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

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician