Activision’s faulty anti-cheat software(blog.mikeswanson.com)
blog.mikeswanson.com
Activision’s faulty anti-cheat software
https://blog.mikeswanson.com/post/702753924034297856/activisions-faulty-anti-cheat-software
345 コメント
It usually doesn't take a lot of work for engineers to do some brainstorming around who will be affected and send a direct email letting users know what's up. That would have saved you days of fumbling around and frustration.
I have a growing enthusiasm for companies that consistently care for users, and conversely a callous distain for companies that don't.
I have a growing enthusiasm for companies that consistently care for users, and conversely a callous distain for companies that don't.
I feel as though the list of companies that consistently care for users is shrinking by the day.
In fact, I can't really think of many businesses where I feel appreciated or cared for as a customer, but the few that I can are all small businesses and most of them are local to me.
In fact, I can't really think of many businesses where I feel appreciated or cared for as a customer, but the few that I can are all small businesses and most of them are local to me.
Why would they care, if people still give them money, when they get banned, instead of demanding a refund, they search for workarounds, and even after that, they buy a new games when it's released.
When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit (especially if getting banned in multiplayer prevents you from playing single player missions), things will change.
When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit (especially if getting banned in multiplayer prevents you from playing single player missions), things will change.
> When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit
You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
>You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
Those "lawyers" aren't nearly as clever as they seem to think they are: https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/
Those "lawyers" aren't nearly as clever as they seem to think they are: https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/
This is fundamentally a support and UX problem, not a dev failure. Big production user management and authentication systems can get pretty complicated and trying to figure out every weird edge case when combining them is not low-effort by any measure. "What if someone's username wasn't caught in their profanity filter but gets caught by ours" seems like a pretty rare edge case in a huge pool of big problems to solve. Their shortcoming was not giving their users proper guidance on how to address the inevitable kinks that pop up.
Anecdotally, having worked on identity management systems, and merged a number of them, this hasn’t ever seemed like an edge case for me. It’s pretty high up on the list. I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself.
> I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself.
I wouldn't assume that. Game companies are notorious for pinching pennies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these systems were outsourced completely.
I wouldn't assume that. Game companies are notorious for pinching pennies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these systems were outsourced completely.
You seem to be confusing when two systems don't mutually support certain names due to technical limitations, with what happened here.
It's not a bug that a filter caught names that the merged companies now collectively do not allow in their collectively owned games.
-
The only miss here is more of a UX issue: they handled username bans the same way they handled all bans, with a shadowban.
Shadowbans are great for most infractions since you burn some time of the offender before they start again and give them little information to find loopholes with... but for something rectifiable there should be a way to nudge and explain why they're banned.
It's not a bug that a filter caught names that the merged companies now collectively do not allow in their collectively owned games.
-
The only miss here is more of a UX issue: they handled username bans the same way they handled all bans, with a shadowban.
Shadowbans are great for most infractions since you burn some time of the offender before they start again and give them little information to find loopholes with... but for something rectifiable there should be a way to nudge and explain why they're banned.
I think it's really easy to say that without knowing anything about what they actually did.
I don’t think it’s solely a dev responsibility, but having worked in a UX role on a project that merged two systems with user accounts and millions of users, we (UX, dev, product) spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios exactly like this.
You’re right, this was a support failure, but it was also a failure of the team(s) that performed the merge.
You’re right, this was a support failure, but it was also a failure of the team(s) that performed the merge.
And who knows how many other scenarios they considered? The reason it's a lot of work to ferret these situations out is because there are a ton of things that can go wrong. Who knows how many other situations were considered? For this to be a development failure, we'd need to see a pattern. One instance doesn't make a pattern.
1. How would you know about the users that were missed? Just because they haven't complained, it doesn't mean that everything was alright.
2. Why do you think that B/A haven't spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios like this?
2. Why do you think that B/A haven't spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios like this?
The correct answer is a notification in the game every time you try to play. Not an email saying you’re secretly banned.
That is insane. Had similar issues but not really banned... just "error-less" issues coming up that would lead you to believe the problem is something else entirely.
wow, amazing you were able to figure that out... most people would have given up
Sounds very annoying. Conversely, many of activision’s users are minors. In the games you mentioned it’s some what rare to encounter adults, especially as a new player. Perhaps not the best place to advertise ones love of erotica. Personally it bothers me when I walk past my 10 year old nephew and the other players in his squad have names that are sexual, racist or inflammatory; so I report them. If the people that I report have to work hard to realize that they are disrupting a community and making people uncomfortable I am ok with that too. +1 for activision in my books.
How is getting punished without getting to know the reason useful for anyone? How do they learn anything from such an experience?
It sounds like you were the only one who was uncomfortable. Your nephew probably thought it was funny.
[deleted]
Unfortunately we gave up our right to own software when we let companies own the servers. Back in the day you could get banned from a server and go find somewhere else to play. Now you'll get banned for life, and in some cases, even banned from the single player mode. Sorry, no refunds!
There's a reason pirate crews are hailed as heroes...and it's not the free software. Games legitimately work better when they are cracked almost 100% of the time.
There's a reason pirate crews are hailed as heroes...and it's not the free software. Games legitimately work better when they are cracked almost 100% of the time.
Having community hosted servers with their own moderation was just so much better. Sure, the moderation level would vary from server to server, sometimes with immature admins giving out bans for no reasons, but you would ultimately find your way to servers that match you the best. And often, people would become regulars, finding the same players on the same servers, that was the best aspect of online gaming, finding a community.
Games stopping to provide self-hosted servers is also what made LAN parties increasingly difficult. Having to rent game servers, provide decent bandwidth and not being able to run third party tools (for recording scores or set modifiers) made it impossible to use modern games in a 50 people LAN party with a low budget.
Games stopping to provide self-hosted servers is also what made LAN parties increasingly difficult. Having to rent game servers, provide decent bandwidth and not being able to run third party tools (for recording scores or set modifiers) made it impossible to use modern games in a 50 people LAN party with a low budget.
Regarding the "ownership" of servers:
I really can't blame them entirely. Perhaps you could blame companies for not using a hybrid model where players can host privately plus maintaining their public servers.
Why? Because in a similar vein to how social media needs to be moderated to prevent the bad apples from spoiling the bunch, games now need to be moderated to maintain reputation among the community. If a player hearing about CSGO for the first time has no idea what they're getting into finds only a public server running 24/7 CS_OFFICE with Warcraft Mods they might get a bad impression of what the game is. Having consistency in user experience is highly important, and public servers being maintained and moderated by the developer is probably the most important part of that. What about all those servers that have massive latency issues? That's a bad look on the game because most players won't recognize community run servers are the reason the game behaves buggy.
Do I dislike it? Yes. I think it has created irreparable harm to the ability for gaming communities to build organically but so long as central hubs like Reddit or Discord continue to pop up I figure they've just offloaded the community aspect to external sources. Is that better? I'm not sure. Partially yes. Losing contact with a friend because they stopped logging into your preferred server isn't really a thing if you're Discord friends or Steam friends.
I really can't blame them entirely. Perhaps you could blame companies for not using a hybrid model where players can host privately plus maintaining their public servers.
Why? Because in a similar vein to how social media needs to be moderated to prevent the bad apples from spoiling the bunch, games now need to be moderated to maintain reputation among the community. If a player hearing about CSGO for the first time has no idea what they're getting into finds only a public server running 24/7 CS_OFFICE with Warcraft Mods they might get a bad impression of what the game is. Having consistency in user experience is highly important, and public servers being maintained and moderated by the developer is probably the most important part of that. What about all those servers that have massive latency issues? That's a bad look on the game because most players won't recognize community run servers are the reason the game behaves buggy.
Do I dislike it? Yes. I think it has created irreparable harm to the ability for gaming communities to build organically but so long as central hubs like Reddit or Discord continue to pop up I figure they've just offloaded the community aspect to external sources. Is that better? I'm not sure. Partially yes. Losing contact with a friend because they stopped logging into your preferred server isn't really a thing if you're Discord friends or Steam friends.
Your csgo example is weird
Because they allow it
And it was great part of their cs 1.6 succesa
I bet devs are scares that too many people would play private servers
Because they allow it
And it was great part of their cs 1.6 succesa
I bet devs are scares that too many people would play private servers
As long as there's a clear UI separation, there's no harm in providing both first and third party servers for brand perception & user experience. A similar issue is content provenance. In StarCraft II, for example, official maps and custom maps live in separate tabs. No one expects a Dragon Ball-themed map to be made with the same standard as an official Blizzard map.
I suspect it's simply to control monetization and without the extra engineering cost of private server releases.
I suspect it's simply to control monetization and without the extra engineering cost of private server releases.
It's pretty ridiculous for companies ban the alleged cheaters in single player modes too which shouldn't require any server dependencies.
And, tbh, wtf does it matter if I wanted to "cheat" in single player mode? Oh no - it would be unfair to some AI NPCs? At one point "cheating" in single player mode was called modding -- and it drove communities and made software publishers money by keeping games fresher longer.
I agree. What I find unfortunate is that most single player games are now designed to be incredibly grindy: the developers want player retention so there’s more buzz about the game, resulting in more purchases.
I’m in my mid thirties, and I have career ambitions and hobbies and relationships that I want to nurture. While I would love something I can play and enjoy for 15-30 minutes every other day, I don’t have time for something that takes 5+ hours just to feel the slightest amount of reward. Cheats can take a game that’s designed to be grindy and addictive and instead make it something that can be enjoyed in smaller chunks.
An excellent example of this is Breath of the Wild. BotW requires a ton of slow terrain traversal (at least until you’ve unlocked more fast travel points, and even then the walking/gliding takes quite a while). Playing the game with a mod to enable 5x movement speed makes it a game that I can actually enjoy playing for 15 minutes at a time. Also, it takes something like 45-60 seconds for the game to reload when you die, so temporarily having an invincibility cheat on makes it feasible for me to figure out an enemy’s move set, whereas without I would either have to cheese the enemies or give up on the game entirely: what I’m not going to do is sit down with a hard cap of 15 minutes, die fifteen times, getting a total play time of maybe a minute of actual game play plus 14 minutes or so of loading screen, and then come back the next couple nights to do same thing over again.
A touch of cheats make modern games actually playable to someone who has a busy schedule, but still wants something to decompress with.
I’m in my mid thirties, and I have career ambitions and hobbies and relationships that I want to nurture. While I would love something I can play and enjoy for 15-30 minutes every other day, I don’t have time for something that takes 5+ hours just to feel the slightest amount of reward. Cheats can take a game that’s designed to be grindy and addictive and instead make it something that can be enjoyed in smaller chunks.
An excellent example of this is Breath of the Wild. BotW requires a ton of slow terrain traversal (at least until you’ve unlocked more fast travel points, and even then the walking/gliding takes quite a while). Playing the game with a mod to enable 5x movement speed makes it a game that I can actually enjoy playing for 15 minutes at a time. Also, it takes something like 45-60 seconds for the game to reload when you die, so temporarily having an invincibility cheat on makes it feasible for me to figure out an enemy’s move set, whereas without I would either have to cheese the enemies or give up on the game entirely: what I’m not going to do is sit down with a hard cap of 15 minutes, die fifteen times, getting a total play time of maybe a minute of actual game play plus 14 minutes or so of loading screen, and then come back the next couple nights to do same thing over again.
A touch of cheats make modern games actually playable to someone who has a busy schedule, but still wants something to decompress with.
I vehemently disagree - single player games are generally far less grindy than they used to be (with significant exceptions such as Genshin Impact). Basically all single player games now have a story and a rather linear path through it, and tend to carefully design their progression such that completing that main story itself is enough to be able to take on the next steps in it, with at most a small amount of side-content. Even difficulty and saving options are usually tuned such that it is very rarely necessary to re-do the same content, you will almost always be able to finish it in the first try, or 2-3 at most.
A good example is in comparing the newer Final Fantasy games with the older ones. In the older ones, it was 100% required to occasionally run around the map and just fight random encounters to level up and be able to face the next bit of the story. The newer ones eschew this completely, and some don't even have random encounters for most of the time. Save points were also placed such that you would often have to redo an entire gauntlet of fights if you failed once, which is a thing of the past as well.
Also, your example of BotW is not an example of what is normally called grinding. The exploration, the terrain traversal, is, to most people I've seen praise it, the core appeal of BotW, not some repetitive grind the games makes you go through to enjoy the good bits.
On the other hand, I'm not trying to say "you're playing the game wrong". I fully agree that we all have a right to "cheat" in single-player (or LAN) games to make them fit our preferences, regardless of the designer's intentions or the preferences of other gamers.
A good example is in comparing the newer Final Fantasy games with the older ones. In the older ones, it was 100% required to occasionally run around the map and just fight random encounters to level up and be able to face the next bit of the story. The newer ones eschew this completely, and some don't even have random encounters for most of the time. Save points were also placed such that you would often have to redo an entire gauntlet of fights if you failed once, which is a thing of the past as well.
Also, your example of BotW is not an example of what is normally called grinding. The exploration, the terrain traversal, is, to most people I've seen praise it, the core appeal of BotW, not some repetitive grind the games makes you go through to enjoy the good bits.
On the other hand, I'm not trying to say "you're playing the game wrong". I fully agree that we all have a right to "cheat" in single-player (or LAN) games to make them fit our preferences, regardless of the designer's intentions or the preferences of other gamers.
Yeah. And it becomes silly the other way around as well. Take the WadjetEye adventures. People complain that the games are just 4 - 8 hours long. But on the flip side, it's 4 - 8 hours filled with charm, content and gameplay. It doesn't contain 30 minute dry stretches every once in a while. And for 10 - 20 euros, it's entirely fairly priced.
And the games tend to be structured by acts, so it's easy to play it for half an hour to an hour until an act is completed. Then it can sit for a day or two and then you continue through the next act.
Many roguelikes feel like they have a similar time structure in mind. Sigil of the Magi, Slay the Spire, Peglin and such have an hour run time generally and that's it. Game sizes like Witcher 3 have grown kind of disheartening to me, as much as I want to like it.
And the games tend to be structured by acts, so it's easy to play it for half an hour to an hour until an act is completed. Then it can sit for a day or two and then you continue through the next act.
Many roguelikes feel like they have a similar time structure in mind. Sigil of the Magi, Slay the Spire, Peglin and such have an hour run time generally and that's it. Game sizes like Witcher 3 have grown kind of disheartening to me, as much as I want to like it.
Breath of the Wild has probably in part been designed the way it was because Nintendo knew you could take your switch with you during travel; 15mn seems like a difficult goal to achieve for an exploration-focused game.
That said, I agree that anyone should be able to modify a local (that is, local coop/multiplayer or singleplayer) game's behavior to suit their needs.
That said, I agree that anyone should be able to modify a local (that is, local coop/multiplayer or singleplayer) game's behavior to suit their needs.
Some metric on the steam marketplace used to put games on the front page include concurrent users and hours played. I've seen people actively coordinating their customer base to boost concurrent users. It's madness that games are falling in the advertisement trap and even indie need to play the ball to survive
I was with you and imagining you were talking about Ubisoft-style games (the last of which I played in 2014, but apparently they've been reskinning the same game since!). But Breath of the Wild's appeal to me is precisely the exploration! Why would you want to skip that x)
You can save anywhere, so you can make sessions as short as you'd like anyway. There aren't even classic Zelda dungeons anymore! Just 5-10min challenges in the form of a shrine.
You can save anywhere, so you can make sessions as short as you'd like anyway. There aren't even classic Zelda dungeons anymore! Just 5-10min challenges in the form of a shrine.
Claiming that you can’t get to places quickly in breath of the wild before you’ve unlocked the warp towers implies to me you’re complaining that you can’t zip through new areas that you’ve never even explored before.
In a world where content is locked behind actual repetitive grinds of the same content for numbers to go up, this strikes me as a preposterous example.
I also can’t think of any game that asks for 5+ hours for any payoff for anything tbh.
In a world where content is locked behind actual repetitive grinds of the same content for numbers to go up, this strikes me as a preposterous example.
I also can’t think of any game that asks for 5+ hours for any payoff for anything tbh.
> I also can’t think of any game that asks for 5+ hours for any payoff for anything tbh.
MMOs are usually an example of this, where there is rarely any true fun to be had in the opening hours (where either gameplay is extremely slow, many people are zipping through power-levelling, etc.). They're hardly an example of a modern game though.
MMOs are usually an example of this, where there is rarely any true fun to be had in the opening hours (where either gameplay is extremely slow, many people are zipping through power-levelling, etc.). They're hardly an example of a modern game though.
Yes sorry. I meant modern popular games.
Then you wouldn't buy the horse armor. [1] That's most probably why.
Some companies sell XP boosters and other P2W crap for even SP games nowadays.
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/horse-armor
Some companies sell XP boosters and other P2W crap for even SP games nowadays.
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/horse-armor
I assume they don’t want you to breeze through the content or be able to add/modify content without paying them.
After all, who would want to allow a customer to enjoy a product that they paid good money for in the way they see fit.
Yeah, I know why I don't buy anything from some of the major publishers anymore.
Yeah, I know why I don't buy anything from some of the major publishers anymore.
In the USA at least this could be a felony DMCA violation.
Achievements and leaderboards could be an issue.
Blizzard's PC games, since Diablo III, all require an online connection to play even single player specifically to prevent privacy.
Well, the argument with Diablo 3 was that the game had an in-game auction house on launch, where you could sell in-game items for real money. So the game had to be fully online to make sure items are only generated when really earned. Of course the auction house disappeared and the requirement to always be online didn't(having said that, the console versions of diablo 3 don't require being online - but from what I understand significant portion of the game was rewritten to allow the game to work online, on consoles, and with a gamepad)
> Unfortunately we gave up our right to own software when we let companies own the servers.
Some games managed to balance this quite well despite no self-hosted servers, for example BF4 which allows community managed "rented" servers.
But one thing to note though is that nearly all of them will very quickly adopt global blacklists with cheaters. So for a community BF server you'd hook your server to a global anti cheat database, and any bans from the server would end up on the global cheater blacklist. While the choice of using a global blacklist was of course up to the administrators, it wouldn't be very easy to find a server that didn't use this type of system if you happened to be blacklisted. So the community will invent exactly the same kind global bans that the game studio has. I never saw a problem with that (likely because I wasn't a false positive).
Some games managed to balance this quite well despite no self-hosted servers, for example BF4 which allows community managed "rented" servers.
But one thing to note though is that nearly all of them will very quickly adopt global blacklists with cheaters. So for a community BF server you'd hook your server to a global anti cheat database, and any bans from the server would end up on the global cheater blacklist. While the choice of using a global blacklist was of course up to the administrators, it wouldn't be very easy to find a server that didn't use this type of system if you happened to be blacklisted. So the community will invent exactly the same kind global bans that the game studio has. I never saw a problem with that (likely because I wasn't a false positive).
> Now you'll get banned for life
Generally speaking, if you are a suspected cheater, I can see why you would be barred from online-play.
There's always going to be false-positives though. How often that happens and what means of recourse one has (or should have) is IMO another discussion. And in this particular case, it seems Activision is doing pretty much all the wrong things(tm) though.
> even banned from the single player mode.
The fact that an account (and a server) is required to play a game you've bought in single-player mode is on another level outragious.
That itself should be illegal.
> Sorry, no refunds!
Again. Clearly this needs to be illegal.
If you take away a product you've allowed someone to "buy", then you've broken your end of the bargain.
Generally speaking, if you are a suspected cheater, I can see why you would be barred from online-play.
There's always going to be false-positives though. How often that happens and what means of recourse one has (or should have) is IMO another discussion. And in this particular case, it seems Activision is doing pretty much all the wrong things(tm) though.
> even banned from the single player mode.
The fact that an account (and a server) is required to play a game you've bought in single-player mode is on another level outragious.
That itself should be illegal.
> Sorry, no refunds!
Again. Clearly this needs to be illegal.
If you take away a product you've allowed someone to "buy", then you've broken your end of the bargain.
> If you take away a product you've allowed someone to "buy", then you've broken your end of the bargain.
Obviously doing it for no valid reason is a breach of contract, but I'm sure the legalese is pretty thick. No one "buys" anything obviously and the license agreement will clearly say you forfeit your license if you cheat. And here I'm pretty sure the legalese would say "Whether or not you actually cheated is up to us to decide so we define it as when our tools say you did".
So basically: you have a license, and that license is valid until their tools say it isn't.
Now, will such a license agreement hold up if tested legally? Maybe not. But it's likely what I clicked "Accept" on.
Obviously doing it for no valid reason is a breach of contract, but I'm sure the legalese is pretty thick. No one "buys" anything obviously and the license agreement will clearly say you forfeit your license if you cheat. And here I'm pretty sure the legalese would say "Whether or not you actually cheated is up to us to decide so we define it as when our tools say you did".
So basically: you have a license, and that license is valid until their tools say it isn't.
Now, will such a license agreement hold up if tested legally? Maybe not. But it's likely what I clicked "Accept" on.
Lol we were lucky we had the ability to host our own servers back in the day. The IP owners have always had to full right and power to do whatever they want to extract as much profit as possible. We have never had any power over what they do.
Keep in mind that there wasn't flexible infrastructure on demand in those days. User run servers was sort of a low cost market based demand scaler for IP owners. If the game is really a dud, they didn't buy N servers and M bandwidth. If it's a hit, they can add an official hosted distinction if it makes sense.
How would we have "not let them"?
Stop buying the games. It's really that simple. I can't understand the people who say "well, I'll try this game out but I hope they fix it next time". That's not how business works.
Like we just stopped buying toys with lead paint? Or just stopped buying cars that voided warranty if you used an independent mechanic? Or just stopped patronizing businesses that have a willfully unsafe working environment?
There's a tested solution to these issues, and it's not "act as isolated consumers".
There's a tested solution to these issues, and it's not "act as isolated consumers".
Or like we stopped buying huge phones to encourage the manufacturers to produce smaller models, right. Voting with your wallet doesn't work when everything on the market is equally bad.
I lament this as well. I wish I could get something shaped like an iPhone 4 again.
While I was initially excited about the release of the iPhone mini, I ended up not buying one because I had bad experiences in the past using apps that were clearly never tested on the smaller screen sizes, and I couldn't trust that it wouldn't happen again.
While I was initially excited about the release of the iPhone mini, I ended up not buying one because I had bad experiences in the past using apps that were clearly never tested on the smaller screen sizes, and I couldn't trust that it wouldn't happen again.
Add to that the fact that I can't stand iOS. I currently use a Pixel 4a because that was literally the smallest Android phone money could buy at the time, and one that still had a headphone jack.
Toys with lead paint is a sad example since we did ban lead paint in toys, then Mattel was caught selling Chinese toys with lead paint and then a law was passed to requiring 3rd party inspections to prevent lead paint which created a burden for small toy sellers. And then Mattel was made exempt from having to test (could use their own in house testing) even though they were the whole reason the law was created.
Yes let's form another government bureau to make sure that VIDEO GAMES are LESS BUGGY lol. Or, you can just do without your bing bing wahoo.
Or to ensure that consumers get at least a refund when denied the goods they paid for. Or you can insist on the most uncharitable interpretation of my comment, sure.
It’s true people should just stop. I like the idea that people who like content will stick with it as it gets worse and worse, but once they go over the cliff of being done with it, they never come back. It takes time though.
Only a handful of games in the history of gaming have had open source / openly available multiplayer servers. Nobody is playing multiplayer games if users vote with their wallets like you want them to.
And the reason for this is because multiplayer games are hard to maintain and without a profit motive it becomes long-term unviable.
I used to play a lot of a game called BZFlag, which was fully open-source etc, but it always struggled to keep up with any amount of advancement in the gaming world because it was entirely built by volunteers with limited time on their hands.
And the reason for this is because multiplayer games are hard to maintain and without a profit motive it becomes long-term unviable.
I used to play a lot of a game called BZFlag, which was fully open-source etc, but it always struggled to keep up with any amount of advancement in the gaming world because it was entirely built by volunteers with limited time on their hands.
Well, for some time, the biggest titles in the industry had openly available multiplayer servers (Quake, UT, basically everything on QuakeSpy/GameSpy). I ran a Quake 3 server on my VPS for years on end (I forgot it was even running at one point) for a grand total of $15/year. Effectively zero maintenance and it was set up during a single afternoon of config. Friends and I played on it and it just.. worked...
Eventually "players actually getting to do what they want with the software they paid for" somehow became a thing of the past, though I don't really know why. I mean, I can think of reasons, but most of those reasons suck.
Eventually "players actually getting to do what they want with the software they paid for" somehow became a thing of the past, though I don't really know why. I mean, I can think of reasons, but most of those reasons suck.
> Eventually "players actually getting to do what they want with the software they paid for" somehow became a thing of the past, though I don't really know why.
- Making servers that are somewhat resilient to getting hacked is difficult enough if you control the servers and the code and no one can see it, but publicly available server binaries? There are more than enough eyeballs from cheaters, griefers and other abusers to discover exploits.
- If you offer server binaries to people and people get hacked by cheaters, griefers and other abusers as a result, they may hold you liable for damages
- Giving away server binaries also means giving away leverage and income. With UT99-2003-2004-3, everyone can simply set up servers and you as a publisher have no way of forcing people to pay up (or to take down central servers so that people are forced to buy the successor game).
- Giving away servers also means you give away a significant amount of brand control. Parents won't care that pedophiles or Nazis can target their children because some random server admin doesn't give a shit about moderating, they will associate it with your brand.
- In a related vein, modding is also in the crossfire. Just remember the GTA San Andreas Hot Coffee mod and the parental outrage over a decade ago - and today the influence of "concerned parents" groups has gotten even worse, not to mention legitimate concerns about people distributing pedophile or hate mods. As a publisher you can't really afford people replacing e.g. every opponent with the image of Black people.
In the end, most of the reasons boil down to people (and, at least for pedophilia and pornographic content, also governments) expecting game publishers to pick up the slack of educating people that it's not OK to distribute or spread such content, or that it's not OK to DDoS server admins because they decided to ban players for spreading hate content.
- Making servers that are somewhat resilient to getting hacked is difficult enough if you control the servers and the code and no one can see it, but publicly available server binaries? There are more than enough eyeballs from cheaters, griefers and other abusers to discover exploits.
- If you offer server binaries to people and people get hacked by cheaters, griefers and other abusers as a result, they may hold you liable for damages
- Giving away server binaries also means giving away leverage and income. With UT99-2003-2004-3, everyone can simply set up servers and you as a publisher have no way of forcing people to pay up (or to take down central servers so that people are forced to buy the successor game).
- Giving away servers also means you give away a significant amount of brand control. Parents won't care that pedophiles or Nazis can target their children because some random server admin doesn't give a shit about moderating, they will associate it with your brand.
- In a related vein, modding is also in the crossfire. Just remember the GTA San Andreas Hot Coffee mod and the parental outrage over a decade ago - and today the influence of "concerned parents" groups has gotten even worse, not to mention legitimate concerns about people distributing pedophile or hate mods. As a publisher you can't really afford people replacing e.g. every opponent with the image of Black people.
In the end, most of the reasons boil down to people (and, at least for pedophilia and pornographic content, also governments) expecting game publishers to pick up the slack of educating people that it's not OK to distribute or spread such content, or that it's not OK to DDoS server admins because they decided to ban players for spreading hate content.
This is all a canard because things like Roblox are a far more efficient means of connecting children to both undue sexual and economic exploitation than any of the old, distributed server methods.
All of those old games were rated for teenagers or adults. Some of the worst actual threats to young children come from things like Roblox that give parents a false sense that the company is moderating the content effectively.
Unfortunately, most of the industry has chosen to support two bad models: either pure P2P or the uni-corporate-server-farm model. Neither of them really provide the best experience for consumers. While the distributed dedicated server model does have its own problems, it also has many advantages, including that of outsourcing server management to small businesses and hobbyists rather than absorbing all those costs to the software maintainer.
All of those old games were rated for teenagers or adults. Some of the worst actual threats to young children come from things like Roblox that give parents a false sense that the company is moderating the content effectively.
Unfortunately, most of the industry has chosen to support two bad models: either pure P2P or the uni-corporate-server-farm model. Neither of them really provide the best experience for consumers. While the distributed dedicated server model does have its own problems, it also has many advantages, including that of outsourcing server management to small businesses and hobbyists rather than absorbing all those costs to the software maintainer.
[flagged]
You don't need the server to be open source. You just need to be able to run it yourself without any central server involved.
This has been very much the norm from the nineties up until fairly recently. I spent my childhood and teens playing games over LAN or the Internet with self-hosted servers (Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Half-Life, GTA, Dungeon Siege, Red Alert, Warcraft 2, ...)
This has been very much the norm from the nineties up until fairly recently. I spent my childhood and teens playing games over LAN or the Internet with self-hosted servers (Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Half-Life, GTA, Dungeon Siege, Red Alert, Warcraft 2, ...)
Every game that had a LAN mode could generally be played either via a software VPN, or other methods. More often than not games (especially FPSes) would ship with dedicated server software. You still needed to buy the game, but then you could run the dedicated server on your favorite hosting platform and play.
I think it was the xbox-ification of shooters that changed everything. 2009 or so, if I had to guess. MW2 was the first game that I remember really pushed company owned servers hard. Coincidentally this was also used to sell overpriced, often useless, DLC. At least back then the DLC was maps though.
It might be my age but I find it easier to remember games that DID have dedicated servers, rather than those that don't.
I think it was the xbox-ification of shooters that changed everything. 2009 or so, if I had to guess. MW2 was the first game that I remember really pushed company owned servers hard. Coincidentally this was also used to sell overpriced, often useless, DLC. At least back then the DLC was maps though.
It might be my age but I find it easier to remember games that DID have dedicated servers, rather than those that don't.
As I recall MW2 was the first game that did away with servers entirely, so you were always served P2P by someone’s PC, leading to constant multiplayer issues (unlike MW1, which had dedicated servers)
Minecraft (the best selling game of all time) lets your self-host servers. You can also bypass their user authentication system on your own servers fairly easily, but you generally don't need to.
There are also many hosting companies that let you create and manage Minecraft servers via a web interface and take care of stuff like rotating backups so even the most incompetent users can self-host.
There are also many hosting companies that let you create and manage Minecraft servers via a web interface and take care of stuff like rotating backups so even the most incompetent users can self-host.
> Only a handful of games in the history of gaming have had open source / openly available multiplayer servers.
It was actually the norm in the 90s. Other comments have cited examples but it’s worth noting that consoles supported running local servers too.
What changed was subscription based online services and stupid loot (et al) boxes meant companies could extract a continuous stream of money from gamers without having to put out much, if any, additional content. So everything became online first.
Source: I ran several games servers in the 90s and early 00. (Still do in fact but only for Minecraft these days).
It was actually the norm in the 90s. Other comments have cited examples but it’s worth noting that consoles supported running local servers too.
What changed was subscription based online services and stupid loot (et al) boxes meant companies could extract a continuous stream of money from gamers without having to put out much, if any, additional content. So everything became online first.
Source: I ran several games servers in the 90s and early 00. (Still do in fact but only for Minecraft these days).
Well, the vast majority of multiplayer games were made after the 90s.
That’s an unfairly dismissive comment given we are still talking about thousands of multiplayer games throughout the 90s and early 00s.
In fact I’d go further than that and say: to old timers like me, this practice of locking multiplayer games to the studios servers feels more like a recent trend than what used to be the norm.
In fact I’d go further than that and say: to old timers like me, this practice of locking multiplayer games to the studios servers feels more like a recent trend than what used to be the norm.
Oh man, I remember BZFlag. I loved that game. Even with the poor graphics it was still so much fun because the gameplay was slow paced enough that text chat was possible along the chaos. It felt like competitive battles over IRC. Haven’t experienced anything quite like it since.
[deleted]
This is one of the main reasons Minecraft is still one of the most popular games to this day, after over a decade. Open-source third-party servers and their development contribute to development of new fun plugins, which allows more and more independent server creators to build cool unique servers.
And best of all: you can only get yourself banned from individual servers.
And best of all: you can only get yourself banned from individual servers.
This isn't the case anymore since version 1.19.1 [1], where "reported players can now be banned from online play and Realms after moderator review": https://i.redd.it/hoyh22jsh9791.png
[1]: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-1-19-1-pre...
[1]: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-1-19-1-pre...
Fascinating. I can always rely on Microsoft to ruin what good remains in anything.
[deleted]
> Unfortunately we gave up our right to own software when we let companies own the servers.
People gave up on software ownership when they stopped demanding the source code. The source code is the software, not the binary.
People gave up on software ownership when they stopped demanding the source code. The source code is the software, not the binary.
These bans also block the single player mode?! That is absolutely absurd. False bans for multiplayer aren't anything new (unfortunately), but also blocking the singleplayer mode, making the purchased product 100% unusable seems criminal.
This is what happens if you "buy" Activision/Blizzard software - they're driving the service model to the max and will exploit it as much and as deeply as possible. They're the worst of the worst and anyone familiar with their games will tell you the same.
In the end, there's nothing you can do but to put your money into games that respect you as a customer, which is very rare in AAA. These companies hate you. No one will listen to you and nothing will change, as it's extremely profitable. No one will regulate it. In 3 weeks, a dev there will notice that some updater code can break game files which flags people's accounts or something like that, it'll be quietly patched and everybody will forget about it.
In the end, there's nothing you can do but to put your money into games that respect you as a customer, which is very rare in AAA. These companies hate you. No one will listen to you and nothing will change, as it's extremely profitable. No one will regulate it. In 3 weeks, a dev there will notice that some updater code can break game files which flags people's accounts or something like that, it'll be quietly patched and everybody will forget about it.
its not just Activision/Blizzard. Single player bans are in a lot of AAAs.
> In the end, there's nothing you can do but to put your money into games that respect
Could always pick up a copy of IDA...
> In 3 weeks, a dev there will notice that some updater code can break game files which flags people's accounts or something like that, it'll be quietly patched and everybody will forget about it.
As a side note if you want some fun you should fire up wireshark when you're playing a game and watch how much "metadata" is sent from your PC to the game company. They know more about you than your doctor in some cases. EasyAntiCheat and Denuvo seem to be the worst offenders.
> In the end, there's nothing you can do but to put your money into games that respect
Could always pick up a copy of IDA...
> In 3 weeks, a dev there will notice that some updater code can break game files which flags people's accounts or something like that, it'll be quietly patched and everybody will forget about it.
As a side note if you want some fun you should fire up wireshark when you're playing a game and watch how much "metadata" is sent from your PC to the game company. They know more about you than your doctor in some cases. EasyAntiCheat and Denuvo seem to be the worst offenders.
Re: metadata, this is very true. Unfortunately it's also more common for it to be encrypted these days.
Even more of a reason to bust out the IDA
Even more of a reason to bust out the IDA
This is why my games run in a Windows VM, which touches none of my personal info. The most they know about me is my dark mode preference, monitor size / model, CPU, and GPU. Everything else is abstracted. It can't see any of my storage space. Only the virtual disks I have for booting the VM, and games.
A lot of games anticheat detects and bans if you're in a VM. It seems like it is only for multiplayer though (for now anyway...until they think you might be getting free DLC pants for your single player character).
A lot of them are pretty easy to bypass. EAC is one. Been playing a game with a friend that uses it for the last month or so, and it's been smooth, ever since I must've discovered what they use to check.
What is IDA? The only thing I've found is the International Development Association affiliated with the World Bank, which doesn't seem likely...
It's a disassembler/binary analysis tool, widely used for creating, for example, cracks/executable patches for games and other programs. https://hex-rays.com/ida-pro/
Google is the worst of the worst. At least you can easily choose not to play Activison games. It's much harder to choose not to participate in the Google ecosystem, and actions in one service or account can have deep repercussions to other services and "associated" accounts. Appealing to an actual Google support human being is seemingly impossible
Yeah, but then ActiBlizz has been doing the "online only" thing at least since Starcraft 2 (2010), also removing multiplayer not through Blizzard's servers in the process !
And they recently did the same with the Diablo 2 """remaster""", preventing multiplayer-heavy mods running in the regular online mode from operating !! (They are not allowed on battle.net, partially for anti-cheating reasons of course.)
Meanwhile other games still allow normal connection through IP/server name, provide a matchmaking server for players to organize their games, including modded ones, and provide an *optional* ban list for server owners using the official matchmaker to enforce on the worst offenders that in no way affects the singleplayer or the direct connection multiplayer experience !
And they recently did the same with the Diablo 2 """remaster""", preventing multiplayer-heavy mods running in the regular online mode from operating !! (They are not allowed on battle.net, partially for anti-cheating reasons of course.)
Meanwhile other games still allow normal connection through IP/server name, provide a matchmaking server for players to organize their games, including modded ones, and provide an *optional* ban list for server owners using the official matchmaker to enforce on the worst offenders that in no way affects the singleplayer or the direct connection multiplayer experience !
I've always enjoyed playing and modding D2, so when D2R launched I bought it and again went into modding and what not, all single player. A while after that i got an email saying i had been banned. I tried hopping on a single player game and it worked so i didn't care too much since i don't play online anyways. However, to my surprise, 30 days after the ban when i tried to play i was greeted by a message saying that i had been offline for too long and needed to log back in to "verify ownership" of the game, which i obviously couldnt since i got banned, so i couldn't even play offline/single player.
Luckily i managed to get in touch with an understanding support rep who unbanned me, but not without a "stop modding if you don't wanna get banned again" message, which is absurd. I paid for the game and i should be able to do whatever i want with it within the confines of my own computer.
Luckily i managed to get in touch with an understanding support rep who unbanned me, but not without a "stop modding if you don't wanna get banned again" message, which is absurd. I paid for the game and i should be able to do whatever i want with it within the confines of my own computer.
> I paid for the game and i should be able to do whatever i want with it within the confines of my own computer.
Most of the time you buy a one time license to use the software, which is tied to your account and platform.
Most of the time you buy a one time license to use the software, which is tied to your account and platform.
It's still your platform, though. "License" is not a contract, you paid them not the other way around. What they are doing is probably illegal nevermind immoral.
I.e. it is a form of slavery, which I guess you are paying for? Which is a type of scam. The mgmt who work at these AAA shops belong in the dumpster bin of humanity.
You hand over rights to your platform which you, not they, bought and paid for, and provide them with lucrative information, and are now bound to do whatever they say? Some hot nonsense, if I ever heard it.
I.e. it is a form of slavery, which I guess you are paying for? Which is a type of scam. The mgmt who work at these AAA shops belong in the dumpster bin of humanity.
You hand over rights to your platform which you, not they, bought and paid for, and provide them with lucrative information, and are now bound to do whatever they say? Some hot nonsense, if I ever heard it.
Then why buy the game? It’s not like it’s a new thing for Blizzard/Activision/EA. It’s literally some unholy trifecta that I just do not buy games from any more.
"Then why buy the game?"
While I agree you "shouldn't" buy the game, we shouldn't even be giving legitimacy to these practices at all. We generally try to prosecute snake-oil salesmen, shutdown hucksters, put con-men out of business, etc..
There are unfortunately many reasons why people might buy the game - false advertising, lack of proper research, peer pressure from a poorly informed populous. You may be tempted to say "you should do your research", and while I agree you generally should, its also true its impractical to research everything. The same way I shouldn't have to go into a grocery store and have to worry about if the peanut butter is poisoned with salmonella, a consumer be able to purchase a product, and have the reasonable expectation that they can do what they want with the product within the confines of their own home.
Finding out after you have purchased a game that it is arbitrarily locked down, and that you have little recourse to get your money back, is a form of fraud.
While I agree you "shouldn't" buy the game, we shouldn't even be giving legitimacy to these practices at all. We generally try to prosecute snake-oil salesmen, shutdown hucksters, put con-men out of business, etc..
There are unfortunately many reasons why people might buy the game - false advertising, lack of proper research, peer pressure from a poorly informed populous. You may be tempted to say "you should do your research", and while I agree you generally should, its also true its impractical to research everything. The same way I shouldn't have to go into a grocery store and have to worry about if the peanut butter is poisoned with salmonella, a consumer be able to purchase a product, and have the reasonable expectation that they can do what they want with the product within the confines of their own home.
Finding out after you have purchased a game that it is arbitrarily locked down, and that you have little recourse to get your money back, is a form of fraud.
Yeah, even though I did know, inertia kept me going, still buying both StarCraft 2 (and expansions) and Diablo 3 (and expansions)...
They want to be in control of the mods (for 'security' reasons). So they can sell you extra service on top of it. We're moving towards GaaS (gaming as a service) really quickly and it's disheartening to see.
My XBL 2001 account got permabanned with 10~ years of purchased content on there, all my network of friends and leaderboard achievements and the likes, the works. Lost access to literally everything that wasn't on-disc, and appeals didn't help.
I'd had one genuine temp-ban beforehand, and my theory is over the years I got enough reports from opponents that they just built up into saying t'ra to my account and purchases. Yay, right?
I'd had one genuine temp-ban beforehand, and my theory is over the years I got enough reports from opponents that they just built up into saying t'ra to my account and purchases. Yay, right?
I started the wiki linked in the article (codconsumer.org). Long time HN lurker and was pleasantly surprised to see this here!
I was only banned for a week, but I'm absolutely certain that there was nothing sketchy happening on my side. It's pretty annoying when they're charging money for time-limited events like Battle Passes, then you lose some of that time. Of course, it's a much bigger problem for the many who have been permabanned and don't know why. And it's still happening to others.
I would really like for this to end quietly with some better policies on account reviews, and more transparency on the findings of those reviews. I don't think that's too much to ask after being locked out of a $70 purchase. So far they have been completely silent on the matter. So the wiki stays up and we hope to someday get a word out of them.
I was only banned for a week, but I'm absolutely certain that there was nothing sketchy happening on my side. It's pretty annoying when they're charging money for time-limited events like Battle Passes, then you lose some of that time. Of course, it's a much bigger problem for the many who have been permabanned and don't know why. And it's still happening to others.
I would really like for this to end quietly with some better policies on account reviews, and more transparency on the findings of those reviews. I don't think that's too much to ask after being locked out of a $70 purchase. So far they have been completely silent on the matter. So the wiki stays up and we hope to someday get a word out of them.
if there's a thing called permabanned and they still take the money from the banned person, that should be criminal
Paying a few bucks doesn't give you a free pass to, say, spam racist epithets over and over in chat, or sabotage every multiplayer game you join by running into the enemy team every single match. That said, yeah, "being blocked from a $70 game for no actual discernible reason" should be prevented by some form of consumer rights that can't be waived by agreeing to a EULA.
If I refuse to serve you (eg in a shop when you want to buy a snack) because I think you are foul I don't get to take your money /then/ tell you while putting your money in my pocket. If I decide to withhold part of my service (eg stop mowing your lawn and leave because you are foul) I don't get to keep all the money for completing the job. This stuff isn't hard. Think about what it is in life when there is no "cpu attached to a network" as a necessary part of the transaction. It's the same.
Taking your money for no product delivery, charging you fees for no service is theft even if you are completely foul. Pointing to a "condition of entry" sign at the door of your premises does NOT change the law.
Taking your money for no product delivery, charging you fees for no service is theft even if you are completely foul. Pointing to a "condition of entry" sign at the door of your premises does NOT change the law.
In real life, if you go to a sporting event or a show, and start harassing the other patrons and causing a disruption, you can expect to be kicked out without a refund.
Refunding people who deserve to be banned would only encourage them to create new accounts and continue causing problems.
Refunding people who deserve to be banned would only encourage them to create new accounts and continue causing problems.
On the other hand, if you went to a sporting event or a show and due to some computer error on the organisers' part you were wrongly denied admission - you would expect a refund.
I can't simply start a fake theatre, sell tickets for $100 each, then turn away all ticket holders at the door even if legitimate theatres do have the right to (e.g.) turn away drunk patrons without breathalysing them.
I can't simply start a fake theatre, sell tickets for $100 each, then turn away all ticket holders at the door even if legitimate theatres do have the right to (e.g.) turn away drunk patrons without breathalysing them.
If a venue kicks you out, you'll definitely have neen told what you did wrong. If venues started just escorting people who are doing nothing out and refusing to say why, people would get similarly frustrated.
Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered as a consumer so taking it as the example is problematic, (unless you know someone, right? Just queuing up for tickets is naive beyond my expectations of people around here).
But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? What if they weren't yours? What if they were stolen? What if you know the coach? Can they not like your "offensive beard", take your season tickets and re-sell them? How about your date's utterly vile "Ross Perot was right!" shirt? Can they terms of service you out of the cash for next week? (Wouldn't surprise me on one hand how bad that could be but I somehow doubt it).
Kick them the hell out for being foul by all means, your house, your rules.
"And you take your damn money with you and not come back because I ain't no thief, even from scum like you, you vermin!"
But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? What if they weren't yours? What if they were stolen? What if you know the coach? Can they not like your "offensive beard", take your season tickets and re-sell them? How about your date's utterly vile "Ross Perot was right!" shirt? Can they terms of service you out of the cash for next week? (Wouldn't surprise me on one hand how bad that could be but I somehow doubt it).
Kick them the hell out for being foul by all means, your house, your rules.
"And you take your damn money with you and not come back because I ain't no thief, even from scum like you, you vermin!"
> Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered
That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's a thing that happens, people expect it and the only people who complain about being kicked out are... well being kicked out for being a horrible person.
> But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund?
Absolutely, yes, they do.
On the other hand, they'll probably also tell you _why_ they're doing so. They also won't take your money for _future_ season tickets.
That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's a thing that happens, people expect it and the only people who complain about being kicked out are... well being kicked out for being a horrible person.
> But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund?
Absolutely, yes, they do.
On the other hand, they'll probably also tell you _why_ they're doing so. They also won't take your money for _future_ season tickets.
Your analogy falls flat and is a poor interpretation of the situation of being banned from online games for the reasons I cited.
When you buy a snack, you get a tangible good in exchange for money. The implied agreement is the most basic of exchanging goods for cash.
When you purchase an online multiplayer game, there's an agreement you have explicitly agreed to that you will not, for example, call other players the N-word or sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). These are really quite clearly-defined rules you agreed to. You bought the game knowing full well these are the rules, also knowing you _will potentially permanently lose access to the game_ if you violate those rules.
In my prior example (and the one I just wrote here), there is zero comparison to buying a snack in a store and then the store owner snatching it back and keeping the money.
Like I said, I think there should be consumer rights in place to protect the player against losing access to the game they paid for if they were abiding by the rules. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable expectation.
Edit: A more apt analogy would be that you go into a store, buy a snack, eat some of it and then begin pouring hot sauce on other peoples' snacks and yelling in their faces. You don't get to just happily stick around and keep enjoying your snack while you're completely ruining the snacks of others.
When you buy a snack, you get a tangible good in exchange for money. The implied agreement is the most basic of exchanging goods for cash.
When you purchase an online multiplayer game, there's an agreement you have explicitly agreed to that you will not, for example, call other players the N-word or sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). These are really quite clearly-defined rules you agreed to. You bought the game knowing full well these are the rules, also knowing you _will potentially permanently lose access to the game_ if you violate those rules.
In my prior example (and the one I just wrote here), there is zero comparison to buying a snack in a store and then the store owner snatching it back and keeping the money.
Like I said, I think there should be consumer rights in place to protect the player against losing access to the game they paid for if they were abiding by the rules. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable expectation.
Edit: A more apt analogy would be that you go into a store, buy a snack, eat some of it and then begin pouring hot sauce on other peoples' snacks and yelling in their faces. You don't get to just happily stick around and keep enjoying your snack while you're completely ruining the snacks of others.
Except the rules are _not_ clearly defined.
The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you, and the matching of bad words is not necessarily well tokenised.
You're not always sure what you've said or done, to be removed. And in some cases, they won't tell you what sin you have committed, either.
The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you, and the matching of bad words is not necessarily well tokenised.
You're not always sure what you've said or done, to be removed. And in some cases, they won't tell you what sin you have committed, either.
If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "company going out of business" or "gaming shutting down forever"), this would almost undoubtedly elicit the need for better-defined rules and substantiation of claims when bans occur.
If random bans get more common the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients if not players packing up and leaving for a competitor.
Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes.
In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes.
In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
>the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients
This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook.
>Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes.
I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed.
>In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits.
[0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook.
>Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes.
I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed.
>In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits.
[0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
You're really bending over backwards trying to defend people who get their kicks ruining things for others.
It's just like sticking up for the rule of law and equality before it is sticking up for rapists and murders, right?
"You want E2E encryption? Why are you sticking up for the terrorists and child porn rings?"
Terrible, terrible argument all around.
"You want E2E encryption? Why are you sticking up for the terrorists and child porn rings?"
Terrible, terrible argument all around.
> The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you
is totally different to:
> You're not always sure what you've said or done
Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list.
That said, it's important to tell the person after the fact "you're banned because you harassed / bullied someone" or "you were caught using anti-cheat software." Maybe some date ranges so the person understands what they did and why they won't be reinstated. BUT you don't need to list out the _exact things_ they did because you're just opening up the toddler argument of "why is that so wrong?" which is just bad actors trying to waste your time and "legalese" their way back into the system.
is totally different to:
> You're not always sure what you've said or done
Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list.
That said, it's important to tell the person after the fact "you're banned because you harassed / bullied someone" or "you were caught using anti-cheat software." Maybe some date ranges so the person understands what they did and why they won't be reinstated. BUT you don't need to list out the _exact things_ they did because you're just opening up the toddler argument of "why is that so wrong?" which is just bad actors trying to waste your time and "legalese" their way back into the system.
> you're just opening up the toddler argument
That's not the only thing you are doing. You are also creating an opportunity for false positives to justifiably challenge their bans.
If you are going to keep the user's money, I think you absolutely have to provide recourse for false positives because otherwise what you are doing is simply theft.
That's not the only thing you are doing. You are also creating an opportunity for false positives to justifiably challenge their bans.
If you are going to keep the user's money, I think you absolutely have to provide recourse for false positives because otherwise what you are doing is simply theft.
> Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list.
Tough: you have to stay ahead of the bullies if you want to get money for an online service. It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of, so that they can challenge you if you are in fact wrong. The fact that it makes the job harder is not in any way an excuse.
Now, if you were to return their money (or at least part of it based on how much time they actually played or something), then yes, you would have an argument that you have a right to unilaterally rescind the contract. But you can't keep the money and say "you know what you said".
Tough: you have to stay ahead of the bullies if you want to get money for an online service. It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of, so that they can challenge you if you are in fact wrong. The fact that it makes the job harder is not in any way an excuse.
Now, if you were to return their money (or at least part of it based on how much time they actually played or something), then yes, you would have an argument that you have a right to unilaterally rescind the contract. But you can't keep the money and say "you know what you said".
> Now, if you were to return their money
So they can just re-buy the game under a new account and just carry on as before? Try this: go to a football match, shout racist abuse at a player then demand a refund for your season ticket. I know for a fact you won't get it.
> It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of
> "you know what you said"
Note that what I said wasn't "you know what you said" but "you violated these rules within these date ranges." For example:
* "You were detected using a cheat tool on 13th-15th November"
* "You harassed a player throughout March-August 2022"
* "You were repeatedly abusive in private chat in September 2022"
You're not being accused of murder in the Crown Court, you're being banned from interacting in a video game community. If you want access to the exact information, sue for it.
--- Caveat ---
Should you be banned from playing the game locally / single player? Absolutely not. This I would agree with you on.
So they can just re-buy the game under a new account and just carry on as before? Try this: go to a football match, shout racist abuse at a player then demand a refund for your season ticket. I know for a fact you won't get it.
> It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of
> "you know what you said"
Note that what I said wasn't "you know what you said" but "you violated these rules within these date ranges." For example:
* "You were detected using a cheat tool on 13th-15th November"
* "You harassed a player throughout March-August 2022"
* "You were repeatedly abusive in private chat in September 2022"
You're not being accused of murder in the Crown Court, you're being banned from interacting in a video game community. If you want access to the exact information, sue for it.
--- Caveat ---
Should you be banned from playing the game locally / single player? Absolutely not. This I would agree with you on.
The lack of listing is fine, so long as the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote, doesn't apply.
If the system matches on substrings, then you need to know what to avoid - you can't even self-censor, if everything is ambiguous. You end up with the memes of getting banned from Club Penguin, otherwise.
Except, Club Penguin does as you suggest - it tells you that you used a "rude or inappropriate word". Even if the regex is matching something that it shouldn't.
If the system matches on substrings, then you need to know what to avoid - you can't even self-censor, if everything is ambiguous. You end up with the memes of getting banned from Club Penguin, otherwise.
Except, Club Penguin does as you suggest - it tells you that you used a "rude or inappropriate word". Even if the regex is matching something that it shouldn't.
I do agree that insta-banning for _just_ using a rude word without warning is huge overkill. Giving fair warning (and telling them their account will be banned if they repeat offend) should be the baseline. The fact that it's not, in too many cases, is definitely something to criticise.
When we move to GaaS (gaming as a service) as the norm, it will be more like purchasing multiplayer a ticket to a sporting event. If you misbehave, of course, you can get kicked out.
Fairly soon you'll need to maintain a subscription just to play.
Fairly soon you'll need to maintain a subscription just to play.
Oh yeah, that has literally already happened: Xbox Live Gold and PS Plus!
It's not yet the norm.
When it becomes the norm, it will replace purchasing a game at the store [this has already started to happen for PC]. We will no longer be able to play games except through platforms like Xbox Live or PS Plus.
This will eventually give companies like Microsoft and Sony complete control over their platform's IP. When it happens, we'll never be able to collect these games as part of nostalgia growing up playing these games.
When it becomes the norm, it will replace purchasing a game at the store [this has already started to happen for PC]. We will no longer be able to play games except through platforms like Xbox Live or PS Plus.
This will eventually give companies like Microsoft and Sony complete control over their platform's IP. When it happens, we'll never be able to collect these games as part of nostalgia growing up playing these games.
> sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing).
Wait, you can be banned for being bad at the game?
Wait, you can be banned for being bad at the game?
Usually yes, if it's deemed that you've been doing it maliciously (just like you would be kicked out of a real-life football match if you were the goalie for your team but you were consistently hovering next to the other team's goal trying to score).
Um, being benched by your coach is totally different than being banned by the organization putting the event together. Most sports have some sort of anti-cherry-picking rules. In your football example (I'm using the proper football here), there are offside rules. Hockey has the rule about the crease. NBA has the 5s rule for being in the paint. NFL has illegal formation. Baseball actually encourages getting into wrong positions by allowing stealing, but have other rules to ensure runners finish in proper order rounding the bases.
