummy Dum Dum. Better point and laugh at me.
Sorry for sharing my experiences.
-
What. Ran out of irrational and idiotic things to say? My dear, you seem to labour under the illusion that what you think is right is actually what a court will decide. This is very much not the case.
Unless there's actually a court case where a pretty high court (not merely a local one!) decides that cheaters have to be paid back, your opinion that such contractual agreements are invalid is laughable at best.
There's a reason why we need lawyers and a amateurish layman's interpretation of something he misunderstood on the net won't win you much sympathies should you ever land in court yourself.
And you, dear sir, is a poopy head. And until an appropriately high court decides differently, your insistence otherwise is laughable at best.
-
And you, dear sir, is a poopy head. And until an appropriately high court decides otherwise, your insistence otherwise is laughable at best.
Since you seem hungup on the issue of "you paid in advance for a non-one-off event!", here's another highly relevant example:
Over here we have this thing called soccer games. Some people pay for a whole year's ticket in advance (several 100 Euros). A subset of those people are hooligans and proceed to get a life-time ban from the stadium right at the start of the season.
Well, do you think they got their money back? Nope.
And be a bit more original, okay? Because you're not exactly making a case for you not being braindead.
-
How are non-cheaters hurt by cheaters leaving?
We seem to be having a failure to communicate. You wrote
@FrostCat said:a better response is to quit and find a game with fewer cheaters
I understand that to mean the non-cheaters should leave — essentially, rage-quitting. That's what's not fair to the non-cheaters.If the cheaters are the ones leaving, voluntarily or otherwise, there is no issue of fairness. If they are leaving involuntarily, it arguably might not be fair to them, but cheaters don't deserve fairness. (However, there should be a process to appeal the ban and defend themselves against the accusation, if they were incorrectly identified as being a cheater.)
-
Since you seem hungup on the issue of "you paid in advance for a non-one-off event!", here's another highly relevant example:
Over here we have this thing called soccer games. Some people pay for a whole year's ticket in advance (several 100 Euros). A subset of those people are hooligans and proceed to get a life-time ban from the stadium right at the start of the season.
Well, do you think they got their money back? Nope.
They should. It's bullshit they don't. Probably has to do with bullshit anti-hooligan laws.
-
They should. It's bullshit they don't. Probably has to do with bullshit anti-hooligan laws.
And this right here proves that you're a moron. Oh well.
-
I understand that to mean the non-cheaters should leave — essentially, rage-quitting. That's what's not fair to the non-cheaters.
Oh. Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I read your post, because I didn't go back and re-read mine.
Sure, it's unfair to the non-cheaters. My attitude, having been in a system that almost encouraged rampant griefing, which I will, for the purpose of this conversation, put in the same bucket, is that I'd rather take my money elsewhere, though, even if I liked the game. (And also, hopefully, enough non-cheaters will leave to let the dev/publisher know they should stop putting up with it.)
-
And this right here proves that you're a moron. Oh well.
Nothing is proven until an appropriately high court determines so and the Queen signs the judgment, as is her duty according to the Commonwealth law. You should know that.
-
They should. It's bullshit they don't.
It's hard to imagine that there is any sport stadium, theatre, concert venue, or the like, anywhere in the world that, if you are ejected for being disruptive to the other patrons, will refund your admission price. There may be some somewhere, but they must be a tiny, tiny subset of the entire set of such venues.
-
It's hard to imagine that there is any sport stadium, theatre, concert venue, or the like, anywhere in the world that, if you are ejected for being disruptive to the other patrons, will refund your admission price. There may be some somewhere, but they must be a tiny, tiny subset of the entire set of such venues.
Talking about being banned in advance, after you bought a season ticket. Without refund.
-
It's hard to imagine that there is any sport stadium, theatre, concert venue, or the like, anywhere in the world that, if you are ejected for being disruptive to the other patrons, will refund your admission price. There may be some somewhere, but they must be a tiny, tiny subset of the entire set of such venues.
Give it up. You're talking to a guy who thinks that hooligans are totally nice people who should be rewarded for beating up people and demolishing stadiums.
-
I think the root of the issue here is that you aren't buying a product, and that's why everyone is right (and hence everyone is wrong).
I would view this from the perspective of buying a sports car and driving it at its max speed on the highway till you get banned from driving permanently. You can't return the car just because it's now (to you) a very expensive paperweight. How you chose to use the product is not the vendor's responsibility, if it was, they would have offered you a VERY different product.
The same is true of MMOs. If you choose to use the product in a way that is detrimental to the other players, that's a choice you made. The companies only act on it because failing to act on it hurts their bottom line, but their motives mean little to my play experience, their actions do.
Turning this on it's head. If I can't play Exception Thrower: MMO Edition because everyone else can kill me with exception hacks thrown from 6 solutions and 10,000 lines of code away, I am going to be pretty unhappy about my purchase. This game is bad, I can't derive any meaningful enjoyment from it, but I paid for it and I have exactly as much access as that payment entitles me to. There isn't any way in hell that consumer protection laws can prevent this situation. It is impossible for the law to protect the play experience of a game for those trying to play it properly from those who would impact it negatively.
Really we are talking about who we want to protect, because that's the choice we are making here. We can either protect those who want to hurt other customers and ruin their purchases, or we can protect the customers who don't ruin each others purchases from those that do.
I guess in terms of your statement "I'm fine with you banning people, but you should give them their money back" that's a little more of a grey area, and I'm less one sided on that front. I think I still side with the no refunds side of things though. I don't think it's possible to argue that player actions can't be allowed to ban them from the game without also attempting to argue that player actions can't be allowed to prevent completion of the game, or something similar. Say for example at the start of a game there is a man in a death chamber and you have a meaningless opportunity to save or kill him that has no impact on the game, until right at the end, when there's a locked door before the final boss that he will unlock for you... if you didn't kill him. Otherwise you can't play on. Oh did I forget to mention? It's a hardcore game, you can't play through again, you get one save file hardcoded onto the cartridge (it's now an n64 game) that cannot be deleted because the bits get fused at each checkpoint and you can't backtrack. You can still play the game though, you can run around mechatron labs basement level 4 (the lift explodes just as you exit it) as much as you like. Are we really arguing that this terrible game design should be illegal? because you can't really argue one without the other.
Taking it a step further, is it sufficient just to put all those naughty players in a virtual prison where they can run around a room doing nothing until they serve out their sentence of 365 days logged in (auto logout on 5 minutes of inactivity)? they still have access to the product, they just can't do anything meaningful with it. Can we really differentiate between that and banning someone outright?
They still have access to the login screen. They have every right to use the product they bought exactly as their own, informed choices allow. They can look at the credits, the main menu, change their settings, view the starting cinematic or whatever else. At what level do we judge the cut-off between "reasonable access to the product I purchased" before a refund is required? It would be pretty hard to argue (in the context of law) that putting them all on cheater servers is any different than any of these other limits, it's just a matter of degree.
-
let the dev/publisher know they should stop putting up with it.
It looks like Daybreak got the message, though more than a little late, IMO.
-
Well I guess I'm just Mr. McStupid Dummy Dum Dum. Better point and laugh at me.
A lot of people don't know that you shouldn't make a deal on a trade-in until after you've reached an agreement on the car you're buying. Your example isn't the usual reason, though: it's because the dealer can screw an un-knowledgeable customer by price-manipulation: "Sure, we'll give you $5000 for your '86 Gremlin! We just won't tell you that we'll make it up by giving you a higher interest rate on your loan!"
-
Talking about being banned in advance, after you bought a season ticket. Without refund.
I don't have a problem with that. The kind of person who earns a single-instance ban would probably do it again, like my sister, who, along with a bunch of other kids in her junior high class, would regularly go to movies and more or less deliberately get thrown out halfway through, en masse. I can't imagine why they would do it, because all they did was mill around the theater until the movie ended, and wasted a bunch of money. They could've gotten the same effect by going to a parking lot in the mall, but they could've gone to get a burger first.
