Update: Diablo 3 Cheater Purge Imminent

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Update: Diablo 3 Cheater Purge Imminent

Blizzard gets out the banhammer for bot users and hackers.

image

Multiple choice time! If you use hacks, cheats, bots or mods in Diablo 3, will you: a) be chained to a mountain, while an eagle eats your liver for all eternity; b) be forced to climb the Mountain of Knives; c) be condemned to wander forever in the third circle, eating everything that comes your way, until a wandering crusader sticks Death's scythe in your massive butt; or d) get banned?

Blizzard says the answer is d), although they looked at the eagle-liver thing for a while, before deciding that it might be a little excessive. Writ in letters of fire in Blizzard's latest advisory is a gruesome warning: "[Any cheater] will be permanently unable to log in to Battle.net to play Diablo III with his or her account." A wandering pilgrim known only as izvr posted to the soon-to-be-doomed in the Battle.net comments thread, "May the Heaven and Hell bless you guys. May the Heaven and Hell bless itself." That seems only reasonable, under the circumstances.

This comes on the heels of Blizzard's latest requirement, that players need to use Authenticators if they want to access the Real World Money Auction House. Blizzard has had security on its mind for a long time now; World of Warcraft taught them that the Willie Suttons of the internet try to hack their games because that's where the money is. It's hardly surprising that Blizzard prefers to take a hard line on mod users.

Sayeth the announcement, "suspensions and bans of players that have used or start using cheats and hacks will begin in the near future." Wailing and the gnashing of teeth will follow shortly thereafter.

Sources: Battle.net, Eurogamer

Update: Blizzard has moved forward on its promises, issuing the following statement on the official Battle.net forums:

We recently issued a round of account suspensions and bans to several thousand Diablo III players who were in violation of the Battle.net Terms of Use for cheating and/or using botting or hacking programs while playing. In addition to undermining the spirit of fair play that's essential to everyone's enjoyment of the game, botting, hacking, and other such exploitive behavior can contribute to stability and performance issues with the Battle.net service. As always, maintaining a stable, safe, and fun online-gaming experience for legitimate players is a top priority for us, and we'll be continuing to keep watch on Battle.net and take action as needed.

Permalink

I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

So the Pirates are safe then?

Wait, they weren't doing this before?

ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Considering that they steal from peoples accounts, do you want them to still play?

I'm by no means condoning it, but based on their track record at WoW/D2 I wouldn't be too worried if I were hacking/botting.

(I don't even have D3, partially because of said players).

RaikuFA:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Considering that they steal from peoples accounts, do you want them to still play?

"hacks, cheats, bots or mods"

Bots do not involve stealing from peoples' accounts, cheats do not involve stealing from peoples' accounts and mods do not involve stealing from peoples' accounts. Hacks may involve stealing from peoples' accounts sometimes. So... yeah, not sure what else to say. If it were just actual thieves who were affected it would be more understandable, but it isn't.

"online game bans cheaters"

I fail to see how this is news. Everyone knew that there would still be bots in d3, theres bots in every game.

DVS BSTrD:
So the Pirates are safe then?

Last I checked there were still no fully working pirate servers for D3. So I don't think they're even playing it yet. At least, if they are it's a shitty barely working version.

draythefingerless:
ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

Actually, I'd say this kind of vindicates it. Fucking with other people's stuff? You lose your game! No better punishment.

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Blizzard has been very upfront for years now that Diablo is not a single player game any longer. It is an online game. It's not loke the EA fiasco's where they blocked play to what were very clearly single player games. Blizz did the due diligence ahead of time on this one, so yeah they can ban you from Battle.net.

While I loathe the always on internet requirements and DRM bullcrap, I fear that this actually comunicates exactly the opposite message from what some are assuming. The internet requirement does not prevent cheaters and botters and hackers from doing their thing. It lets the game runners detect and shut them down hard so they don't influence the economy or impact others game play like they could in previous games.

I like to imagine this kind of scenario happening somewhere:

*reads post about cheaters getting banned*
*doorbell, it's Blizzard*

Oh shit guys, hide the hacks and flush the mods!

Blizzard should of gone with all of the above, d is clearly too lax

faefrost:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Blizzard has been very upfront for years now that Diablo is not a single player game any longer. It is an online game. It's not loke the EA fiasco's where they blocked play to what were very clearly single player games. Blizz did the due diligence ahead of time on this one, so yeah they can ban you from Battle.net.

While I loathe the always on internet requirements and DRM bullcrap, I fear that this actually comunicates exactly the opposite message from what some are assuming. The internet requirement does not prevent cheaters and botters and hackers from doing their thing. It lets the game runners detect and shut them down hard so they don't influence the economy or impact others game play like they could in previous games.

And?

If someone pays for a product, and doesn't receive that product, they should be refunded. If it was a pure multiplayer game, and there was no option whatsoever for a singleplayer experience (as there actually is in this case) then obviously they can't just block you from the multiplayer and still let you keep the game, but then it is their duty to refund you the price. Like I was saying, it's basic consumer rights, only no-one seems to give a damn about them any more.

Most people do not take video-games as a hobby as far as people like me and you do, and they won't frequent The Escapist or whatever other sites and know this information in advance. They will buy the game, and then they will suddenly be presented with an EULA that says Blizzard can stop them playing this game (that they have already paid for) whenever they want. What if they don't agree with this? It's too bad, no game and no refund.

I'm certain this is illegal when it comes to most other products, and I don't know (or really care) what loophole software companies use to get away with this, but it's bullshit.

DVS BSTrD:
So the Pirates are safe then?

the pirates are allways safe, aye matey.
unfortunately they only have some @ss backwards alpha build world generator, or so i hear
but if they can haul the booty, then they dont care.

draythefingerless:
ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

i agree, it has failed to do ANYTHING it claimed to it does not protect your account, it does not stop cheating, it does not prevent botting
( you bet your @ss if the iphone app exists to generate signin codes, a bot script can too )

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.[/quote]

RaikuFA:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong.
I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games,
they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Considering that they steal from peoples accounts, do you want them to still play?

they voilated the terms they accepted, unless you live in the uk digital signing and contracts are considered 100% legal
( im no law student, but i've heard of uk cases being thrown out due to digital signing )

Edit# got trigger happy with the copy paste button.

The.Bard:
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

Pretty much. It was never really about keeping the "consumers" safe though, if they wanted to really do that then Authenticators would be packaged into every physical release of their online games.

It's about clawing up every bit of control they can, in order to brute-force the most financially-pleasing down the collective throats of the player base. And botters/dupes mean less cash overall made through the AH.

The Lugz:

DVS BSTrD:
So the Pirates are safe then?

the pirates are allways safe, aye matey.
unfortunately they only have some @ss backwards alpha build world generator, or so i hear
but if they can haul the booty, then they dont care.

draythefingerless:
ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THIS ALWAYS ONLINE BULLSHIT JUST TOTALLY COLLAPSED ON ITSELF.

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

i agree, it has failed to do ANYTHING it claimed to it does not protect your account, it does not stop cheating, it does not prevent botting
( you bet your @ss if the iphone app exists to generate signin codes, a bot script can too )

Seriously thou. Fuck D3's alwaysonline.

RaikuFA:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong.
I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games,
they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Considering that they steal from peoples accounts, do you want them to still play?

they voilated the terms they accepted, unless you live in the uk digital signing and contracts are considered 100% legal
( im no law student, but i've heard of uk cases being thrown out due to digital signing )

Edit# got trigger happy with the copy paste button.[/quote]What makes these digital contracts so interesting is that you can't agree or decline them until after you have purchased a product.

Wait wai wai wut? So we tolerated with this always online DRM crap just to suffer from the things they were 'going to prevent'?

Lunncal:

faefrost:

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

Blizzard has been very upfront for years now that Diablo is not a single player game any longer. It is an online game. It's not loke the EA fiasco's where they blocked play to what were very clearly single player games. Blizz did the due diligence ahead of time on this one, so yeah they can ban you from Battle.net.

While I loathe the always on internet requirements and DRM bullcrap, I fear that this actually comunicates exactly the opposite message from what some are assuming. The internet requirement does not prevent cheaters and botters and hackers from doing their thing. It lets the game runners detect and shut them down hard so they don't influence the economy or impact others game play like they could in previous games.

And?

If someone pays for a product, and doesn't receive that product, they should be refunded. If it was a pure multiplayer game, and there was no option whatsoever for a singleplayer experience (as there actually is in this case) then obviously they can't just block you from the multiplayer and still let you keep the game, but then it is their duty to refund you the price. Like I was saying, it's basic consumer rights, only no-one seems to give a damn about them any more.

Most people do not take video-games as a hobby as far as people like me and you do, and they won't frequent The Escapist or whatever other sites and know this information in advance. They will buy the game, and then they will suddenly be presented with an EULA that says Blizzard can stop them playing this game (that they have already paid for) whenever they want. What if they don't agree with this? It's too bad, no game and no refund.

I'm certain this is illegal when it comes to most other products, and I don't know (or really care) what loophole software companies use to get away with this, but it's bullshit.

I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.

These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.

I think I am one of the few people who seriously wanted to play D3 but didn't buy it in protest to the always online thing. Pair that up this new ban policy... sucks that I can't play the game alone, offline and in peace.

Wait, I thought blizzard were all for mods and stuff, this all seems pretty harsh, and I am wandering how difficult it would be for hackers to put cheap ping on other accounts.
All I can say if I bought D3. If I already had D3 I would be demanding my money back.

The.Bard:
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

Any company that believes they have a chance against hackers and piracy need a good slap on the wrist, 'cause that shit's impossible.

The.Bard:

I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.

These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.

But that's just it, they are presented with the ToS AFTER they made the purchase. So Blizzard basically tells the consumer "We can take anything you bought from us whenever we want" only AFTER he bought the game, no refund, final destination. The consumer could not have known about any of Blizzard's little laws and rules beforehand, unless he browses the internet, which should not be something you must do in order to buy a game.

I'm against bans like this. Yes cheaters, hackers and other scum like that are annoying but Diablo III is primarily a single player game with online features. Being banned from your entire battlenet account is excessive because it means that those people can no longer play World of Warcraft or Starcraft if they have them because those are also linked to your battlenet account, they're essentially being banned from all the games they paid for after cheating on just one of their games (assuming they haven't cheated on others).

It was like when EA were banning people from their Origin accounts for cheating on Battlefield 3. Someone could have over 100 games on their Origin account but for cheating on one game they get banned from all of them? That isn't right.

Also, good job Blizzard, everyone was against your always online DRM but you insisted on it to stop hackers and cheaters. Looks like it's doing a fine job.

It's kind of funny that they try to prevent cheaters from f**king up their game, while they did that more or less themselves.

Destal:

Lunncal:
And?

If someone pays for a product, and doesn't receive that product, they should be refunded. If it was a pure multiplayer game, and there was no option whatsoever for a singleplayer experience (as there actually is in this case) then obviously they can't just block you from the multiplayer and still let you keep the game, but then it is their duty to refund you the price. Like I was saying, it's basic consumer rights, only no-one seems to give a damn about them any more.

Most people do not take video-games as a hobby as far as people like me and you do, and they won't frequent The Escapist or whatever other sites and know this information in advance. They will buy the game, and then they will suddenly be presented with an EULA that says Blizzard can stop them playing this game (that they have already paid for) whenever they want. What if they don't agree with this? It's too bad, no game and no refund.

I'm certain this is illegal when it comes to most other products, and I don't know (or really care) what loophole software companies use to get away with this, but it's bullshit.

I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.

These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.

The problem is that you only register the game (and thus only find out about the ToS) after you've paid for it. If it turns out that those terms of service are bullshit, and say ridiculous things like that they can take your game away from you whenever they want, it's simply too bad. If you disagree with it then you get no game, and no refund. For any other product or service this is illegal, I don't know why it isn't for games and other software.

As for the part about there being no singleplayer campaign for Diablo, it's beside the point. If they wish to ban you from the multiplayer portion and there is no singleplayer portion then they should give you a full refund. You've paid for a product and suddenly you're not getting it.

Lunncal:

Destal:

Lunncal:
And?

If someone pays for a product, and doesn't receive that product, they should be refunded. If it was a pure multiplayer game, and there was no option whatsoever for a singleplayer experience (as there actually is in this case) then obviously they can't just block you from the multiplayer and still let you keep the game, but then it is their duty to refund you the price. Like I was saying, it's basic consumer rights, only no-one seems to give a damn about them any more.

