Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

October 14, 2010 -

In response to a story from earlier in the week that Blizzard was banning players from StarCraft 2 who used trainers or cheats in the game’s single-player component, the company issued a clarification.

The web site Cheat Happens had claimed that gamers who used its trainers, which grants users unlimited ammo or other cheats, in SC 2's single-player element resulted in users having their Battle.net accounts suspended, or their CD keys disabled.

In an article on IGN, Blizzard stated that they are not banning players just for cheating StarCraft 2’s single player, but that it was banning for hacks installed which affected both the single player and multiplayer parts of the game:

It's important to point out first, that many of the 3rd-party hacks and cheats developed for StarCraft II contain both single and multiplayer functionality.

In order to protect the integrity of multiplayer competition, we are actively detecting cheat programs used in multiplayer modes whether there are human opponents or not.

The company stated that “any players who opt to use any type of 3rd party hacks do so at their own risk,” adding that “there are already built-in cheat codes for StarCraft II single-player that can be used safely.”

Cheat Happens, responding to the Blizzard statement, said that the newly issued proclamation “completely contradicts” earlier correspondence it had receive from Blizzard support.


Comments

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

Dick move is dicky..... at least show that they broken the online rules..... Mr fife....


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

so wait, if i finish the game and decide to screw around with a trainer in SP or skirmish mode alone i get banned?

thank god i don't care for B.Net anyways since i quit post SC1's hackfest of MP.

and before someone says "well its a lot better now!" after reading thing i don't really care much...

its like saying i can play the game once, get bored, and i'm no longer allowed to do anything new in the game just for giggles. If i want an RTS thats like that i'll go play Halo Wars some more.

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

All blizz says is to use their built in cheats and to not use 3rd party hacks.

You can screw around in single player all you please and all the tools to do so are already provided in game.

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

Then why do single player 3rd party 'cheating' applications exist then?   That seems like a lot of work for someone to go through if the equivelent tools are already in game.

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

You got tons and tons of special custom maps that work very differently for doing different things.

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

Well, I'm not sure which side to believe here, but to be honest, I'm leaning towards Blizzard, for the simple fact that previously released statements from Cheat Happens have clearly misled me.

Not to mention that I'm a little reluctant to trust most sites dedicated to making hacks and cheat available for games that are already full of cheats, especially online multiplayer games.

And if this is truly a case of people using cheats specifically designed for use in single and multiplayer, then I retract my previous comments about flaws in the game's system.

Re: Blizzard Clarifies SC II Single-Player Bannings

Cheathappens trainers are specifically designed not to function in multiplayer. In some cases, the trainer even blocks the multiplayer connection if someone makes an attempt. Unfortunately, other trainer makers just slap together theirs and don't care that they can be used in MP, or even design ones to be specifically used for MP games.

The real problem comes from the Warden program that is used to catch the trainers. It's running so long as the game is and doesn't differentiate between online play or offline play (and given the setup for SC2, the campaign and skirmish mode even qualify as 'multiplayer modes with no other human opponents'). So it just tags any program that might affect the game (yes, it has tagged antivirus programs as well) and reports it.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician