SCII single-player bans explained

By Oli Welsh Published 14 October, 2010

Third-party hacks bad. Cheat codes good.

Blizzard has attracted some ire in recent days as it came to light that players cheating in the single-player modes of StarCraft II had been banned alongside multiplayer miscreants in the recent cull.

The company has now clarified that it's taking no action against players using the built-in cheat codes for single-player, but that it has a zero tolerance policy on third-party hacks that can affect multiplayer competition, even if they're only used for solo play.

"It's important to point out first, that many of the third-party hacks and cheats developed for StarCraft II contain both single- and multiplayer functionality," a spokesman told IGN.

"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.

"Players who opt to use any type of third-party hacks do so at their own risk – there are already built-in cheat codes for StarCraft II single-player that can be used safely."

StarCraft II operates on Blizzard's new Battle.net platform, which requires players to be logged in and online for the majority of play options, whether single-player or multiplayer. "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," Blizzard said in a statement when the bans were first announced.

There is a school of thought that any game with networked Achievements has an element of multiplayer competition even in single-player, and that using cheats or hacks to obtain these is unfair on other players. What do you think?

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (34) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • levitate #1 2 years ago

    Blizzard is one the move! Any third-party cheats should be banned straight away.

  • rivuzu #2 2 years ago

    This is fair to be honest. When you buy a game, you agree in the license that you shant be naughty and tamper with ze source. If third party hacks are doing precisely that, plus the multiplayer/achivements reasoning, then absolutely they should be banned.

    It's a liberty you just don't take with a personal software license.

  • Spectral #3 2 years ago

    Why should they have known it was wrong? Its their game running on their PC. They should be able to run any app they choose on their own hardware. So long as they've not cheated online they're not breaking any service agreement. This is out of order IMO.

  • linksdad #4 2 years ago

    Its not really the single players fault if Blizzard opted to DRM the shit out of their game with battle net. Its the customers game to play with as they want. Can completely understand if they are gaining an unfair advantage over other players, but solo? Also the snooping bastards.

  • rivuzu #5 2 years ago

    @Spectral

    So long as they've not cheated online they're not breaking any service agreement.

    Consider their stance for a moment. They're not going to pick out specific "hacks" and say "This ones ok, but these aren't". They're displaying themselves to be totally uncompromising against any form of external game modification - and that's fair. They didn't distribute the game for it to be used like that, and it is essentially a breach in their end-user license to do so.

    The game is regulated by their DRM & Achivements system. Any modification to this will immediately be a breach of the agreement between Consumer and Developer.

  • Irien #6 2 years ago

    So, does SC2 not have any offline single-player mode? When Ubi introduced that crap, the internet was up in arms and was all for boycotting their games. If SC2 is the same, where's the uproar? I'll reserve judgement until I know for sure, however.

  • rivuzu #7 2 years ago

    @Irien
    Well, you should still be able to choose the option to Play as Guest. From what I can make out, it's the BNet accounts which are being blocked from loading SCII up, so yeah. Offline play is still possible. When I'm out and about, I always do that if I have no WiFi.

  • arcam #8 2 years ago

    Any modification to this will immediately be a breach of the agreement between Consumer and Developer.

    Oh please.

  • DrR0b3rts #9 2 years ago

    Clearly all 70 of the people that have hammered me online in SC2 were cheating. Nothing to do with my crapness, no siree.

  • levitate #10 2 years ago

    @Spectral:

    How they should know? By using a bit of common sense of course. That is unfortunattely something that a sizeable amount of players seem to lack these days.

  • Spectral #11 2 years ago

    @rivuzu

    You mean the EULA that they don't even let you read till you've voided the warranty? Like to see them legally enforce that. Half the best mods made for games would never have existed if these draconican measures were in place in the past. Simple fact is whats running locally as oppsed to online should be none of their god damn business. I'm not saying they should pick specific hacks. Hacks online = bad. hacks offline=fine. I have no intention of hacking nor even playing SC2, doubly so now on principle. It just bugs me that they seem to think its fine they can dictate what can and cant be done with software that you've paid for. Obviously online is another matter as they have a right to enforce whatever rules they like on their network. They just shouldn't have that same right over a privately owned PC.

    @levitate

    I said why not how. Why should people assume cheating in SP is wrong? People have been doing it since the dawn of gaming. Pokes on the spectrum, game genie on the nes and action replay in more recent years. Why should it suddenly now be seen as bad and bannable.
    Edited by Spectral at 14/10/10 @ 11:31

  • arcam #12 2 years ago

    Surely common sense says there would be nothing wrong with cheating in single player? People have been doing this for decades, and no one has ever been banned for it before.

  • TelexStar #13 2 years ago

    @Spectral "Why should they have known it was wrong? Its their game running on their PC. They should be able to run any app they choose on their own hardware. So long as they've not cheated online they're not breaking any service agreement. This is out of order IMO. "

    I take your point but that's not entirely technically correct. Firstly, it's not their (the punter's) game, it's Blizzard's game that they have licensed you to play (via the cost of purchase) on your PC. The game code itself is the IP of Blizzard.

    Secondly; yes you're right, you have the right to run any game that you've bought on your PC and in turn any other app that you have a license for. But when one of those apps (cheat progs) starts to affect the running of the code of another (SCII in this instance) in such a way that goes against how it was intended to run, then the IP owner should have the right to prevent that from happening. Some might argue that a patch would do the trick but I guess Blizzard have chosen to go the banhammer route.

  • Plewt #14 2 years ago

    Irien

    It does have offline SP mode after being activated. Although there was a bug for some that prevented it which caused some confusion.

  • levitate #15 2 years ago

    @Spectral:

    Cheating by using codes are allowed, as stated in the article. They've deemed the use of third-party software to be the villain and it's their game. If that's the decision they've made then that's how it is. Just like Telexstar said, you only buy a licence to use the game on their platform.

    As I recall, you can't get achievements when playing offline so these banned people have probably tried to farm achievements while still being connected to battle.net.

  • arcam #16 2 years ago

    But when one of those apps (cheat progs) starts to affect the running of the code of another (SCII in this instance) in such a way that goes against how it was intended to run, then the IP owner should have the right to prevent that from happening.

    I could not disagree more strongly. I think Activision or Blizzard should have no say in what code I run on my PC, none whatsoever, as long as it doesn't affect them or their other customers.

  • levitate #17 2 years ago

    @arcam:

    I don't think it's the cheating per se that causes Blizzard to use banhammer. It's how they do it. Obviously they use some kind of software that bypasses the original game code, which in fact is a breach of the EULA. A cheat code isn't.

  • bad09 #18 2 years ago

    "Firstly, it's not their (the punter's) game, it's Blizzard's game that they have licensed you to play (via the cost of purchase) on your PC. The game code itself is the IP of Blizzard. "

    Try telling that to your average punter. As much as the industry bangs on about this small print no ones who pays them hard earned money for games cares. To the average consumer they paid for it, it's theirs, end of. Taking away ownership and restricting people up the wazoo only promotes piracy/hacking and only upsets consumers, just ask the music industry.

    While in the age MP I agree ban away, no one should be banned for "cheating" in their single player game it's their game they should be able to do what they want. Cheating was once the very essence of gaming with pokes and codes. Still, just like the death of mods, the switch from unlocks to DLC and DRM in general, it just goes to show how cold and clinical this industry is now with regards to gaming and the people who pay them the money they enjoy rolling about in.

  • Canyarion #19 2 years ago

    On their own news site there was this guy who admit he was cheating in the campaign, but that he didn't care about achievements or rewards at all. He said this while he was using his Kerrigan portrait, one of the coolest and harder to get portraits in the game!

    I'm one of those guys who doesn't want others to cheat with achievements either.

  • arcam #20 2 years ago

    Obviously they use some kind of software that bypasses the original game code, which in fact is a breach of the EULA. A cheat code isn't

    I know, but that makes zero difference to how I feel about it. Again, Blizzard has no say in what code I on my PC as long aslong as it doesn't affect them or others and it isn't illegal. I truly do not care what the EULA says, as despite clicking "I agree", I am not agreeing with its terms.

  • randompanda #21 2 years ago

    If you don't agree to the EULA don't click "I agree".

    The level of self-entitlement in here is inspiring.

  • arcam #22 2 years ago

    If you don't agree to the EULA don't click "I agree".

    If I did this I would never play anything. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read a 5,000 legalese document. I'm guessing you didn't read the last one you agreed to either, which means neither of us really agree. We just click the button to play the game like everybody else.

  • RexRunti #23 2 years ago

    @arcam

    But by using a hack you are affecting other users and Blizzard. You get achievements and other bragging rights, also according to the article it appears they weren't looking at the campaign but at the multiplayer stuff (however including against AI opponents), I think in that situation if they weren't using the hacks against real people the were son going to.

    It's also worth remembering that Starcraft II comes with a pretty complete level editor for the modding community anyway.

    PS I hate Activision but thankfully SCII came out after 3 months without doing something really evil so I allowed myself to buy the game. Black Ops will be staying on the shelf however.

  • arcam #24 2 years ago

    Well, I guess my way of thinking is the thinking of an old school PC gamer. Not very relevant in today's corporate gaming world.

  • rivuzu #25 2 years ago

    @Spectral

    You mean the EULA that they don't even let you read till you've voided the warranty?

    I'm pretty sure you have to say that you agree to the EULA prior to installation. It's also normally declared in the manual as well. So no. You do not void the warranty before you've read it. Entirely the opposite in fact.

    If you don't bother to take time to read the EULA prior to modification and make sure it's fine for you to use third party tools on the program, then you're breaking the contract between consumer and developer. There's no way around debating that.

    And whilst the PC you use may be privately owned, the software is not. You've only purchased the license to install it on your PC under a proviso that you follow their terms and conditions.

    Why you're offended "on principle" is very peculiar indeed, as they're acting ultimately in their right - and fairly, too.

  • arcam #26 2 years ago

    @rivuzu

    You're arguing on technicalities - the fact is, if you open the game to read the EULA, you've lost your money. Your only recompense if you don't agree is to take the £40 hit and not play the game out of principle. This is not 'fair', it's ridiculous, and it's the reason that most people agree that EULAs are not legally binding.

    Anyway... I haven't used any trainers for single player (and am not likely to now, seeing as it could get my account banned), but

  • randompanda #27 2 years ago

    arcam - Didn't read the EULA but then I couldn't give two fucks about Starcraft.

    You're an adult (I assume?) - accept the responsibility that comes with agreeing to a contract without reading it first. If they were being entirely unreasonable, i'd be up in arms too - but since SC2's built entirely around an online component, it's just common sense that they were going to ban people who exploit the game - even if you're playing single player.

  • rivuzu #28 2 years ago

    @arcam

    Technicalities? Hardly.
    You buy a game, download/put the disc in, and you get the Installer. The installer asks if you agree to the EULA. If you're intending on doing ANYTHING other than what it is created for (and that is to play the game as packaged), it's your responsibility as a consumer to understand whether or not the EULA will be breached by you doing so. If you do not, or if you ignore it, then you're just plain reckless.

    EULAs are legally binding. The proof? Blizzard are doing this, and have every right to do so. Many turn a blind eye to and ignore these rules, but doing so is a myopic action. The consumer is never right, despite what you think.

    It's their game, and their rules. Not yours. If you break them, they'll stop you playing. Personal petty principles stand for nothing in the face of a company you've told, by agreeing to their terms, that you wouldn't do something - and then continue to do so.

  • rivuzu #29 2 years ago

    @randompanda

    Best summary of this joker I could think of. Definate +1.

  • arcam #30 2 years ago

    The consumer is never right, despite what you think.

    It's their game, and their rules. Not yours.

    Unless there's some alternative way I'm meant to read that statement, I think our viewpoints are so far from each other that we are unlikely to find common ground. Consumers have rights, so do companies, and sometimes the rights of one trump the other. Legally and morally - I'm not even sure which one we're talking about now.

    And your proof that EULAs are legally binding is that Blizzard use them? They are only legally binding if they are held up in court, and I doubt that has happened for Starcraft 2.

    accept the responsibility that comes with agreeing to a contract without reading it first.

    IANAL, but afaik for a contract to be valid, it needs to be established that it was signed in good faith, that there is reasonable expectation the contract is understood, and that nothing in the contract was deliberately concealed or misprepresented. A lawyer would have a pretty tough time making those arguments in court for your average EULA, even before the fact that you cannot see the contract until the sale has been completed.
    Edited by arcam at 14/10/10 @ 15:30

  • arcam #31 2 years ago

    it's your responsibility as a consumer to understand whether or not the EULA will be breached by you doing so. If you do not, or if you ignore it, then you're just plain reckless.

    Have you ever sold a console game or lent it to a friend? Or even thought about maybe doing it in the future? Did you read the EULA on that game before playing it? How can you defend your recklessness?

  • Rack #32 2 years ago

    If this logic was applied universally you'd get all access to Fallout 3 revoked for using mods. Blizzard are setting a bad, bad precedent for those of us who dont care about "Achievements"

  • Silvervein #33 2 years ago

    This is what happens when game company introduces DRM integrated in the game so deep that it affects single and multiplayer.
    Well, the way I see it, when people bought SC2, they become owners of their copy of it. What they do with it offline is no ones business.

    And as for the argument that people who bought SC2 didn't really bought it (in the sense of becoming owners of it) but are only entitled to a lease, well, if that's the case I want it to be reflected in the price of a game, with clear, font size 30 text on the front of a game box stating that people purchasing the game are not its owners.
    So far, blizzard charges a full price for SC2. That's not a price anyone should pay for a lease.

  • ProGrasTiNation #34 2 years ago

    Cheating online cheats other people & you should be banned,cheating in SP cheats yourself but you paid money to do that so its wrong.
    They should have recieved a waring to remove the said software & informed them SP was affected by the ban