Most people do not take video-games as a hobby as far as people like me and you do, and they won't frequent The Escapist or whatever other sites and know this information in advance. They will buy the game, and then they will suddenly be presented with an EULA that says Blizzard can stop them playing this game (that they have already paid for) whenever they want. What if they don't agree with this? It's too bad, no game and no refund.

I'm certain this is illegal when it comes to most other products, and I don't know (or really care) what loophole software companies use to get away with this, but it's bullshit.

I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.

These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.

The problem is that you only register the game (and thus only find out about the ToS) after you've paid for it. If it turns out that those terms of service are bullshit, and say ridiculous things like that they can take your game away from you whenever they want, it's simply too bad. If you disagree with it then you get no game, and no refund. For any other product or service this is illegal, I don't know why it isn't for games and other software.

As for the part about there being no singleplayer campaign for Diablo, it's beside the point. If they wish to ban you from the multiplayer portion and there is no singleplayer portion then they should give you a full refund. You've paid for a product and suddenly you're not getting it.

If you disagree with the TOS, you can actually return the game. All you have to do is contact customer support.

I can't wait to see the excuses fill up the forums. The guys behind this fun website are gonna have some competition.

Lumber Barber:

The.Bard:
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

Any company that believes they have a chance against hackers and piracy need a good slap on the wrist, 'cause that shit's impossible.

The.Bard:

I fail to see the problem. When you register the game, you accept the ToS of the game. When the ToS are violated, you get banned. The article also states that you can't login to battle.net to play D3, it doesn't mention other games. Also, you are incorrect about there being a single player portion...you can play solo but that doesn't make it a single player game. You can play by yourself in WoW too.

These people are also hurting the economy of the other players. There are crap items on the AH currently for 200,000,000 gold. There is no way someone has got that much gold legit and there is no way a legit player can compete with those who aren't.

But that's just it, they are presented with the ToS AFTER they made the purchase. So Blizzard basically tells the consumer "We can take anything you bought from us whenever we want" only AFTER he bought the game, no refund, final destination. The consumer could not have known about any of Blizzard's little laws and rules beforehand, unless he browses the internet, which should not be something you must do in order to buy a game.

You might have a point if you were arguing that someone that absolutely can't/won't play under the TOS should get their money back since they're obviously not getting anything out of their purchase but that's not the situation here. Here is people agreeing to the TOS and then breaking it for their own selfish reasons. They choose to do that despite all of the possible and very obvious consequences, why should they get essentially a free demo of the entire game while making things harder for other players that didn't do anything wrong?

This doesn't overly surprise me. Pretty much since the first week, every time I log in to D3 I get spammed with adverts from bots telling me if I pay them $20 I can get a stupid amount of gold. It's annoying as hell, and clearly showed that the always online aspect wasn't stopping the kind of real money trading the RMAH and always online are (ostensibly) there to prevent. If these bots and the morons behind them can get banned, my only question is, "How can I help?"

Then again, if this aspect is going to prove to be as "successful" as the rest of the security features of the game, we can expect to see wrongful bans popping up everywhere.

The.Bard:
I'm confused. Wasn't the whole point of their always-online-uber-leet-DRM so that people COULDN'T hack and cheat at all?

So this means the online requirement successfully kept people from messing with it for... less than a month?

Good job all around.

My sentiment exactly.
Glad to see we're back to the same measures that Diablo 2's Closed BNet went through every now and then, pretty much. So this was clearly worth making the players jump through additional hoops then.
I'm not going anywhere near that game.

I foresee many, many customer service representatives begging their doctors for Valium prescriptions.

Lunncal:
-snip-

Except a video game isn't a product. Games, for a long time, have been a fusion between a service and a product. When you buy a game, your not actually "buying" the game, you are buying a license to play the game. And license can be revoked.

Lunncal:
Is that even legal? Do they get a refund?

It'd be understandable if they were banned from the multiplayer portion of the game, but if they can't log in to their Battle.net account they wouldn't be able to play the game at all, unless I've heard wrong. I think it's ridiculous that Blizzard can get away with something like this, but not surprising. Consumer rights don't seem to exist when it comes to video games, they were probably legislated out of existence by the mandatory post-purchase EULAs.

You're right, they should get a refund and there will be plenty of people to come along and defend Blizzard for this behavior.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here