As many times as I would love to see a ref be able to issue yellow cards for continued blatant offside calls against a player, they cannot be kicked out for breaking said rule.
As many times as I would love to see a ref be able to issue yellow cards for continued blatant offside calls against a player, they cannot be kicked out for breaking said rule.
I'm not talking about a professional team (which would anyway absolutely kick a player out if they were repeatedly griefing their own team - a power which is usually not given to players in online team games).
I am thinking of an amateur tournament - I am quite certain a player who was blatantly acting against their own team would be kicked out by the organizers, even if they weren't explicitly breaking the rules of the game.
I am thinking of an amateur tournament - I am quite certain a player who was blatantly acting against their own team would be kicked out by the organizers, even if they weren't explicitly breaking the rules of the game.
the point is that they are denying access to the single player experience, even if you cheat in single player, that should not matter.
The frustrating thing about this is that it's still extremely common for people to spam the n-word over voice chat, that's been a problem for years, and I haven't noticed any significant progress in reducing their numbers.
Riot Games recently started testing an AI based system for detecting slurs and other abuse in voice chat, we'll see if they announce results
I recently got temporarily-chat-banned (and lost all Honor ranking) in League because the players on my team were sabotaging the game purposely and I swore at them. I didn't use any hate speech or slurs whatsoever, but apparently just swearing at people is enough to warrant such penalty, without even a warning first. Coincidentally I had actually just hit the highest possible tier of "Honor" in the game just days earlier, obviously indicating my swearing at people is not a normal thing. I haven't played since.
Oh, even more frustrating about this is, the game has a swearing filter enabled by default. If those players saw swear words from me, they quite literally specifically opted into that by turning off the swearing filter! Meanwhile they were allowed to sabotage the game for me and ruin my night AND get me chat-banned.
Oh, even more frustrating about this is, the game has a swearing filter enabled by default. If those players saw swear words from me, they quite literally specifically opted into that by turning off the swearing filter! Meanwhile they were allowed to sabotage the game for me and ruin my night AND get me chat-banned.
It's surprising to me to hear that LoL actually does something about chat moderation.
I play DotA, which seemingly does nothing (at at least, very little). I eventually decided to just disable text and voice chat entirely rather than put up with salt in every other game. Toxicity is contagious.
I play DotA, which seemingly does nothing (at at least, very little). I eventually decided to just disable text and voice chat entirely rather than put up with salt in every other game. Toxicity is contagious.
Yay more random bans of people with accents! They deserve it for not speaking correct USA english /s
Not to mention that some languages(Chinese especially) have words which sound exactly like the n-word, so yeah, well done for being banned for not speaking English.
Also, some romance languages use some derivation of the latin word for black (niger), the same root as the English n-word - "negro" in Spanish, "negru" in Romanian, "negre" in Catalan.
It just means dark brown in italian, but it's not very used.
When i was small it was the normal word to refer to black people, but USA has decided that's racist so now it's "persona di colore", even though as a child i've always found it funny because every person is of some colour :D
When i was small it was the normal word to refer to black people, but USA has decided that's racist so now it's "persona di colore", even though as a child i've always found it funny because every person is of some colour :D
Right to trial is a thing, though. The claim that the majority of bans are happening over racist epithets is unfounded, and honestly probably so much hogwash/bunk.
Activision/Blizzard aren't courts of law, but they do represent to some degree a "controller of a market", they are absolutely shirking their responsibility here. Maybe after the SBF fiasco Govts outside China will finally start cracking down hard on all these illict online markets with zero rules.
Activision/Blizzard aren't courts of law, but they do represent to some degree a "controller of a market", they are absolutely shirking their responsibility here. Maybe after the SBF fiasco Govts outside China will finally start cracking down hard on all these illict online markets with zero rules.
Microtransaction games will happily ban players without recourse or explanation after they spend hundreds of dollars. No refunds, they make the rules and regulators don't care
They should have to specify the cause and provide evidence. If, say, you’re a Nazi and spammed threats in chat that’s very easy to demonstrate and very few courts are going to even blink at the idea that it’s a terms of service violation which doesn’t warrant a refund.
Where that’s harder would be things like “our ML system thinks your input timing wasn’t humanly possible” and it’d be great if this forced companies to be more nuanced about how they handle things like that by doing things like requiring multiple independent checks.
Where that’s harder would be things like “our ML system thinks your input timing wasn’t humanly possible” and it’d be great if this forced companies to be more nuanced about how they handle things like that by doing things like requiring multiple independent checks.
If the person was cheating then tough shit. If anything, ruining entire online economies by cheating should be what is criminal. Fuck cheaters.
In this particular case, we're talking about people being banned sometimes before ever even playing their first multiplayer game because of an anti-cheat system with a kernel-level driver and ML-assisted autobans producing a lot of false positives.
But yes, people who are actually using cheats are manipulating/attacking the service they're using and deserve nothing from the companies who are trying to defend against it.
But yes, people who are actually using cheats are manipulating/attacking the service they're using and deserve nothing from the companies who are trying to defend against it.
If they were cheating. Otherwise it's called stealing.
That’s fine if they’re banned from the multiplayer component. Not fine if they ban you from singleplayer.
This is a consumer rights issue across our industry. Algorithmic customer support “decisions” should always be appealable to a human audience.
My Google account was banned years ago, “computer says no” - all of my attempts to appeal failed. I at no point broke their terms. Nobody cares, I lost all of my data.
I hope that a class action prevails against Activision. And I hope that across our industry consumers receive more robust rights. Not being able to reach a human at your company quickly escalates from a being cost optimization, to outright fraud.
My Google account was banned years ago, “computer says no” - all of my attempts to appeal failed. I at no point broke their terms. Nobody cares, I lost all of my data.
I hope that a class action prevails against Activision. And I hope that across our industry consumers receive more robust rights. Not being able to reach a human at your company quickly escalates from a being cost optimization, to outright fraud.
Yeah.. you can do a chargeback or take them to small claims court, but then you'll be blacklisted as a customer for life. There needs to be a better process
He was able to appeal.
Yes, and it was denied, with no explanation, no ability to defend against claims, etc. If there is monetary loss, then a proper appeals process should be put in place. If they refunded the money, then that’s one thing, but they kept the money, and so this is theft.
Their stated policy on appeals is that your ban will only be overturned if it was the result of a compromised account
In this case, it really looks like Activision's Anti-Cheat is broken and banning people unfairly (if we can trust OP, which I have no reason not to).
A related problem though is that game developers have a really hard time trusting anyone who says they've been banned unfairly. Almost everyone who gets banned for valid reasons will claim they did nothing wrong, etc. This is especially true for delayed bans, as the person doesn't even realize that their account got flagged to be banned weeks before the actual ban took place.
Given that problem, when a developer gets reports of users being banned unfairly, it's very easy to ignore them as salty cheaters. Ideally there is a way for them to know exactly what tripped the anti-cheat, but sometimes it's hard as the client has to covertly tell the server to ban itself.
A related problem though is that game developers have a really hard time trusting anyone who says they've been banned unfairly. Almost everyone who gets banned for valid reasons will claim they did nothing wrong, etc. This is especially true for delayed bans, as the person doesn't even realize that their account got flagged to be banned weeks before the actual ban took place.
Given that problem, when a developer gets reports of users being banned unfairly, it's very easy to ignore them as salty cheaters. Ideally there is a way for them to know exactly what tripped the anti-cheat, but sometimes it's hard as the client has to covertly tell the server to ban itself.
The console bans should be investigated cause that’s a strong signal that the software is just wrong.
Not as strong As you might think. The Cronus is a very strong cheating device for consoles, and it’s ubiquitous enough to be sold in some big-box retail stores.
Console anti-cheat wouldn't be able to detect the Cronus since it's just modifying controller inputs to help the user.
It isn't software running on the console, which is what anti-cheat generally protects against.
It isn't software running on the console, which is what anti-cheat generally protects against.
A lot of these Cronus-like devices do more than just translate input these days, many of them will attempt to manage weapon recoil for you (by adding downward and/or side to side input to the virtual aiming stick input at the same rate as the weapon recoil is pushing it up and/or to the sides) or generate other input intermixed with the user's input like adding very subtle circular motion of the aiming stick to try to enhance the benefit of the reticle friction aim assist that exists within the games themselves.
These sorts of generated inputs could in theory be detected using heuristics to watch for inputs that appear too patterned to be fully human. Whether any company is bothering with this, I have no idea. The only one I'm aware of that even appears to attempt to detect these types of devices at all is Epic and I have no idea what methods they use.
These sorts of generated inputs could in theory be detected using heuristics to watch for inputs that appear too patterned to be fully human. Whether any company is bothering with this, I have no idea. The only one I'm aware of that even appears to attempt to detect these types of devices at all is Epic and I have no idea what methods they use.
That's what I mean by "modifying controller inputs". All it can do is change what a controller does. They can't change the video, or affect the game logic in any way.
And it seems like it would be pretty simple to detect this in the game itself; this sort of detection doesn't need any anti-cheat with deep system hooks.
And it seems like it would be pretty simple to detect this in the game itself; this sort of detection doesn't need any anti-cheat with deep system hooks.
> this sort of detection doesn't need any anti-cheat with deep system hooks.
Correct, it wouldn't need any deep system hooks, nor are the console manufacturers likely to ever give game developers the ability to hook into the system that deeply, nor do they really need to since modern consoles are secure enough in practice that wallhack/aimbot type system level code cheats haven't been a concern for a while now on the major console platforms.
There are various bits of anti-cheat logic that game developers could be putting into their console version like the aforementioned analysis of input devices to look for helper devices, and things like looking for likely "lag switch" attacks by keeping track of the ongoing latency of packets coming in and out, but these are all passive heuristic checks that would exist within the game itself, not driver or kernel level anti-cheat as is common on PC.
Correct, it wouldn't need any deep system hooks, nor are the console manufacturers likely to ever give game developers the ability to hook into the system that deeply, nor do they really need to since modern consoles are secure enough in practice that wallhack/aimbot type system level code cheats haven't been a concern for a while now on the major console platforms.
There are various bits of anti-cheat logic that game developers could be putting into their console version like the aforementioned analysis of input devices to look for helper devices, and things like looking for likely "lag switch" attacks by keeping track of the ongoing latency of packets coming in and out, but these are all passive heuristic checks that would exist within the game itself, not driver or kernel level anti-cheat as is common on PC.
Monitoring input is how modern anti-cheats work. They all still implement the spyware approach, but that’s really the lowest hanging fruit.
What? No.
Practically all anti cheat for a long time has primarily worked by monitoring what is running on the computer/device, and ensuring the integrity of the game and its data.
You don’t need anti-cheat with deep system hooks to monitor input. That can be done from the game itself trivially.
Practically all anti cheat for a long time has primarily worked by monitoring what is running on the computer/device, and ensuring the integrity of the game and its data.
You don’t need anti-cheat with deep system hooks to monitor input. That can be done from the game itself trivially.
So how would you expect console anti-cheat to work, given that modern consoles are pretty securely locked down and don't require the rootkit approach?
I would be surprised if they aren't using heuristics on input.
I would be surprised if they aren't using heuristics on input.
Denuvo, one of the primary cross-platform anti-cheat systems, deals with ensuring the integrity of offline progress, obfuscation and encryption to prevent data mining, and emulator prevention. In their own words:
> Protect sensitive game logic to reduce data mining and detect peripherals that give the cheater an unfair gameplay advantage.
https://irdeto.com/denuvo/console-games-protection/
They also have a common list of cheats on the general information page, none of which are really related to Cronus.
> Protect sensitive game logic to reduce data mining and detect peripherals that give the cheater an unfair gameplay advantage.
https://irdeto.com/denuvo/console-games-protection/
They also have a common list of cheats on the general information page, none of which are really related to Cronus.
No they don't.
I don't think it's reasonable to group Cronus in with software based cheats.
Cronus certainly makes many things easier, but it does not give you magic. You still have to be decent at the game for a Cronus to be of any help.
Cronus certainly makes many things easier, but it does not give you magic. You still have to be decent at the game for a Cronus to be of any help.
Cronus gives a strong advantage to the cheater, basically turning recoil off. Sure there are more powerful cheats, but cheating is cheating and if you’re going to ban cheaters then Cronus users should rightfully be included in that.
“This particular cheat only helps people that are already good at the game” is also an ancient trope as far as rationalizing cheating goes, so hope you’re enjoying your Cronus lol.
“This particular cheat only helps people that are already good at the game” is also an ancient trope as far as rationalizing cheating goes, so hope you’re enjoying your Cronus lol.
I don't have a Cronus. Frankly, I don't really need one or care to have one.
Even with a Cronus, you still need to be able to aim and place your shots. It certainly helps you land more shots, but basic tactics easily overcome a Cronus.
Even with a Cronus, you still need to be able to aim and place your shots. It certainly helps you land more shots, but basic tactics easily overcome a Cronus.
Said like someone who uses a Cronus. If cheating at a tournament is defined as using a Cronus, then it's cheating.
I'm really surprised to see these repeated baseless accusations on HN. I can assure you that I've never used or own a Cronus. I have a 0.89 KD in WZ. I'd be much better with a Cronus.
I don't disagree that a Cronus is cheating. I'm simply stating there are different levels of cheating. Since Cronus is hardware it's both hard to detect and limited on its impact. Cronus also don't let you magically wall people or auto-headshot.
Software based cheats are significantly more impactful to the game play. Software cheaters can see you through walls, auto-aim, auto-shoot, auto-move. There's simply no way to counter someone who knows exactly where you are and can hit a perfect shot every time.
Activision should address both, but software cheating is a far larger problem.
I don't disagree that a Cronus is cheating. I'm simply stating there are different levels of cheating. Since Cronus is hardware it's both hard to detect and limited on its impact. Cronus also don't let you magically wall people or auto-headshot.
Software based cheats are significantly more impactful to the game play. Software cheaters can see you through walls, auto-aim, auto-shoot, auto-move. There's simply no way to counter someone who knows exactly where you are and can hit a perfect shot every time.
Activision should address both, but software cheating is a far larger problem.
In this scenario it sounds like Activision is addressing both by treating them both as a group. Not sure why you're trying to draw a distinction for actual Cronus use. If Cronus is cheating, it doesn't matter which cheat is a larger problem or whether there are different levels of cheating, the treatment for cheaters is the same: ban them.
I think it's reasonable for Activision to treat them as a group. I know I'm arm-chairing, but I think it's worth treating them as distinct.
Hardware based cheats, like recoil control, can be countered with in-game mechanics. For example, enforcing a minimum amount of recoil and using an RNG recoil pattern. My understanding is Cronus rely on grossly predictable recoil patterns.
Software cheating extends well beyond recoil control and requires active detection mechanisms.
Hardware based cheats, like recoil control, can be countered with in-game mechanics. For example, enforcing a minimum amount of recoil and using an RNG recoil pattern. My understanding is Cronus rely on grossly predictable recoil patterns.
Software cheating extends well beyond recoil control and requires active detection mechanisms.
Random recoil is less fun, it stops being a skill that rewards mastery and becomes another fudging factor in a skill-based game.
And for what? Because you think Cronus is too hard to detect?
No cheat should be tolerated, let alone compromised with to the point of fudging the game. Should racing games counter Cronus by removing difficult corners that rely on predictable turns? Should games avoid entire categories of mechanics just to work around Cronus? Fuck that, Activision should continue investing in protecting the creative integrity of their product, not conceding. Anti-cheat systems have gotten incredibly sophisticated with incredible gains in cheat detection, and it didn't get there by giving up.
And for what? Because you think Cronus is too hard to detect?
No cheat should be tolerated, let alone compromised with to the point of fudging the game. Should racing games counter Cronus by removing difficult corners that rely on predictable turns? Should games avoid entire categories of mechanics just to work around Cronus? Fuck that, Activision should continue investing in protecting the creative integrity of their product, not conceding. Anti-cheat systems have gotten incredibly sophisticated with incredible gains in cheat detection, and it didn't get there by giving up.
"Should racing games counter Cronus by removing difficult corners that rely on predictable turns?"
Your argument is that games are bad so they should have serious restrictions on them to make them stay bad....
This is nonsense. Games should be, first and foremost, fun. You will build and play better, more interesting games where there are fewer predictable turns (literal or figurative), when there isn't such an unhealthy obsession with protecting terrible mechanics.
For a very few cases where there is e-sport(s) like activity, fine, create your TiVO like experience (in multiplayer, e.g. combat simulators, racing).
"Anti-cheat systems have gotten incredibly sophisticated with incredible gains in cheat detection".
Anti-cheat systems are a large part of why I rarely play any AAA titles - they are slow as all 'F, buggy, and honestly completely trashy games. And if I bought one of these games and was randomly locked out of it, you can bet I would be demanding the blood of the developers be spilled.
Your argument is that games are bad so they should have serious restrictions on them to make them stay bad....
This is nonsense. Games should be, first and foremost, fun. You will build and play better, more interesting games where there are fewer predictable turns (literal or figurative), when there isn't such an unhealthy obsession with protecting terrible mechanics.
For a very few cases where there is e-sport(s) like activity, fine, create your TiVO like experience (in multiplayer, e.g. combat simulators, racing).
"Anti-cheat systems have gotten incredibly sophisticated with incredible gains in cheat detection".
Anti-cheat systems are a large part of why I rarely play any AAA titles - they are slow as all 'F, buggy, and honestly completely trashy games. And if I bought one of these games and was randomly locked out of it, you can bet I would be demanding the blood of the developers be spilled.
The instant I found out that a device like the Cronus existed, it brought me great joy to know someone created it and turned it into a business.
That thing exists to solve a very real problem: the game mechanics the Cronus mediates or exploits are being used by game devs to cover up otherwise-boring gameplay.
That thing exists to solve a very real problem: the game mechanics the Cronus mediates or exploits are being used by game devs to cover up otherwise-boring gameplay.
> I'm really surprised to see these repeated baseless accusations on HN.
I just made the hackusation because it seemed funny to me. Your insistence on further explaining the difference in severity between the different types of cheating just makes it seem even funnier.
I just made the hackusation because it seemed funny to me. Your insistence on further explaining the difference in severity between the different types of cheating just makes it seem even funnier.
This is the sort of pointless salty flame war that would seem better suited to Reddit or Twitter
Banning based on user input seems the worst idea ever. Say hello to false positive. Also, in near future you'll probably have AI player that will beat most human players. If you ban based on that, you'll defacto put a upper bound to human skill you'll accept in the game, so competition will be restricted to not-so-good players.
I'm a stock Xbox Series X console player in DMZ mode. I also sometimes get the random crashes and "DEV ERROR" messages after being removed from the game. I also have been removed from games several times with the "Player kicked" message. I can share my userId with any Activision employee here who's looking into the matter where you can see my K/D ratio is far too poor to be a "cheater".
This has been going on since the release of MW2019. I myself was banned after trying to launch and play the single player campaign on Linux through Wine/Proton. I was unable to even launch the game to play the campaign again on Windows after that, and I no longer use Windows at all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/nfeupc/modern...
I emailed Activision support back and forth more than a dozen times explaining the issue, finally resulting in them saying they were escalating to another team. I sent them another four emails over three months, asking if there was any update, before asking if there was even anybody left alive at the company that my emails were reaching, with no response.
I really enjoyed the MW2019 campaign, but I won't be buying another game from Activision.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/nfeupc/modern...
I emailed Activision support back and forth more than a dozen times explaining the issue, finally resulting in them saying they were escalating to another team. I sent them another four emails over three months, asking if there was any update, before asking if there was even anybody left alive at the company that my emails were reaching, with no response.
I really enjoyed the MW2019 campaign, but I won't be buying another game from Activision.
You should have charge backed for defective/sabotaged goods.
Good timing, I was just today considering playing Diablo III on my Steam Deck (or trying to)... based on your experience, I guess that might be a bad idea to even try.
I know Activision now owns Blizzard, but I don't know the extent to which these policies apply across other games. I know World of Warcraft has an active and thriving Linux user base still. I recommend checking https://appdb.winehq.org and https://protondb.org for reports on game compatibility.
I think the gameplay and architecture of WoW means there isn't a huge market for "competitive advantage" cheats. Macros let you do most of that stuff yourself, and something that would auto-interrupt a particular spell is probably detrimental at high levels of play.
The only "cheats" I ever really saw WoW care about was botting, and that's probably easier to catch server-side than client-side anyways. Why monitor inputs when you can just see who's been fishing for the past 24 hours in a row?
The only "cheats" I ever really saw WoW care about was botting, and that's probably easier to catch server-side than client-side anyways. Why monitor inputs when you can just see who's been fishing for the past 24 hours in a row?
This author sounds like me minus a ban.
I really enjoy Call of Duty. Got extremely good at it in high school, along with my group of friends. Since then, I've had to move away and CoD has kept us connected multiple times per week. It's been a very enjoyable game for well over a decade.
In the past few years, it's become extremely clear to me that something is seriously wrong with CoD - and perhaps Activision as a whole. I'm willing to explain much of it away as "it's hard to run a big game at scale", but some the bugs are just inexcusable. Activision offers little to no insight or recourse when things break.
I have 700 hours in MW2/WZ1. I can't even stand to play the new game. It's just too broken.
I really enjoy Call of Duty. Got extremely good at it in high school, along with my group of friends. Since then, I've had to move away and CoD has kept us connected multiple times per week. It's been a very enjoyable game for well over a decade.
In the past few years, it's become extremely clear to me that something is seriously wrong with CoD - and perhaps Activision as a whole. I'm willing to explain much of it away as "it's hard to run a big game at scale", but some the bugs are just inexcusable. Activision offers little to no insight or recourse when things break.
I have 700 hours in MW2/WZ1. I can't even stand to play the new game. It's just too broken.
IMO, the release of Warzone 1, Call of Duty’s Battle Royale mode that released a few months after Modern Warfare 2019, has completely changed the priorities and incentives for the company. The goal is to sell in game cosmetics more so than the game itself, as many other games are turning to as well.
The yearly release cycle, which may be ending soon, leads to bugs that re-emerge each year and features that appear and disappear. Sure, the different studios which produce the games need some room to innovate, but the inconsistent base set of features is incredibly frustrating. CoD games are one of the games I play the most, with the other being a game which is the complete opposite, Old School RuneScape, that has been built on for ~20 years.
I play the current game MWII with friends a few hours a day most days of the week. Multiple times per session my game crashes at random, something I can’t remember with any other major games with a top of the line PC. Like many other pieces of software, chasing other revenue sources seems to have made the quality of the product take a nose dive, with consequences yet to be seen. This is disappointing to me as someone who enjoys playing the game with friends, who has competed in open-bracket events at major tournaments over a span of a few years, and worked directly with the professional league and teams (CDL and CWL) for analytics and software.
The yearly release cycle, which may be ending soon, leads to bugs that re-emerge each year and features that appear and disappear. Sure, the different studios which produce the games need some room to innovate, but the inconsistent base set of features is incredibly frustrating. CoD games are one of the games I play the most, with the other being a game which is the complete opposite, Old School RuneScape, that has been built on for ~20 years.
I play the current game MWII with friends a few hours a day most days of the week. Multiple times per session my game crashes at random, something I can’t remember with any other major games with a top of the line PC. Like many other pieces of software, chasing other revenue sources seems to have made the quality of the product take a nose dive, with consequences yet to be seen. This is disappointing to me as someone who enjoys playing the game with friends, who has competed in open-bracket events at major tournaments over a span of a few years, and worked directly with the professional league and teams (CDL and CWL) for analytics and software.
> The goal is to sell in game cosmetics more so than the game itself, as many other games are turning to as well.
This has nothing to do with cosmetics and everything to do with customer standards. We're living in an age where the average customer has absolutely zero standards for the products they purchase, they simply do not care if the game barely works and crashes every 10 minutes, they will happily enjoy it and praise it anyway because they probably do not have the intellectual capacity to notice or care.
The newest Pokemon game is a prime example of this, it has no cosmetics, no microtransactions, nothing, yet it's so much more of a technical trainwreck than any CoD game, you really have to play it to believe it. It costs $60 and looks and runs worse than many PS2 games, but it sold tens of millions anyway because the people buying it are effectively zombies that only exist to obey corporations and will happily consume whatever is sold to them no questions asked.
This has nothing to do with cosmetics and everything to do with customer standards. We're living in an age where the average customer has absolutely zero standards for the products they purchase, they simply do not care if the game barely works and crashes every 10 minutes, they will happily enjoy it and praise it anyway because they probably do not have the intellectual capacity to notice or care.
The newest Pokemon game is a prime example of this, it has no cosmetics, no microtransactions, nothing, yet it's so much more of a technical trainwreck than any CoD game, you really have to play it to believe it. It costs $60 and looks and runs worse than many PS2 games, but it sold tens of millions anyway because the people buying it are effectively zombies that only exist to obey corporations and will happily consume whatever is sold to them no questions asked.
What a ridiculous statement to make about people who enjoyed the latest Pokemon games. Yes they perform like ass. Yes they're buggy. But they're still surprisingly fun.
I hated the frame rate issues and various bugs I ran into. I considered requesting a refund (like I did do for similar reasons very quickly after buying Cyberpunk 2077). But before I knew it I was hours into the game. This is actually the first mainline Pokemon game in 15 years that I've played up through the Elite Four on. For me, the fun of the gameplay was enough to outweigh the negatives.
Also, don't forget that even back when games were significantly simpler they were still loaded with issues. The original Pokemon games are a good example here. They had many bugs, some of which were quickly found to be exploitable. To me that's another data point to indicate that issues with the game's coding don't necessarily make the game bad.
I hated the frame rate issues and various bugs I ran into. I considered requesting a refund (like I did do for similar reasons very quickly after buying Cyberpunk 2077). But before I knew it I was hours into the game. This is actually the first mainline Pokemon game in 15 years that I've played up through the Elite Four on. For me, the fun of the gameplay was enough to outweigh the negatives.
Also, don't forget that even back when games were significantly simpler they were still loaded with issues. The original Pokemon games are a good example here. They had many bugs, some of which were quickly found to be exploitable. To me that's another data point to indicate that issues with the game's coding don't necessarily make the game bad.
> We're living in an age where the average customer has absolutely zero standards for the products they purchase, they simply do not care if the game barely works and crashes every 10 min
Elder Scrolls titles have been selling very well for a long time. I don't think this is new.
Elder Scrolls titles have been selling very well for a long time. I don't think this is new.
Is there a name for the phenomenon of people thinking that some behavior of humans is new when it's actually always been that way? I feel like there should be since it's so common to see the word "nowadays" followed by a statement like that.
It's usually called "being young and naive"
Same experience here. I crash/bug-out multiple times per day. Every day I play, the first time I play a map it lags for the first 3-5 minutes, cycling between full speed and 20FPS. I have run into _several_ game breaking bugs in multiplayer, one of which locks me out of playing consistently (detailed in another comment in this thread).
I am big on boycotting and generally have avoided Activision games because of how they have milked things in the past. I'm incredibly frustrated with the state of the game, and disappointed I got talked into buying it by my buddies. Even worse, they just stockholm it saying things like "they just released it, you have to give it time". What? We played Halo 2 and Modern Warfare 2 at launch for a week straight and the only issue I can remember is server instability which was transient. I'm so tired of this public beta workflow, which if you are pushing a game per year you end up getting what, 9 months of _actual_ gameplay, and thats assuming the game doesnt need app-level modifications (vs fixing actual bugs) to smooth out the experience.
I am big on boycotting and generally have avoided Activision games because of how they have milked things in the past. I'm incredibly frustrated with the state of the game, and disappointed I got talked into buying it by my buddies. Even worse, they just stockholm it saying things like "they just released it, you have to give it time". What? We played Halo 2 and Modern Warfare 2 at launch for a week straight and the only issue I can remember is server instability which was transient. I'm so tired of this public beta workflow, which if you are pushing a game per year you end up getting what, 9 months of _actual_ gameplay, and thats assuming the game doesnt need app-level modifications (vs fixing actual bugs) to smooth out the experience.
If you can convince your crew to try something new, there are some great FPS games nowadays. I've enjoyed those, though I haven't been able to put in anywhere near your number of hours.
- Squad
- Escape from Tarkov
- Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
- Squad
- Escape from Tarkov
- Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
Beauty with CoD is that you can turn it on, play for 10 minutes and then move on to other stuff in your life. None of those games (except maybe Rising Storm 2: Vietnam, I'm not familiar with that one) look like you'll be able to do so. CoD is essentially a arcade FPS, while the ones you listed are more on the "realistic" side of things.
Yep, this is what's kept my friends playing it for so long.
Tarkov looks great, but you need to plan. You can't hop on after a long day of work and realize you're too tired to play a good match.
Tarkov looks great, but you need to plan. You can't hop on after a long day of work and realize you're too tired to play a good match.
BTW... sometime ago there were people on Forums convinced they got banned on EFT due to WSL and Virtualbox, as there were hacks using VMs. Worth take a look first.
EFT requires a huge amount of free time, it feels like a day job. I would consider that before putting time on that game. Its nothing like COD.
EFT requires a huge amount of free time, it feels like a day job. I would consider that before putting time on that game. Its nothing like COD.
Never do multiplayer on Linux/WINE or on a VM.
+1 for Tarkov, its what CoD's new DMZ mode is a watered down imitation of.
I highly recommend single player mods/server emulators for EFT like Altered Escape, its a nice break from going up against meta geared super competitive players.
I highly recommend single player mods/server emulators for EFT like Altered Escape, its a nice break from going up against meta geared super competitive players.
Squad is extremelly buggy and badly optimized though. Still my favorite game. Ever.
- Hell let Loose
I remember when gaming "clans" were a thing and clans would play any number of selected games.
It was a neat idea where the clan was the focus and less so the game.
It was a neat idea where the clan was the focus and less so the game.
My old Counter-Strike 'clan' Mousesports became a 'team', then it became an 'organisation'. These kids make a lot of money now and travel the whole world to play in their 'clan'.
That still exists, it's just not as fashionable anymore.
Its not just the bugs though. Its the glaringly obvious "move fast" mentality as a dev. There is no way anyone looked at the warzone 2 ping system and thought "thats good enough, ship it". In all of the dev-run cycles, or the playtesting, or the beta testing you are telling me it wasnt _glaringly_ obvious that the system was broken?
QA can file all the bugs and tickets they want but when management says you can't work on anything that doesn't stop someone from playing the game they won't be fixed. Video game management doesn't care, and why should they? Bethesda games have been hot garbage from a bugs standpoint since the very very beginning and they only get more successful. Even after Fallout 76, I promise you the new elder scrolls will have quests that are impossible to complete for no reason sometimes, will struggle to function after a 100 hours of playtime for unexplained reasons, will have trivial exploits (though I don't think that's a problem) and just be unreliable and bad, but it will make millions of dollars still.
I understand theres a limit to your influence as a dev, but I disagree they are powerless. My point is that they are theoretically closing tickets without fully testing the thing they are actually implementing. They are the ones introducing the bugs in the first place. They are also the first ones to actually use the designed systems (e.g. for the pinging issue). Its much faster to just fix it then.
Nit: mw2 is the new game, you meant mw1 (2019) presumably.
Similarly for me cod has kept me connected with friends and family across the world as we travelled and went our own ways. But all of us have actually moved onto mw2 by now and are enjoying it a great deal. (We don’t play Warzone and only play s&d or prison rescue). There are bugs here and there but not too bad overall. We are a mix of PC and Xbox players.
I would still recommend giving the game a try in a few “seasons” as it will likely stabilize further.
Similarly for me cod has kept me connected with friends and family across the world as we travelled and went our own ways. But all of us have actually moved onto mw2 by now and are enjoying it a great deal. (We don’t play Warzone and only play s&d or prison rescue). There are bugs here and there but not too bad overall. We are a mix of PC and Xbox players.
I would still recommend giving the game a try in a few “seasons” as it will likely stabilize further.
He might mean the actual original MW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2
I've been SUPER confused as to what this "Modern Warfare 2" is that people are talking about, because I played that in, well, 2009. At least they called it "II" instead of "2" (as if anyone will notice this difference)... >_>
I've been SUPER confused as to what this "Modern Warfare 2" is that people are talking about, because I played that in, well, 2009. At least they called it "II" instead of "2" (as if anyone will notice this difference)... >_>
I have a _bunch_ of issues with MW2 in warzone, but by far the most absolutely frustrating is a multiplayer bug. It seems that if I get a UAV and then die in a S&D style map (e.g. S&D, prisoner rescue, Knockout) then about 50% of the time I am soft-locked for the remainder of the _game_. By this I mean my HUD goes away, the game runs at 5FPS, and I _cant use the UAV I got_. I used to be able to unglitch it by killing myself and spectating a teammate before the next round, but that doesnt work any more. I just have to wait for the game to finish. So incredibly frustrating.
You're right. I meant MW2019.
Though, MW2 (og) is where I got hooked on cod.
Though, MW2 (og) is where I got hooked on cod.
> And moderators of popular forums like r/ModernWarfareII refuse to allow posts that try to increase awareness of the issue, again, likely assuming we’re all a bunch of whining cheaters. I don’t think they’re aware of the disservice they’re doing to their community by actively suppressing these reports (or conspiratorially, they’re influenced by Activision itself).
I don't think this is very conspiratorially. It's very clear that the mods are coordinating with Activision on releases and information. I've had several posts taken down over the years because they don't tow-the-line.
I don't think this is very conspiratorially. It's very clear that the mods are coordinating with Activision on releases and information. I've had several posts taken down over the years because they don't tow-the-line.
Game community subs, especially for FPS games, often ban posts about cheaters, bugs or things like the submission. Not because they're conspiring with the maker, nefariously hiding negative info, but because if they don't the sub turns into a grievance filled "help forum".
People who had never visited the forum before, and likely never will again, drop in because they're mad and want a complaint venue where they can gripe. When a game has hundreds of thousands or millions of players, that sort of thing starts to swamp the sub and soon there is no community or sustained conversation and instead it's all 360 no scope drive by complaint drops.
I absolutely commiserate with the OP, and it 100% legitimately sounds like they got caught up in a flawed anti-cheat (maybe exacerbated by a storage system issue on their end, making it think they were trying to modify the system files). But on the other hand, and they recognize this, all the actual cheaters also do the I didn't do nothing routine. When a game is rife with cheaters (PubG, MW, Squad, etc), pretty soon you have a really skeptical approach to those appeals.
People who had never visited the forum before, and likely never will again, drop in because they're mad and want a complaint venue where they can gripe. When a game has hundreds of thousands or millions of players, that sort of thing starts to swamp the sub and soon there is no community or sustained conversation and instead it's all 360 no scope drive by complaint drops.
I absolutely commiserate with the OP, and it 100% legitimately sounds like they got caught up in a flawed anti-cheat (maybe exacerbated by a storage system issue on their end, making it think they were trying to modify the system files). But on the other hand, and they recognize this, all the actual cheaters also do the I didn't do nothing routine. When a game is rife with cheaters (PubG, MW, Squad, etc), pretty soon you have a really skeptical approach to those appeals.
This is a feature! You and the other cheaters, whether you're actually baby or bathwater, will simply have to buy it again!!
IMO the only winning move is not to play. I loved calladoody back in university, but you've got to move with the times, yeah? OTOH, I'm not the one who really changed; I'm still all about dedicated servers, but they haven't been seen since Modern Warfare 1.
The winning move for the anticheat dev is shortly going to be not to play, either. It's one thing to implement increasingly invasive rootkits to find out who's watching your game's memory, but I've heard tell of devices that sit between the PC and monitor, using specialized ML to click M1 and fire when an enemy is detected in one's crosshairs. How can you check for something like that?
IMO the only winning move is not to play. I loved calladoody back in university, but you've got to move with the times, yeah? OTOH, I'm not the one who really changed; I'm still all about dedicated servers, but they haven't been seen since Modern Warfare 1.
The winning move for the anticheat dev is shortly going to be not to play, either. It's one thing to implement increasingly invasive rootkits to find out who's watching your game's memory, but I've heard tell of devices that sit between the PC and monitor, using specialized ML to click M1 and fire when an enemy is detected in one's crosshairs. How can you check for something like that?
>How can you check for something like that?
I've heard of work around using machine learning to analyze players and compare them to the actions of cheaters. It's not flawless but it can give some kind of probability of cheating so you can match make cheaters with other suspected cheaters.
I've heard of work around using machine learning to analyze players and compare them to the actions of cheaters. It's not flawless but it can give some kind of probability of cheating so you can match make cheaters with other suspected cheaters.
Then we still end up here: someone who's naturally skilled gets some lucky kills, and the Computer Says No, so now he's out a game license. Appealing modern anticheat decisions is hard enough, but once it's less "the computer noticed your memory-editing" and more "the computer decided you need to be banned", it'll be impossible. TFA seems to suggest that future is Real Soon, if not now.
So go play games with dedicated servers, and local admins who can only locally ban anyone suspect. If players don't like it they can leave for another dedicated server.
So go play games with dedicated servers, and local admins who can only locally ban anyone suspect. If players don't like it they can leave for another dedicated server.
This is currently very common for chess. Comparing players with AI decisions. It's less "You got lucky today, you're banned" and more "your movements matched up with AI patterns for a long time, so you're trust score has been lowered and you'll be put with other low trust players for a while".
There is more data than just win/lose here. Using ML you can analyze exactly how the player moves, etc and get some kind of probability
There is more data than just win/lose here. Using ML you can analyze exactly how the player moves, etc and get some kind of probability
Hey, you'd better go let OP know that everything's OK! Me, I think that chess, a turn-based, 2D game which uses the same "map" every time, might have a few fewer inputs to analyze than an FPS, but what do I know.
Wow. So you are a good player, and you are matched against cheaters. What a justice. I don't understand this practice. Playing against cheaters, or being treated like one, what's worse?
It’s not about being a good player, they have datasets on how good players play, and datasets on how bots play. AI is extremely good at noticing patterns in complex data. It could be the way you move the mouse, cheaters might react to events with consistent timings while humans have more variability.
CSGO does this very well to my understanding.
Ah yes, vacnet, which couldn't even reliably ban spin-botters for YEARS. Vacnet is an abysmal failure and should be seen as such. The game is still brimming with cheaters, and you still basically cannot play a game on valve's official servers with high ratings unless you are willing to get matched with a cheater 1 out of 3 times and waste hours on unwinnable games that you get punished for abandoning.
I'm thinking to create a new account per game.
This allows me to
* issue a chargeback without worries
* sell the account when I'm done with the game
Just the same with Google devices. NEVER buy a Google Pixel on your own account, as issuing a chargeback will cause them to block your whole account.
This allows me to
* issue a chargeback without worries
* sell the account when I'm done with the game
Just the same with Google devices. NEVER buy a Google Pixel on your own account, as issuing a chargeback will cause them to block your whole account.
This essentially doesn’t work now either, unfortunately.
A lot of the latest AAA games will only allow you to play multiplayer if your account ALSO has a verified phone number attached, and they only let you attach each number to a single account, plus they filter out phones which are not postpaid (so no using services like Twilio).
A lot of the latest AAA games will only allow you to play multiplayer if your account ALSO has a verified phone number attached, and they only let you attach each number to a single account, plus they filter out phones which are not postpaid (so no using services like Twilio).
> A lot of the
No. Overwatch 2 did this and rolled it back pretty much immediately. CS:GO and DOTA2 don't require it but it they gate competitive play behind it. That's not a lot of AAA games.
No. Overwatch 2 did this and rolled it back pretty much immediately. CS:GO and DOTA2 don't require it but it they gate competitive play behind it. That's not a lot of AAA games.
My god. Any company doing that enters in my do-not-buy-ever list.
How do they differentiate prepaid and postpaid phone numbers?
Is there some way they can check with the provider for a given number? Seems less than ideal from a privacy perspective.
Is there some way they can check with the provider for a given number? Seems less than ideal from a privacy perspective.
When they launched Overwatch 2, you couldn't play if you tried to verify your account with a prepaid phone. This was problematic since they closed Overwatch 1 servers (it's a paid, online only game) for Overwatch 2, a free to play game.
Some people found themselves that they could no longer play the Overwatch franchise after having bought the $40 original game because of this. This was later rolled back and they allowed prepaid phones. So they can definitely distinguish them.
Some people found themselves that they could no longer play the Overwatch franchise after having bought the $40 original game because of this. This was later rolled back and they allowed prepaid phones. So they can definitely distinguish them.
Something like this is how many companies approach it: https://developer.telesign.com/enterprise/docs/phone-id-iden...
There are APIs that can provide that information.
I can pick up 20 free SIMs from my local phone store...
Chargeback should be last resort, compagny pay for it and will basically close everything related to that account / credit card.
Chargeback should be a last resort but it should also be something you can reliably fall back on if the company fails to handle your complaint adequately. And the likes of Google seem to do that 100% of the time.
I purchased the game and was met with casmera-rhino before even playing a match or seeing a screen to chose what to play I payed $70+ for the game Ive been playing cod for years and years and my stats arent crazy im a casual player and not even a second look at my account after I appealed my ban on activisions website my fate was sealed permanently banned account with over $300+ worth of microtransactions and games and im unable to appeal and Im not sure what to do Im researching class action lawyers and getting advice and how to get my account or my money back from the company if anyone has any advice or is currently talking to a lawyer or some type of representative id really appreciate some info, thank you.
You can do a chargeback or take them to small claims court, but either way you're going to be blacklisted from them forever
So it's time to find a new game to play, I guess..
So it's time to find a new game to play, I guess..
Did you recently buy a refurbished piece of hardware like an SSD or something? Activision has hardware based bans, I was reading some reports of people buying a used SSD or even mixed-new-used stock SSD's that people had cheated on and then returned.
Trying to spread the word on Activision's faulty anti-cheat software and how they're permanently banning players with no explanation or recourse.
This scenario is the same for nearly every multiplayer video game.
Here's a recent example in the Russian game Escape from Tarkov[1]. A player kills a developer and gets banned moments after for cheating. Luckily he manages to catch it on video, and posts it to reddit. He's subsequently unbanned. Why was he banned? "false alarm triggered". When asked for more details, BSG responds "Sorry, can’t tell you cause it’s part of anti cheat system, hope you understand". Which is ridiculous.
BSG is in Russia and therefore untouchable, but I don't have much hope for these other companies like ATVI who are doing the sort of abuse.
[1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/zawwc5/i_...
Here's a recent example in the Russian game Escape from Tarkov[1]. A player kills a developer and gets banned moments after for cheating. Luckily he manages to catch it on video, and posts it to reddit. He's subsequently unbanned. Why was he banned? "false alarm triggered". When asked for more details, BSG responds "Sorry, can’t tell you cause it’s part of anti cheat system, hope you understand". Which is ridiculous.
BSG is in Russia and therefore untouchable, but I don't have much hope for these other companies like ATVI who are doing the sort of abuse.
[1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/zawwc5/i_...
> "Sorry, can’t tell you cause it’s part of anti cheat system, hope you understand". Which is ridiculous.
This is how all fraud detection works. Outside of gaming as well. That doesn't mean the previous action was right, but the fact they can't tell you why means nothing at all. The whole industry is built on secrecy and having a few hidden tricks in the bag.
This is how all fraud detection works. Outside of gaming as well. That doesn't mean the previous action was right, but the fact they can't tell you why means nothing at all. The whole industry is built on secrecy and having a few hidden tricks in the bag.
The cynic inside me thinks that the reason gaming companies fall back on this excuse is to help keep the costumer facing/dispute resolution staff as thinly manned as possible.
If your local GameStop posted a security guard outside the store to confiscate games from suspected shoplifters, and only had an error rate of 0.01%, I doubt people would be happy for GameStop to tell the 1 in 10,000 people who's newly purchased games have just been stolen that they can't discuss why and to just deal with it or GameStop will send someone else around to their house to steal all their other games.
Not sure if russian custom of abusing power above weaker is same as Activision absolute incompetence to develop functional software.
Could also be a coincidence, actual devs have not commented yet afaik.
The banned guy can contact battleye and try to get unbanned if it was false, has happened before (usually a group of players with something in common are banned, last time it was s specific motherboard or a driver for it).
The banned guy can contact battleye and try to get unbanned if it was false, has happened before (usually a group of players with something in common are banned, last time it was s specific motherboard or a driver for it).
EFT is also very different in that they rely on a large grey market to drive sales. Real Money Trading is a huge problem, people will buy a cheat, use them to obtain lots of in game money, and then sell this in-game money to people for FIAT.
If EFT bans a cheater, they're effectively getting another sale, because the cheater will come back and make money off the grey market once more. The result is that you have tons of cheaters, and EFT only needs to make broad strokes efforts at curbing them to keep existing players happy.
If EFT bans a cheater, they're effectively getting another sale, because the cheater will come back and make money off the grey market once more. The result is that you have tons of cheaters, and EFT only needs to make broad strokes efforts at curbing them to keep existing players happy.
It's not ridiculous. If he said the exact thing which triggered the flag a cheat author could tune their cheat to always stay under what gets flagged.
Don't spend money on products or services out of russia. We should all be avoiding that at this point.
You mean which come from russia right?
For roughly 25 years now - as long as modern DRM methods exist - there's constantly been reports of false positives, bugs, crashes, performance issues and security holes caused by DRM.
How anyone can believe that their DRM is infallible and not be prepared to deal with the issues it will inevitably cause, is beyond me.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be aware, that they need to have a way to accept reports of false positives and investigate those. Even if "screw the customers" is company policy - you still need those reports to analyze and fix the flaws in your software.
Not doing that is basically like making it impossible to report bugs and suppress any talk about bugs anywhere - and then claiming your software is bug free, because there haven't been any bug reports. Highly dysfunctional.
How anyone can believe that their DRM is infallible and not be prepared to deal with the issues it will inevitably cause, is beyond me.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be aware, that they need to have a way to accept reports of false positives and investigate those. Even if "screw the customers" is company policy - you still need those reports to analyze and fix the flaws in your software.
Not doing that is basically like making it impossible to report bugs and suppress any talk about bugs anywhere - and then claiming your software is bug free, because there haven't been any bug reports. Highly dysfunctional.
On the topic of unfair bans, Roblox bans kid accounts for having malicious scripts hidden in models in Roblox Studio. They can detect it in the kid’s game, but allow it in their toolbox. Accounts with premium membership are not refunded for the remaining time left.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ROBLOXBans/comments/vqw1sj/my_6_yea...
I created a Tell HN thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33861309
https://www.reddit.com/r/ROBLOXBans/comments/vqw1sj/my_6_yea...
I created a Tell HN thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33861309
On the topic of Roblox, it sounds pretty awful generally. Microtransactions don't (IMHO) have any place in a game for young kids.
In a previous job I dealt with a police request for information after a pre-teenager child sent an email to their school principal saying there was a bomb in the school that would explode and kill everyome unless they were given some number of Robux so they could buy a hat or something for their character.
In a previous job I dealt with a police request for information after a pre-teenager child sent an email to their school principal saying there was a bomb in the school that would explode and kill everyome unless they were given some number of Robux so they could buy a hat or something for their character.
What's unfair about banning malicious scripts exactly?
> My 6 year old roblox account got banned 18 days ago because I made a game and a free model in the game had a script hidden from the owner that showed hentai on the screen.
Roblox Studio has a toolbox of free community models. Malicious scripts are hidden in models. Kids import free models in their games and get banned for malicious scripts.
Roblox Studio has a toolbox of free community models. Malicious scripts are hidden in models. Kids import free models in their games and get banned for malicious scripts.
This kind of absurdity could happen to anybody. I was a Destiny player since Destiny 1, had absolutely no problem campaign or multiplayer. Around the time of Destiny 2 Forsaken DLC, I got bored of it and stopped playing for about a year. One day, I decided to pick it up and replay the Forsaken single player campaign "Last Call". 10 minutes in, while I was enjoying it, suddenly the game froze, and I was kicked back to the menu screen. When tried to login, it told me my account is perma banned. Shocked, my first instinct was that this is some kind of mistake on Bungie side. However, after going through the fruitless appealing process, which Bungie denied without disclosing any specificity, I believe I'm one of those falsely banned.
This is the only time I got perma banned in any game in my life. The only possible reason I can think of is that I always use some AutoHotkey scripts I wrote myself as shortcuts for Windows control, and has nothing to do with Destiny. I don't really care much about not able to play Destiny again, but because Destiny 2 had moved to Steam, even today there is still a VAC ban record in my Steam profile, which I do care about.
This is the only time I got perma banned in any game in my life. The only possible reason I can think of is that I always use some AutoHotkey scripts I wrote myself as shortcuts for Windows control, and has nothing to do with Destiny. I don't really care much about not able to play Destiny again, but because Destiny 2 had moved to Steam, even today there is still a VAC ban record in my Steam profile, which I do care about.
This seems like it could result in actual lawsuits. While the license for the game exists, a court wouldn't look too kindly on this situation. Courts have the power to void contracts if they're against "public policy", so that should be something everyone should keep in mind.
Ban frequently comes with ban reason "Caserma rhino" which looks like that they must know what happened given this weird specific string as you can see on picture below.
https://imageup.me/i96
I as a player can say that game frequently crashes, shares a lot of bugs with previous version of call of duty and overall is just a copy od mw1 with worse UI and technical state.
https://imageup.me/i96
I as a player can say that game frequently crashes, shares a lot of bugs with previous version of call of duty and overall is just a copy od mw1 with worse UI and technical state.
250+ comments already so I fear my rant will disappear to the void, but I experienced this exact same thing with Apex Legends. I was fortunate to get my account back eventually, but the experience is the same.
I don't really care that much about my crappy in-game cosmetics, but to have access to the game ripped away from you with no actual explanation to what you did is a pretty big gut punch. The result I took from the experience is that EA/Respawn are untrustworthy and will never receive another penny of my money. Their steadfast "you cheated, no appeals, now shut up" attitude seems like poor long term planning if regular players are going to be randomly harmed by whatever happened.
I've pondered over the issue too, and ultimately I think the entire circus could be avoided if they were willing to discuss the specifics of banning. The notion that they don't need to tell you how you were detected as though it is some sort of protection for their anti-cheat methods is a disservice in customer relations. For me, I tried appealing a case against something I had no evidence for, so to ask a question about how I can make things right in an appeal (what logs do you need? what proof can I provide that this was a bug) ended up just flagging my account so I could no longer open tickets. I had found other users on Reddit who received the same ban (and consequentially, received unban at teh same time too, so it was a system bug). We were all treated the same. How to fix this? Have confidence in your anti-cheat to the point where you can say "we caught you doing X" so I can provide evidence to the contrary.
I suspect it is because they'd need to hire more staff to work customer service. They'd also need to give those staff the necessary tools to respond to customers which I can tell they do not have at the basic CSR level.
In the end, they lose a customer permanently. They also gain a vocal proponent against their services as I write similar rants every time I see a topic of it discussed. They don't really care much about me though. That's important to remember. They are willing to bulldoze the individual in hopes the larger reputation they maintain about being hard on cheaters doesn't backfire.
I don't really care that much about my crappy in-game cosmetics, but to have access to the game ripped away from you with no actual explanation to what you did is a pretty big gut punch. The result I took from the experience is that EA/Respawn are untrustworthy and will never receive another penny of my money. Their steadfast "you cheated, no appeals, now shut up" attitude seems like poor long term planning if regular players are going to be randomly harmed by whatever happened.
I've pondered over the issue too, and ultimately I think the entire circus could be avoided if they were willing to discuss the specifics of banning. The notion that they don't need to tell you how you were detected as though it is some sort of protection for their anti-cheat methods is a disservice in customer relations. For me, I tried appealing a case against something I had no evidence for, so to ask a question about how I can make things right in an appeal (what logs do you need? what proof can I provide that this was a bug) ended up just flagging my account so I could no longer open tickets. I had found other users on Reddit who received the same ban (and consequentially, received unban at teh same time too, so it was a system bug). We were all treated the same. How to fix this? Have confidence in your anti-cheat to the point where you can say "we caught you doing X" so I can provide evidence to the contrary.
I suspect it is because they'd need to hire more staff to work customer service. They'd also need to give those staff the necessary tools to respond to customers which I can tell they do not have at the basic CSR level.
In the end, they lose a customer permanently. They also gain a vocal proponent against their services as I write similar rants every time I see a topic of it discussed. They don't really care much about me though. That's important to remember. They are willing to bulldoze the individual in hopes the larger reputation they maintain about being hard on cheaters doesn't backfire.
Didn't disappear. Thanks for sharing!
Good luck bro... I cheated at games especially MMO's from 2000 to 2005. Since then, with all new emails and account ID's I've seen more false positive bans than I saw positive bans in that previous period. I once left wire shark open and got battle eye and VAC banned. I was not attaching either to active network traffic or processes at the time. Just last week I got banned for having Charles proxy running by accident on my 5th DayZ account. I guess I should segregate my dev and play boxes... the problem is I make games.
I use CheatEngine and other memory debugging tools as part of reversing/modding single player games for fun. Recently I had a browser tab open to a CheatEngine doc page, not even the executable open, and Fortnite wouldn't let me launch, said I had cheating tools open.
There was a battleye ban for this that got a bunch of uproar once. I think it was for the domain 'unknowncheat.me'if you had visited that you got banned from whatever game you were playing the BattleEye iirc.
I'm pretty sure I've played VAC secured games with Wireshark open in the background many times without issue. In my experience VAC is pretty lenient on what you do outside of the game to begin with.
I did get shadowbanned from Modern Warfare (2019) for two weeks though. At first I couldn't figure out why my game suddenly would keep crashing on the main menu every time I started it. After a reboot of my PC it stopped crashing, but now the game was taking forever to find a match and when it finally did I got put in a lobby with high ping players from across the world, half of which were obviously cheating.
I managed to figure out that I had HxD (a hex editor) open in the background before I rebooted because I was messing around with the save files of another game. Simply having a process running called "hxd.exe" will cause the game to "crash" and shadowban you for a while. I verified this by renaming notepad to hxd.exe and observing the same thing.
I did get shadowbanned from Modern Warfare (2019) for two weeks though. At first I couldn't figure out why my game suddenly would keep crashing on the main menu every time I started it. After a reboot of my PC it stopped crashing, but now the game was taking forever to find a match and when it finally did I got put in a lobby with high ping players from across the world, half of which were obviously cheating.
I managed to figure out that I had HxD (a hex editor) open in the background before I rebooted because I was messing around with the save files of another game. Simply having a process running called "hxd.exe" will cause the game to "crash" and shadowban you for a while. I verified this by renaming notepad to hxd.exe and observing the same thing.
Correction, it was a Battle Eye ban that got replicated to a VAC ban.
It seems like a "you cheated and can no longer play the game" should be mandatorily accompanied by a full refund of the game and any in game purchases - in cash, not coupons, in game currency (because duh), etc.
It would sure as heck deal with the "you can't play the game you paid for" nonsense, and if they start putting all "cheaters" in a single set of servers any over-aggressive "you're a cheater" rules will cause people to stop playing the online modes that encourage in game transactions.
It would sure as heck deal with the "you can't play the game you paid for" nonsense, and if they start putting all "cheaters" in a single set of servers any over-aggressive "you're a cheater" rules will cause people to stop playing the online modes that encourage in game transactions.
The problem with that is it allows the cheater to buy the game again and rinse and repeat. Unfortunatelly monetary loss is the best way to deal with cheaters. Generally the cheaper a game is the more cheaters it has simply because the barrier to entry gets reduced.
The problem is theft of a product that has been purchased. For example, say Tesla were to say we’ll just take back the car without permission if someone complains about it online, that’s a crime: theft. The reason for the crime is irrelevant, if someone has paid for a product you don’t get to retroactively say “nah we’re taking back the thing you paid for, and we aren’t going to return your money”. If you’re offering a contractual service you can halt, but generally have to return at least the prorated amount you have received for services you are no longer offering.
A game company can always just block the credit card details (not just the number) from buying the game again, there’s a limit to the number of CCs that a person is going to be able to use.
Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing.
A game company can always just block the credit card details (not just the number) from buying the game again, there’s a limit to the number of CCs that a person is going to be able to use.
Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing.
> A game company can always just block the credit card details (not just the number) from buying the game again, there’s a limit to the number of CCs that a person is going to be able to use.
Gift cards exist. Companies can't block people from buying a game effectively, otherwise cheating wouldn't be a problem anymore as most cheaters are repeat offenders.
> The problem is theft of a product that has been purchased.
While it may be true that taking back a physical product without permission is considered theft, companies have the right to enforce their terms and conditions. In the case of a game company, if a player is found to be cheating, they have violated the terms and conditions and the company has the right to revoke their access to the game. This is not theft because the player has not fulfilled their end of the contract by following the rules of the game. The player has never "bought a game", they bought a software which allowed them to accept terms and conditions to play online.
Also just to be clear, I fucking hate Activision and haven't given them money for years already. I'm talking more generally about the practice of game bans.
Gift cards exist. Companies can't block people from buying a game effectively, otherwise cheating wouldn't be a problem anymore as most cheaters are repeat offenders.
> The problem is theft of a product that has been purchased.
While it may be true that taking back a physical product without permission is considered theft, companies have the right to enforce their terms and conditions. In the case of a game company, if a player is found to be cheating, they have violated the terms and conditions and the company has the right to revoke their access to the game. This is not theft because the player has not fulfilled their end of the contract by following the rules of the game. The player has never "bought a game", they bought a software which allowed them to accept terms and conditions to play online.
Also just to be clear, I fucking hate Activision and haven't given them money for years already. I'm talking more generally about the practice of game bans.
Revoking access to digital services is as much theft as piracy is - it's not.
> Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing
You've gone off the deep end into conspiracy theory land here i think.
> Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing
You've gone off the deep end into conspiracy theory land here i think.
You are misusing the term "conspiracy theory", there is no conspiracy alleged here, just that a single company is behaving shadily given the incentives.
The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.
The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.
> there is no conspiracy alleged here, just that a single company is behaving shadily given the incentives.
This is the equivalent of "I'm just saying"
> The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.
No, I'm not dismissing anything I disagree with. I'm dismissing the idea that activision ban cheaters from their single player games to encourage cheaters to repurchase as a conspiracy theory.
This is the equivalent of "I'm just saying"
> The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.
No, I'm not dismissing anything I disagree with. I'm dismissing the idea that activision ban cheaters from their single player games to encourage cheaters to repurchase as a conspiracy theory.
It isn't an conspiracy theory because no conspiracy was alleged.
Something can be incorrect without being a conspiracy theory. Criticize the assertion about why activison bans cheaters all you like, but don't do it by calling it something it isn't just to smear the idea.
Something can be incorrect without being a conspiracy theory. Criticize the assertion about why activison bans cheaters all you like, but don't do it by calling it something it isn't just to smear the idea.
Best anti-cheat is to separate your cheaters from your general gamers, if some behavior is detected that indicates they are a cheater temporarily remove them from the same queue as normal players and treat all players they party or queue with the same. In this queue they only get paired against other questionable players. When they themselves or other in this cheater queue report a person enough times temporary ban the user from playing for one week, two weeks, four weeks. Depending on the strikes, but never perma ban.
I like this idea. Another way: The game company adds all the cheats themselves, as features. Then you can buy the "cheat pack" (more revenue). Each feature that you enable, appears next to your character name. Cheaters with same features enabled, are allowed to match each other online. Of course, then cheaters will try to write software to hide this status... but that is a different issue. :)
After you owned a game for along time, sometimes it is fun to cheat. That is another revenue source for game companies.
After you owned a game for along time, sometimes it is fun to cheat. That is another revenue source for game companies.
Well people will do things they are not supposed to do, providing them an avenue to do so while not awknowledging this keeps games fair. If you ban outright then you know who's cheating.
Activation is a feted hulk and I hope they collapse under the weight of their misdeeds.
Certainly everyone who owns the game has bought the right to play offline. That said, the question of what "owners" are allowed to do in a multi-user product seems genuinely hard. Cheaters (and people who seek 'parasitic' experiences of all kinds) disrupt how the game is intended to be played. Consumer protections were developed for products that don't have that kind of entangled quality.
Certainly everyone who owns the game has bought the right to play offline. That said, the question of what "owners" are allowed to do in a multi-user product seems genuinely hard. Cheaters (and people who seek 'parasitic' experiences of all kinds) disrupt how the game is intended to be played. Consumer protections were developed for products that don't have that kind of entangled quality.
if it's a recent purchase and you've done nothing wrong: hit them where it hurts and issue a chargeback
at least that way they're not profiting from their scummy behaviour
at least that way they're not profiting from their scummy behaviour
This sadly is a bad idea, as it’ll get your entire store account banned (Steam, battle.net, etc). Chargebacks work great until the whole account matters.
> it’ll get your entire store account banned
Surely, taking escalatory retribution like that is illegal, somewhere...I hope...?
-----
Non-escalatory retribution would be banning you from the game you filed a chargeback for - I can't get mad over that.
But an online store doing unilateral revocation of access and licenses for a consumer's entire library (without refunding it 100%) in response to a single chargeback is just begging for countries' consumer protection agencies to come knocking, and even if that's a term in the store's EULA I can't see how they could be upheld by a court as an conscionable (and therefore legally enforcible) contract clause - especially given the dim-view to which online and click-through EULAs/TOS are viewed by most countries courts' today anyway.
Speaking as someone with too much time on my hands (thanks to a cushy job, I'm pleased to say, rather than funemployment) I secretely want to be dicked-over by a megacorp like this so I can get amusement (and a worthwhile life experience) by availing myself of the court system to hold these companies to account. Now I just need to find a similar way to make Microsoft undo the crappy shell in Windows 11.
Surely, taking escalatory retribution like that is illegal, somewhere...I hope...?
-----
Non-escalatory retribution would be banning you from the game you filed a chargeback for - I can't get mad over that.
But an online store doing unilateral revocation of access and licenses for a consumer's entire library (without refunding it 100%) in response to a single chargeback is just begging for countries' consumer protection agencies to come knocking, and even if that's a term in the store's EULA I can't see how they could be upheld by a court as an conscionable (and therefore legally enforcible) contract clause - especially given the dim-view to which online and click-through EULAs/TOS are viewed by most countries courts' today anyway.
Speaking as someone with too much time on my hands (thanks to a cushy job, I'm pleased to say, rather than funemployment) I secretely want to be dicked-over by a megacorp like this so I can get amusement (and a worthwhile life experience) by availing myself of the court system to hold these companies to account. Now I just need to find a similar way to make Microsoft undo the crappy shell in Windows 11.
I think the sort of "legal" argument here is imagine if you were running a SaaS and somebody did a chargeback despite using the service. I think most people _would_ lock the account and refuse to do business with the chargebacker as a default reaction!
Of course the reality of these other places being the marketplace and the service provider and the game publisher is a classic anti-trust issue.
Of course the reality of these other places being the marketplace and the service provider and the game publisher is a classic anti-trust issue.
Imagine if the SaaS charged 100x the agreed price for the last month, refused to fix the charge, and when you issued a chargeback, they deleted all your lifetime data.
Yes? I do not understand how you would think that anything but an extremely antagonistic relationship would result from a chargeback. Not saying they "deserve to keep the money" or whatever (of course not), but a chargeback is pretty much crossing the rubicon in terms of a business relation between two parties.
Not saying "don't chargeback ever", and obviously in your scenario the SaaS is at fault, really.
Not saying "don't chargeback ever", and obviously in your scenario the SaaS is at fault, really.
Steam has a whole FAQ about this: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/783F-5E0F-9834-22...
> accounts locked for Hardware chargebacks will not be unlocked until the associated hardware is returned.
Wait, does this mean that if someone hacks your Steam account, and uses your saved payment info to order a Steam Deck shipped to someone other than you, that you have to choose between losing your Steam account forever or losing the money?
Wait, does this mean that if someone hacks your Steam account, and uses your saved payment info to order a Steam Deck shipped to someone other than you, that you have to choose between losing your Steam account forever or losing the money?
Steam often asks for the card's CVV2 even for saved cards. I don't know what the exact criteria are, but I'm pretty sure any order over a certain amount (which a Steam Deck would definitely be) would trigger this.
Google Pay asks me for CVV2 every single time that I want to auto-fill credit card info. Thank goodness my CVV2 is stupidly easy to remember!
steam don't
and honestly who cares these days if their battle.net account is lost
(as long as you get some of your money back)
and honestly who cares these days if their battle.net account is lost
(as long as you get some of your money back)
I have actually been thinking if I should start a new Steam account or several. The blast radius of losing the current one for some reason would be devastating. Also wondering if it would be at all effective (not too hard to see the same credit card used between two accounts).
Steam could alleviate the new account requirement by having a "cheat" counter. If you do more than, say, five actions that look like a cheat, then a real person on their side looks at the problem. Or, have a cheat counter that waits until twenty or fifty cheating actions before auto-banning, if they want to make it cheaper for them.
Again, pirates get the better product.
[deleted]
Isn’t this industry norm? I remember getting banned from Overwatch during Season 1 with no explanation given and when I sent support ticket I just got back “we can’t tell you the reason”
I had a similar question in relation to Twitter bans recently [0].
One person thought in case of Twitter perhaps Twitter Support doesn't want to tell, to make it more difficult to script bots that can prevent getting banned.
Perhaps for games it's kind of the same. Perhaps knowing why you got banned can aid bot devs to prevent their bots getting banned.
---
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33738470
One person thought in case of Twitter perhaps Twitter Support doesn't want to tell, to make it more difficult to script bots that can prevent getting banned.
Perhaps for games it's kind of the same. Perhaps knowing why you got banned can aid bot devs to prevent their bots getting banned.
---
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33738470
I am more cynical and I think it was because I wasn’t playing the META and other players reported me enough
Overwatch had a free weekend five years into it's life, and I decided to try it out for the first time. The matchmaking put together a clearly brand new set of players for a game, including me and my friends. It was payload, and I picked bastion (neat robot) and lead our team on basically all merits, including defense, but the other team was clearly better and we lost massively.
A teammate told everyone to report me for feeding.
Fuck overwatch, they get what they deserve.
A teammate told everyone to report me for feeding.
Fuck overwatch, they get what they deserve.
No, its the same company.
Probably going to be an unpopular opinion in this thread, but I am involved in a couple of medium sized (100-200 active members) gaming communities which have to deal with cheaters sometimes, one of which is fairly expert—many members are Global Elite (top Competitive rank) in CSGO, with many of the top players being ex minor league esports people(they all LAN fairly regularly so I can say confidently they aren’t cheaters), and I have never heard (as in someone knows someone) of anyone in over a decade in both communities getting unfairly banned from a AAA title or any title for that matter. And if they did it would definitely be the talk of the Discord/forums, getting called a cheater is pretty much the norm for these folks, so getting a ban would be something between hilarious and a slap in the face. So this is likely exceedingly rare, and many of these people are cheating, and consider their cheats benign and are just in denial that their macros are actually getting detected and earning them bans. Perhaps not OP, and perhaps not the sibling comments, but in my experience cheaters are typically pathological about not cheating.
Cheating of that type is so easy and common in many multiplayer games, and it really sucks the fun out of multiplayer when someone isn’t following the rules.
Cheating of that type is so easy and common in many multiplayer games, and it really sucks the fun out of multiplayer when someone isn’t following the rules.
False bans do happen. Even VAC, which isn't known for banning willy-nilly, will sometimes remove bans because they do make mistakes. Many other anti-cheats have had more or less prominent issues with false bans, for example GTA Online as well as other games had multiple incidents where they banned people using software like Afterburner/RTSS (and subsequently unbanned them). GTA even had exploits which allowed other cheaters to ban other players.
The sentiment of your comment remains popular in gaming circles. But as software people on hacker news, doesn't it seem rather obvious that complex software like anti-cheats embedded in hugely complex software like games will have bugs? Add many people overclocking their computers to the brink of instability and silent corruption into the mix and you will have issues. (VAC must've kicked me dozens of times for failing game integrity checks because of this - now imagine if that's a ban, like Activision does. A checksum failure on a gaming PC hardly proves cheating beyond even a passing doubt)
The sentiment of your comment remains popular in gaming circles. But as software people on hacker news, doesn't it seem rather obvious that complex software like anti-cheats embedded in hugely complex software like games will have bugs? Add many people overclocking their computers to the brink of instability and silent corruption into the mix and you will have issues. (VAC must've kicked me dozens of times for failing game integrity checks because of this - now imagine if that's a ban, like Activision does. A checksum failure on a gaming PC hardly proves cheating beyond even a passing doubt)
> doesn't it seem rather obvious that complex software like anti-cheats embedded in hugely complex software like games will have bugs?
No doubt, and it does suck that some people get caught up in it. It’s also lame that they prevent you from playing single player, but I’d guess this is to make engine exploit development more expensive and time consuming. I do think that they should have a manual review appeal, not sure how that would work without undermining the anti-cheat or being extremely invasive.
I honestly hate that I’m defending Acti-bliz, they rake in hoards of cash and become more predatory every year. Recently they downgraded and deleted my favorite game, giving it one of the worst monetization schemes in PC. But cheating is a serious issue, I have abandon a number of games because cheating at my skill level became too common.
No doubt, and it does suck that some people get caught up in it. It’s also lame that they prevent you from playing single player, but I’d guess this is to make engine exploit development more expensive and time consuming. I do think that they should have a manual review appeal, not sure how that would work without undermining the anti-cheat or being extremely invasive.
I honestly hate that I’m defending Acti-bliz, they rake in hoards of cash and become more predatory every year. Recently they downgraded and deleted my favorite game, giving it one of the worst monetization schemes in PC. But cheating is a serious issue, I have abandon a number of games because cheating at my skill level became too common.
First, protect legitimate customers. Second, deal with cheaters.
Protecting legitimate customers and dealing with cheaters is the same thing.
A counter argument would be that, those who are allowed by the anti-cheat to play freely for a decade, are those who were filtered down by the anti-cheat to who it sees as a "good player" to itself. But when the anti-cheat finds someone that they do not like, for example a developer who has tooling such as CheatEngine, WireShark, AHK, or WSL installed, will get discriminated against in preemptive bans, unable to get more than be a casual in said games.
It also does not help that "good players" by the anti-cheat's eye will often enable this bias by doubling down whatever the anti-cheat says is bad. A black box that no human fully understands the behavior of, even its own developers, yet is ultimately trusted without review of anyone hit by a ban. A system ripe for enabling bias to absolutely excessive proportions, and need to be held in better check.
It also does not help that "good players" by the anti-cheat's eye will often enable this bias by doubling down whatever the anti-cheat says is bad. A black box that no human fully understands the behavior of, even its own developers, yet is ultimately trusted without review of anyone hit by a ban. A system ripe for enabling bias to absolutely excessive proportions, and need to be held in better check.
> when the anti-cheat finds someone that they do not like, for example a developer who has tooling such as CheatEngine, WireShark, AHK, or WSL installed.
A lot of these folks are software developers! I’d have to do a poll to get wider info, but I know several people have AHK, WireShark and WSL installed, and have for years. But especially with online multiplayer games, the sentiment has always been that you necessarily give up some freedom to participate. For example, I don’t actually know a single person who dislikes ring 0 kernel anti-cheat, dubbed “spyware” by many.
> absolutely excessive proportions.
Citation badly needed, there are a lot of cheaters! The fact that I can buy a Cronus from a local gamestop, today, speaks volumes. I’d like to get cheaters in check first, how about we criminalize assisting in cheating, not actually enforce it through state-sponsored law enforcement, but make it so that gaming companies have an easy path to shut it down and bankrupt cheat-device manufacturers/retailers/importers. Something like DMCA. In the same bill we can hold game/anti cheat vendors accountable for bans.
A lot of these folks are software developers! I’d have to do a poll to get wider info, but I know several people have AHK, WireShark and WSL installed, and have for years. But especially with online multiplayer games, the sentiment has always been that you necessarily give up some freedom to participate. For example, I don’t actually know a single person who dislikes ring 0 kernel anti-cheat, dubbed “spyware” by many.
> absolutely excessive proportions.
Citation badly needed, there are a lot of cheaters! The fact that I can buy a Cronus from a local gamestop, today, speaks volumes. I’d like to get cheaters in check first, how about we criminalize assisting in cheating, not actually enforce it through state-sponsored law enforcement, but make it so that gaming companies have an easy path to shut it down and bankrupt cheat-device manufacturers/retailers/importers. Something like DMCA. In the same bill we can hold game/anti cheat vendors accountable for bans.
If this is true you should all gather and file a class action lawsuit immediately against Activision.
This is extremely user-hostile... even more than Apple-level-user-hostility.
This is extremely user-hostile... even more than Apple-level-user-hostility.
I'll throw my two cents in.
I'm "UNDER REVIEW" right now. That means I'm shadow banned. I'm only able to match with other people that are shadow banned.
This is actually the second time I'm "UNDER REVIEW". I guess you can be under review multiple times? I had a 3 day period where I wasn't under review and everything went back to normal. As of today actually, I am now banned again.
It's pretty miserable. It's actually funny, most of the regular multiplayer lobbies are decentish. Nobody seems to be obviously cheating or hacking. Maybe once or twice I felt like someone might be cheating. It takes a very long time to find a match. And when you do find a match, you'd be lucky to have a sub 60ms ping.
DMZ just released. I really want to play it but I unfortunately cannot, I never find a match.
Also I just gotta throw this out there since I'm trashing on the game right now. This game crashes A LOT.
I'm "UNDER REVIEW" right now. That means I'm shadow banned. I'm only able to match with other people that are shadow banned.
This is actually the second time I'm "UNDER REVIEW". I guess you can be under review multiple times? I had a 3 day period where I wasn't under review and everything went back to normal. As of today actually, I am now banned again.
It's pretty miserable. It's actually funny, most of the regular multiplayer lobbies are decentish. Nobody seems to be obviously cheating or hacking. Maybe once or twice I felt like someone might be cheating. It takes a very long time to find a match. And when you do find a match, you'd be lucky to have a sub 60ms ping.
DMZ just released. I really want to play it but I unfortunately cannot, I never find a match.
Also I just gotta throw this out there since I'm trashing on the game right now. This game crashes A LOT.
[deleted]
TLDR:
Activision has been criticized for its faulty anti-cheat software, which has resulted in permanent and unappealable account bans for players of its game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II. Affected players are unable to access the single-player game, even though they paid $70 or more for it. The bans come with no explanation or ability to communicate with Activision. The issue has been met with "shut up and go away, cheater" responses on social media, and attempts to raise awareness are being suppressed on forums. Players are organizing to file reports with the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission.
Activision has been criticized for its faulty anti-cheat software, which has resulted in permanent and unappealable account bans for players of its game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II. Affected players are unable to access the single-player game, even though they paid $70 or more for it. The bans come with no explanation or ability to communicate with Activision. The issue has been met with "shut up and go away, cheater" responses on social media, and attempts to raise awareness are being suppressed on forums. Players are organizing to file reports with the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission.
> Anyone who’s played (at least the PC version of) Modern Warfare II is fully aware of the instability and bugginess of the release
I’ve casually played this game quite a few times since release and not had any issue. Perhaps I’m too casual but I login, hope into a random quick match, shoot, die, repeat and turn off the console when I’m satisfied.
I’ve casually played this game quite a few times since release and not had any issue. Perhaps I’m too casual but I login, hope into a random quick match, shoot, die, repeat and turn off the console when I’m satisfied.
I think console vs PC is definitely one part of the problem. My buddy on console (xbox) definitely experiences much fewer game breaking bugs and crashes than the rest of us in the squad who are on PC.
Have not hit this issue...yet. However, on my Xbox someone else's ActivisionID has inadvertently been tied to mine. Got in touch with the owner and when they go to unlink their account from my Xbox Live Activision's website just reloads. No errors, no codes or any confirmation or denial. Phone support is nonexistent, followed all other possible channels and cannot find or do anything.
I spent $70 for a game I can't play on my own account. I can't play with my friends, I can't level my own stuff, and there is nothing I can do. It's completely broken and I can't get a refund in any way. Anyone had success in disputing these purchases with their credit card companies?
I spent $70 for a game I can't play on my own account. I can't play with my friends, I can't level my own stuff, and there is nothing I can do. It's completely broken and I can't get a refund in any way. Anyone had success in disputing these purchases with their credit card companies?
I think it is worth a try to do credit card chargeback. Call your credit card company and explain _high level_: "I bought a video game. I cannot register online. It is required to play. There is not support line to help me. I am stuck. This game does not work for me. I want to do a charge back."
I assume you bought from an online store. Also, try to find a support line. Provide this information (high level!) to your credit card company.
I assume you bought from an online store. Also, try to find a support line. Provide this information (high level!) to your credit card company.
I once had my EA account hacked. I tried to find a way to contact support and get things sorted out. The EA website had a page to start the support process, but it just..... didn't work. The button that said "put me in the queue" caused and error and loaded a broken page. This was the case for MONTHS.
God, imagine if your business could ignore customers for months and still be stupidly successful.
God, imagine if your business could ignore customers for months and still be stupidly successful.
Activision did a similar thing with the completely botched release of Warcraft 3 both the modern Battle.net re-release and the Reforged remake. The TLDR is that if you tried to play most any custom map - even privately - you would reconnect shortly later and find your account permanently banned. In some cases even if you ever actually got to start the custom map, just simply from trying to host a lobby. In my case it was a private lobby with two other friends for the old-school map "Enfos".
I filed an appeal/ticket with Blizzard and they gave me an almost identical canned response as from the article and I simply gave up and vowed to never buy another Blizzard game. About 6 months later on a whim I tried to play the game again and it worked, but the entire experience left such a bad taste in my mouth that I have no motivation to participate in this exercise in frustration.
The problem is that the mapping community had created some very inventive use of out-of-bounds memory access as a way to use the internal game APIs to accomplish things the game engine supports but isn't exposed to mappers. If you take a close look at almost every "big" map eventually you'll find some level of use of these techniques. The community created a "safe list" of known patterns of OOB memory access so that maps could be "verified" as not doing anything naughty while still also having access to these extra modding features.
The worst part? Blizzard was so aware of this situation that they actually re-implemented the OOB memory access in a safe way using known memory offsets. So, they fixed the actual OOB memory access so it shouldn't be possible to use an OOB memory access to crash your game or steal your "cdkey" or similar, but they have whitelisted many useful memory offsets so it's still possible to interact with the game engine in more complex ways.
That's the strangest part for me is that they put in a LOT of effort to remain that level of backwards compatibility and then banned players automatically when they tried to use it. Of course absolutely none of this was communicated to regular players in game and of course the forums are a complete shit show.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I filed an appeal/ticket with Blizzard and they gave me an almost identical canned response as from the article and I simply gave up and vowed to never buy another Blizzard game. About 6 months later on a whim I tried to play the game again and it worked, but the entire experience left such a bad taste in my mouth that I have no motivation to participate in this exercise in frustration.
The problem is that the mapping community had created some very inventive use of out-of-bounds memory access as a way to use the internal game APIs to accomplish things the game engine supports but isn't exposed to mappers. If you take a close look at almost every "big" map eventually you'll find some level of use of these techniques. The community created a "safe list" of known patterns of OOB memory access so that maps could be "verified" as not doing anything naughty while still also having access to these extra modding features.
The worst part? Blizzard was so aware of this situation that they actually re-implemented the OOB memory access in a safe way using known memory offsets. So, they fixed the actual OOB memory access so it shouldn't be possible to use an OOB memory access to crash your game or steal your "cdkey" or similar, but they have whitelisted many useful memory offsets so it's still possible to interact with the game engine in more complex ways.
That's the strangest part for me is that they put in a LOT of effort to remain that level of backwards compatibility and then banned players automatically when they tried to use it. Of course absolutely none of this was communicated to regular players in game and of course the forums are a complete shit show.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
SGX is probably not the right answer, but there have been suggestions to that effect,
https://lifeasageek.github.io/papers/seonghyun-blackmirror.p...
https://web.cse.ohio-state.edu/~lin.3021/file/SYSTEX16.pdf
https://lifeasageek.github.io/papers/seonghyun-blackmirror.p...
https://web.cse.ohio-state.edu/~lin.3021/file/SYSTEX16.pdf
STOP GIVING THEM MONEY
It's worth keeping in mind that this is a company hit by government lawsuits alleging sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation, plus a staff walkout for similar reasons.
You should expect them to behave poorly, as they have a history of doing so. It's unfortunate, but you just have to give up on buying their games.
You should expect them to behave poorly, as they have a history of doing so. It's unfortunate, but you just have to give up on buying their games.
I wonder why they don't start to use secure enclaves to fix this cheating debacle? This might solve the problem for good. Between the cheaters and the companies trying to stem the tide, is destroying FPS online gaming.
I guess intel SGX chaos didn't help either.
I guess intel SGX chaos didn't help either.
Knock on wood my experience with Activision/MW/MW2 has been pretty flawless. The new game has some bugs, but in general it has been the best way for me and my buddies who live 3,000 miles away to remain in touch and hang out on the weekends.
Thats honestly incredible to me. I've had like 5 _different_ game breaking bugs in multiplayer and countless crashes/quality-of-life bugs in warzone 2. Thats not even considering the broken looting that will come up almost once per game. I really enjoy the multiplayer overall (except Border Crossing) but Warzone is a buggy mess that isn't fun at the end of the day because it ends up being a looting simulator a lot of times. I much preferred the tempo of Warzone 1.
Is there any games where they bucket customers into probability of cheating and let them play with each other? Have it been tried?
It's nice to know, that Valve isn't the only company that sucks at doing anti-cheat right. Or at all, that is...
One thing that I have been wondering about about anti cheat systems is that wouldn't people be able to do GDPR data request on their account? I would imagine that a lot the data they use for the ban decision would count as personal data and thus they would need to include it as part of the response. And if there are mistakes they would have option to rectify it.
I did this with EA actually, I was banned for no reason from Apex Legends, EA support told me it was an EasyAntiCheat ban, but I wasn't banned from other EAC games which made me suspect that wasn't true. When I googled around I found screenshots showing that the ban message ingame would have the text "Banned" after the default "client banned" message.
I contacted EAC who confirmed I was not EAC banned, I informed EA of this and just got the default "We cannot discuss bans blah blah" reply. I then ran a GDPR data request, and after 3 weeks I got a massive dump of all my info, which included the ban reason. The ban reason was N/A, not blanked out or censored, just N/A from the data dump. I raised this with EA and they just kept telling me they can't discuss bans etc. I managed to get it escalated eventually via a complaint which lead to my account being unbanned and I got it confirmed that it was an erroneous ban.
I contacted EAC who confirmed I was not EAC banned, I informed EA of this and just got the default "We cannot discuss bans blah blah" reply. I then ran a GDPR data request, and after 3 weeks I got a massive dump of all my info, which included the ban reason. The ban reason was N/A, not blanked out or censored, just N/A from the data dump. I raised this with EA and they just kept telling me they can't discuss bans etc. I managed to get it escalated eventually via a complaint which lead to my account being unbanned and I got it confirmed that it was an erroneous ban.
Some falsely banned players have requested their GDPR data, but it expressly doesn't include any of their anti-cheat data. I'm still waiting for them to respond to my GDPR request.
Surprisingly, there is actually some official guidelines about anti-cheat and bans:
https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/edpb_guidelines_...
> Example 3: GAMER X is registered as a user on the gaming platform of PLATFORM Y. One day, GAMER X is notified that his online account has been restricted. As he is unable to log in anymore, GAMER X asks the controller for access to all personal data relating to him. In addition, GAMER X requires access to the reasons for the account restriction. PLATFORM Y, the controller of the online gaming platform with which the request has been lodged, informs the users in its general terms and conditions available on its website, that any kind of cheating (mainly by the use of third party software) will entail a periodical or permanent ban from its platform. PLATFORM Y also informs the users in its privacy policy about the processing of personal data for the purpose of detecting gaming cheats, in accordance with the requirements set out in Art. 13 GDPR.
> Upon receipt of GAMER X’s request for access, PLATFORM Y should provide GAMER X with a copy of the personal data processed about GAMER X. Regarding the reason for the account restriction, PLATFORM Y should confirm GAMER X that it decided to restrict GAMER X’s access to online games due to the use of one or repeated gaming cheats which are in violation with the general terms of use. In addition to the information provided about the processing for the purpose of gaming cheat detection, PLATFORM Y should grant GAMER X access to the information it has stored about GAMER X’s gaming cheats which led to the restriction. In particular, PLATFORM Y should provide GAMER X with the information that led to the restriction of the account (e.g. log overview, date and time of cheating, detection of third party software,...) in order for the data subject to verify that the data processing has been accurate.
> However, according to Art. 15(4) and Recital 63 GDPR, PLATFORM Y is not bound to reveal any part of the technical operating of the anti-cheat software even if this information is relating to GAMER X as long as this is can be regarded as trade secrets. The necessary balancing of interests under Art. 15(4) will have the result that the trade secrets of PLATFORM Y preclude the disclosure of this personal data because knowledge of the technical operating of the anti-cheat software could also allow the user to circumvent future cheat or fraud detection
> The extent of the information provided to individuals will be heavily context dependent, taking into account the nature of the data controller and the nature of the breach of the terms of service. In some cases, it may only be possible for the data controller to provide basic information in response to an access request to which Art. 15(4) applies
So at least some information should be provided while some things could fall under the trade secret exception. I would imagine at least some cases need to go to DPA in order to get some clarification on what information must be provided and which things they could avoid disclosing, but that is going to take quite a while to get any resolution on.
https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/edpb_guidelines_...
> Example 3: GAMER X is registered as a user on the gaming platform of PLATFORM Y. One day, GAMER X is notified that his online account has been restricted. As he is unable to log in anymore, GAMER X asks the controller for access to all personal data relating to him. In addition, GAMER X requires access to the reasons for the account restriction. PLATFORM Y, the controller of the online gaming platform with which the request has been lodged, informs the users in its general terms and conditions available on its website, that any kind of cheating (mainly by the use of third party software) will entail a periodical or permanent ban from its platform. PLATFORM Y also informs the users in its privacy policy about the processing of personal data for the purpose of detecting gaming cheats, in accordance with the requirements set out in Art. 13 GDPR.
> Upon receipt of GAMER X’s request for access, PLATFORM Y should provide GAMER X with a copy of the personal data processed about GAMER X. Regarding the reason for the account restriction, PLATFORM Y should confirm GAMER X that it decided to restrict GAMER X’s access to online games due to the use of one or repeated gaming cheats which are in violation with the general terms of use. In addition to the information provided about the processing for the purpose of gaming cheat detection, PLATFORM Y should grant GAMER X access to the information it has stored about GAMER X’s gaming cheats which led to the restriction. In particular, PLATFORM Y should provide GAMER X with the information that led to the restriction of the account (e.g. log overview, date and time of cheating, detection of third party software,...) in order for the data subject to verify that the data processing has been accurate.
> However, according to Art. 15(4) and Recital 63 GDPR, PLATFORM Y is not bound to reveal any part of the technical operating of the anti-cheat software even if this information is relating to GAMER X as long as this is can be regarded as trade secrets. The necessary balancing of interests under Art. 15(4) will have the result that the trade secrets of PLATFORM Y preclude the disclosure of this personal data because knowledge of the technical operating of the anti-cheat software could also allow the user to circumvent future cheat or fraud detection
> The extent of the information provided to individuals will be heavily context dependent, taking into account the nature of the data controller and the nature of the breach of the terms of service. In some cases, it may only be possible for the data controller to provide basic information in response to an access request to which Art. 15(4) applies
So at least some information should be provided while some things could fall under the trade secret exception. I would imagine at least some cases need to go to DPA in order to get some clarification on what information must be provided and which things they could avoid disclosing, but that is going to take quite a while to get any resolution on.
[deleted]
> filing reports with the Better Business Bureau (BBB)
good luck with that, the BBB is basically Yelp for Boomers.
good luck with that, the BBB is basically Yelp for Boomers.
Anti cheat is hard, very hard, and you will always those kind of false positive.
What I can say is that a lot of people say they don't cheat but they actually cheat.
What I can say is that a lot of people say they don't cheat but they actually cheat.
You can find actual cheaters streaming on Twitch and they can go for months and months without getting banned
>I don’t think they’re aware of the disservice they’re doing to their community by actively suppressing these reports (or conspiratorially, they’re influenced by Activision itself).
I think you underestimate the deluge of posts that are made by cheaters pleading their case in a public forum. It's so common that it's basically a meme. I don't blame the moderation policies that prohibit these posts. These posts are typically provocative and often try to riles users up against the developer. Nobody wants to read these posts, you can never be sure they're real and there's nothing a regular user can do except upvote it and subsequently ignore it. There's no good conversation or comments to be found, it's all bad stuff.
This is not to say the issue at hand isn't a very real problem. Anecdotally it feels like these kinds of situations are increasing with frequency as developers tire of the inevitable losing fight against cheating and are desperate to show their customers they're taking the problem seriously.
I think you underestimate the deluge of posts that are made by cheaters pleading their case in a public forum. It's so common that it's basically a meme. I don't blame the moderation policies that prohibit these posts. These posts are typically provocative and often try to riles users up against the developer. Nobody wants to read these posts, you can never be sure they're real and there's nothing a regular user can do except upvote it and subsequently ignore it. There's no good conversation or comments to be found, it's all bad stuff.
This is not to say the issue at hand isn't a very real problem. Anecdotally it feels like these kinds of situations are increasing with frequency as developers tire of the inevitable losing fight against cheating and are desperate to show their customers they're taking the problem seriously.
I think you still do a disservice to players by dismissing all these reports as low quality and impossible to verify. Here is a good counterexample https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/zawwc5/i_...
It’s amusing you picked this as an example because the EFT subreddit is notoriously moderated. This one works because it has overwhelming evidence. The author of this post only has a few screenshots and assurances. I imagine these players would have the same experience as the author otherwise.
After months of playing MW and Black Ops, one day I queue up with friends and after waiting 5+ minutes no server would be found. We try over and over finally we realize its me.
Googling around shows that I am "Shadow Banned" and everyone is like "go away cheater" online.
I've been playing online games with an in game name that contains the word "Erotica" for a while now (4+ years) and have had zero issues.
Turns out the word "Erotica" is BANNED by Activision, and they synced their identity management with Blizzard it got flagged.
I found ONE random thread on Reddit where a guy ran into the same problem and gave a link to directly log into their system.
Once logged in I got "Your username contains adult content and must be changed".
After changing it, and waiting 3 days, it 'synced' and my account was unbanned.
The whole thing was absolutely stupid, I had paid $60 and could not play any of their games.
It pretty much ruined the game for me, I haven't given them a dollar since.