StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

February 23, 2011 -

Blizzard announced today that it has banned an undisclosed amount of Battle.net users for using cheats and hacks while playing StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty online. Here is the official word from Battle.net:

"Battle.net has word that Blizzard has busted out the BanLaser on some StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty cheaters (thanks Big Download). Here's word: We recently issued a new round of account suspensions and bans to StarCraft II players who were in violation of the Battle.net Terms of Use for cheating and/or using hack programs while playing. In addition to undermining the spirit of fair competition that’s essential to play on Battle.net, cheating and hacking can lead to stability and performance issues with the service. As always, maintaining a stable, safe, and secure 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."

So there you have it. Cheaters and hack users should expect no less from Blizzard.

Source: Blue's News


Comments

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Banned from Bnet or banned from using their own games even offline?  The former make sense;blizzard's service, blizzards rules.  The later is insane.

my vanity is justified

my vanity is justified

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

That's the thing, You need to sign onto a B.net account to play, even offline. So to them, there's no difference. They even justified previous bans of people only playing single player by saying that avatars you can get from the mission challenges is "comprimising the multiplayer experience".

(For the record, these avatars are just that. Pictures. They give no benefits in the game at all)

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Its nice to see Bnet 2.0 a completely closed system that moderters your mods kick you off becuse you do not want to use thier mod system to apporve mods and only runs mods they want, forget if these are map mods and other non MP cheating stuff.


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.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Now here's the catch: are they banning people using cheat systems while playing an online multiplayer match, or are they banning people using cheat systems while playing the single player campaign? The reason why this is such a concern is because while Activision sees no difference between the single player game and the online multiplayer, there is a difference. While I won't argue banning the online multiplayer cheaters (I applaud it in fact), the banning of people cheating in only the single player part of the game simply because it requires you to be connected to your battle.net account is reprehensible.

That said, that statement is very carefully worded to avoid saying whether they're simply banning multiplayer cheaters or anyone using a cheat system in either the multiplayer or singleplayer modes.

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Indeed. I too can only applaud the removal of cheaters from multiplayer games, BUT what people do with their single player games SHOULD be their own trouble. If I use my car badly on the streets, fine, arrest me, but if I make a sculpture in the backyard out of it (that is not dangerous or polluting), then that's my own business...

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Some people will do anything to beat the Koreans.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Though I don't use battle.net im glad that the cheaters are getting kicked off the service.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: StarCraft II Cheaters Get Banned From Battle.net

Blizzard banning people for cheating is like declaring that snow is cold.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIn case anyone is interested, there is a clause written into Section 10 of Windows 10's EULA that provides for a Class Action Waiver, and restricts the user to Binding Arbitration.07/29/2015 - 11:15am
TechnogeekNo, that folder is what gets used for the upgrade process. I already had the upgrade go through on my notebook.07/29/2015 - 10:35am
Andrew EisenMatt - And AGAIN, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published? How is it not accountable to its readership (which, AGAIN, is primarily game industry folk, not gamers)?07/29/2015 - 10:10am
james_fudgeThat's the clean install, for anyone asking07/29/2015 - 9:23am
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician