Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SOCOM Online Cheats Ruin Experience

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the really-makes-us-mad dept.

PlayStation (Games) 68

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GamePro report discussing GameShark cheat provider Fire International's touting of itself as "the first source of cheats for PS2 online title SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs, effectively encouraging gamers to ruin online gameplay for fair SOCOM players." According to Fire's European press release, the cheat "..enables unlimited ammunition and now boasts cheat codes for no recoil, rapid fire, unlimited grenades and a code which allows the player to steal their opponent's ammunition!" This brings to Europe a problem that is already rampant in the States, but which Sony claim they will fix for November's SOCOM 2, which should "..solve these issues and also feature the ability to ban cheaters from online play."

cancel ×

68 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (3, Insightful)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354597)

Why do these people even bother cheating online? They pay for the PS2, pay for the network adapter, pay for the game... and then ruin it all by going and spending more money on a cheat device.

It's just so self defeating as well - when everyone cheats, people stop playing. This means no more games for the cheaters to join. They destroyed PSO on the Dreamcast, and they STILL haven't learned their lesson yet...?

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (2, Interesting)

lightspawn (155347) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354639)

They destroyed PSO on the Dreamcast, and they STILL haven't learned their lesson yet...?

You're funny.

SEGA's in trouble. They had a non-viable financial model for PSO (buy the game, get unlimited free online play). Every hour a player is online is expense without profit.

The solution?

Let's just say exploits played right into SEGA's hand (hey, buy version 2 and pay for online access! we mean, buy the gamecube version and pay for online access!).

Does SOCOM require a monthly fee? If not, you've got your killer.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6354695)

You are a bit all over the place here, but if I can try to distill your meaning here...

Are you saying Sony saw what happened in the Sega case, then let this happen on purpose so they can "fix" it for SOCOM 2?

I'm not saying you're wrong just seeking clarification.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (1)

Hedonist123 (681091) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355421)

"SEGA's in trouble. They had a non-viable financial model for PSO (buy the game, get unlimited free online play). Every hour a player is online is expense without profit." Yeah, cuz that worked so horribly for Blizzard. The free War3 I play online is just killing them I am sure. Free online play can make a company a ton of money. The concept is not hard, make a good game, and people will play, and pay good money for it. Hed.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (1)

theskov (556173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357844)

You're funny.


SEGA's in trouble. They had a non-viable financial model for PSO (buy the game, get unlimited free online play). Every hour a player is online is expense without profit.
Can you say battle.net?

I think Blizzard is pretty happy with how their "non-viable financial model" is working.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (1)

sirmikester (634831) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355180)

I think it stems from the fact that people like to fee l like they're being sucessful without putting in the time to actually be good at the game. This is why cheats exist in the first place, as a shortcut to victory.

In this world there will always be people who seek to take the easy way out, and those people are the ones that make online game playing such a crappy experience right now...

They even ruined yahoo chess for me!

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (1)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355407)

They get a kick out of it. It's difficult for a non-cheater to understand; I know I don't. I'm an admin for a major online gaming league, in particular the Counter-Strike part, and we have people who have been banned five or more times for cheating. They just go out, buy a new copy of Half-Life, and join up again the next season. These people are paying $20 a month for the privilege of getting banned. It makes no sense to us, but for whatever reason it's what makes the game fun for them.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (1)

vaporakula (674048) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357343)

Why do people cheat? Thats a slightly naive question - apologies if that sounds like trolling, but seriously... Why do people avoid paying taxes if they can? Why do people park in disabled spaces? Why do professional athletes use performance enhancing drugs? Its human nature. It doesn't make it right, or any less distasteful, but there are people out there who just get off on cheating. Whatever their reasons, it isn't going away soon.

Re:I am Baffled as to why People Even Bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6361851)

Sorry, but the tax example doesn't fit. Taxation is nothing but legalized extortion and robbery commited by governments. Foiling a robbery is an act of heroism, not a crime.

So? (0, Troll)

inerte (452992) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354608)

Should we be against this?

Should we be against deCSS, too? Kazaa?

Nah.

Re:So? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354628)

There's a difference between being against something, and thinking that something should be dealt with through legal means.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6354706)

Who is this we?

Are you part of some hive mind collective?

Or are you using dialectic rhetoric? If you are that kinda went out with Plato man. Come out of BC and step up to AD.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6355017)

All of the above?

Punkbuster? (2, Informative)

Estaga (906) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354631)

Not being a gamer myself but playing around with Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, I noticed a think called punkbuster, a countermeasure against online cheating? Maybe more games should support this (yeahyeah its PC only now).

http://www.evenbalance.com/index.php?page=info.p hp

Re:Punkbuster? (3, Insightful)

revmoo (652952) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354691)

The problem is, that cheats come out daily that aren't detected by PB and it's ilk.

I admin a rather busy Counterstrike server, and rather than use anti-cheat technologies, the admins simply watch people play. It's not foolproof, but it is certainly more effective than anti-cheat mechanisms.

In time, spotting cheaters becomes second nature. Does the person track through walls, seeming to know where an enemy will come out? Do they normally shoot automatically after every corner, or did they just happen to do it on the one with a terrorist hiding behind the crate? Are their movements smooth, or erratic?

I think one of the problems that consoles have, is that there aren't many admins. People can't set up their own server, it is all dependant on the company that released the game to police, and that is a patently Bad Idea(tm).

Humans are the most effective anti-cheat mechanism.

Re:Punkbuster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6354770)

Humans are most effective, but PB does well. There are far fewer cheats for RtCW and Enemy Territory than for HL based games. It is true that on 0 day of a new cheat it is not detected, but it is detected soon after, and on 0 day only the creator has it anyway. This effectively keeps a lid on the whole scene. Some will always bubble over, but its better than the whole thing going crazy as CS and SOCOM have.

I back PB from my online gaming experience as a player and admin.

Humans are better, but I have to sleep sometime. When I do I am glad PB is there.

Oh, and you are pantently wrong about the console admin thing. XBOX RtCW works exactly the same as PC RtCW as do other games of this type. The one who starts the server is the host/admin and they have the power to kick. Obviously an RPG works different, no reason for everyone to have the power to kick just anyone in EQ.

Re:Punkbuster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6354747)

A lot of games do. Problem is cheating is like crackers, you figure out how to stop them and they figure out a way to get around it. There's no such thing as a cheat free online gaming system, much like there's no such thing as unbreakable security. Punkbuster has been around for a while, and it does work relatively well in my experience, but this alone won't stop cheating. Though it might deter console cheaters more than it does PC cheaters, having to buy a new piece of hardware just to keep up against the latest anti-cheating software is not very easy (if the software was server-side of course).

Maybe the XBox Online model is the way to go... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6354656)

So maybe Microsoft is right. Controling and centralizing the online infrastrucutre can limit abuses like this.

Re:Maybe the XBox Online model is the way to go... (2, Interesting)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354746)

Really, MS haven't got all that much control over the games - as they don't host any servers to play on. All the 'servers' you see are in actual fact people hosting games on their consoles.

Although each person has a unique Gamertag that identifies their account, there isn't a foolproof way for MS to boot people who act like dicks. I certainly haven't heard of any cases of people being banned from Xbox Live.

I don't think that there has been a cheat device released for the Xbox yet, and that is the only reason why you don't find cheats online (beyond game glitches, that is).

Many people had found various shortcuts in MotoGP, and were allways using them to get stupidly good laptimes to put them at the top of the score table.

They do have some control.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6355110)

Apparently you haven't been following the mod chip saga. Microsoft has been banning modded xboxs from playing online. If you get caught they change your settings/system so that the xbox that got caught can not play on xbox live(others please ignore the technicalities, I just want to make the following point).

So Microsoft has one way to combat the cheater problem, they can ban their xbox system. They can transfer their account to a new xbox, and it will cost them to do so each time. This could be a good deterrent to prevent people from just the cheap and easy route of buying a new xbox live kit, and they won't have to deal with continually dealing with and banning xbox live cheater accounts.

I can see Microsoft doing this with people who use cheating devices, but I doubt that Microsoft will resort to doing that for people who act like dicks. They would be killing off those customers who are helping them make a profit from their losses on the xbox.

Re:Maybe the XBox Online model is the way to go... (1)

PeeweeJD (623974) | more than 11 years ago | (#6358218)

They can and do already ban people. My nephew had a gamertag that someone considered offensive (PeterLove) and microsoft banned him for it. One time when he tried to access live with that gamertag, he was forced to exit the game and enter a new gamertag through the dashboard interface. His friend list remained the same, and his new gamertag (Krazzy88) appeared on my friend list.

Regardless of who is hosting the games (MS or P2P), you still have to log in through an Xbox Live server. As long as you are logging in through live, MS has the opportunity to deny you access to the network (hence not allowing you to join games). So I think the parent article is correct.

I am sure that there is a way to detect "official" cheating devices (like people use for SOCOM) and deny acces to the live network on that basis. They already do that with mod chips. You have to switch off your mod chip if you want to play on Xbox Live.

Glitching is another issue altogether. THe glitches in Unreal Tournament were fixed with the latest mandatory content download. Unfortunately fo SOCOM, there is no way to easily require the storage large chunks of downloaded content(no HDD) like you can on the xbox.

Re:Maybe the XBox Online model is the way to go... (1)

jnguy (683993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354789)

I agree, I use xbox live and it FORCES me to download patches if I want to continue playing Ghost Recon. Ghost recon has serious glitch issues, but it hasn't taken over gaming. We just eject people that use glitches, and they are really easy to spot. Most peopla are cool about using glitches. You say in the begining of the game that no one should use glitches. I also understand the banning of people using mod chips on xbox live because who knows that they can create, in terms of cheats, bots and so forth.

/. gaming articles (-1, Offtopic)

presearch (214913) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354711)

There's been 5 articles about gaming on slashdot today with a meager total of 136 comments.
Nothing to say about that, just an observation.

Much of a muchness (1)

Ratso Baggins (516757) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354755)

I don't know which I find more unappealing - FPS on a gamepad/console or online games with no mechanism for patches and anti-cheats..

So when you add them together I get- WTF!!!

Re:Much of a muchness (1)

tjensor (571163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357019)

I think what ruins it more than that is that the apparent "fix" is to go out and spend another £40 on a new version of the game!

Socom has become nearly unplayable (4, Interesting)

sn0 (638732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354772)

I have been playing Socom online since day 1. I love the game, but it has become nearly unplayable because of the excessive cheating. The only wayto get a fair game is to play in locked rooms with people that you know. Sony claims that this problem ahs been fixed for Socom 2, but I'll believe it when I see it. I suppose it's tough to complain when Sony doesnt charge for it's online games (yet), but I would be more than willing to pay a monthly fee as long as the game was cheater free.

Re:Socom has become nearly unplayable (1)

Oinos (140188) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355771)

I'm right there with you. My friends and I have a weekly game that's password protected so we can still enjoy the SOCOM experience with out the little kiddies who can't grasp the concept that some people actually want to play the game straight. I paid for the game, I don't want some twit ruining my enjoyment of what I paid for. I pay something like $10/month for Everquest Online Adventures (which I spend the majority of my time playing now, since I can't join a regular SOCOM game without having some dolt cheat) and I'd easily pay that for the opportunity to play SOCOM cheat free.

If you're looking to start a game in the "general population" turn on Friendly Fire, most cheaters will avoid FF games since they risk killing off their teammates and actually losing while cheating. If you're on the same team as a cheater, do everyone a favor and vote the prick off.

Re:Socom has become nearly unplayable (1)

sn0 (638732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6356693)

I agree, FF usually keep cheaters away, but most of the cheaters have the "no-vote cheat" so voteing them off is useless.

blah blah and in other news... (1)

evil-osm (203438) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354805)

"Smoking is bad for your heath"
"Killing and stealing are deamed illegal"

SOCOM Online Cheats Ruin Experience [abc-kid.com]

Gasp!

However, my question for Sony (or the game creator) is why the fuck did you leave this in there? In the past online PC games had alot of cheats in them, but things have gotten better (note: this has nothing to do with hacking online PC games).

Calling RTFA on myself... (1)

evil-osm (203438) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354866)

Developer: Zipper Interactive

However the cheats were not left in there by the developers, rather it was done with a 3rd party cheating/hacking device (Xploder). So it was no direct fault of Zipper.

That being said, I still stand by my Ren & Stimpy gasp!

evil-osm.

Re:Calling RTFA on myself... (1)

PeeweeJD (623974) | more than 11 years ago | (#6358359)

you are still right. Zipper should have forseen this and put some mechanism in place to prevent this. Cheating in online games is not a new/undocumented thing. There are compnies that make their living trying to prevent this. You can't be a player in the online FPS genre without encountering cheaters. People have been doing it since the mid 90's

And doesn't Sony get some kind of final QC/QA approval on the game? Are they not to blame a little for letting their online flagship title be ruined in the first couple months? Couldn't they issue replacement discs (trade in your original SOCOM disc at a nearby retailer)? I would buy SOCOM 2 for sure if they proved to me that they could fix the cheating problem.

I would hesitate on buyng SOCOM 2 without them proving they can fix the problem. Especially if I had Xbox Live with it's abundance of good quality online shooter games: RTCW, Ghost Recon, Unreal Champ, Mechassault.

Cheats = Testing Codes (2, Interesting)

lastpub (214519) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354883)

My understanding is that these "cheats", especially on a console, are testing codes... why would these be left accessible or even in the game on release? I can understand leaving them in for single player games, it really doesn't matter that much, but does this not seem like a horrible oversight for the developer of a competitive online multiplayer game to leave these in?

Re:Cheats = Testing Codes (2, Informative)

evil-osm (203438) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354919)

The cheats were not actually left in the game, rather they are done with a third party hacking/cheating utility called Xploder.

Re:Cheats = Testing Codes (1)

sn0 (638732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6356703)

exactly, the cheats are not the cheats were not left in the game by the developers, they are gameshark/Xploder codes used to cheat the ame.

On cheating... (2, Interesting)

Suicide (45320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6354905)

I don't really understand why it is still allowed to happen.

Modified models let you see someone through a wall. Ok, why was a player behind a wall's position even transfered to said client? Hack removes gun recoil, why is the client software what determines if the bullets suffer from recoil? Unlimited ammo, why does the server trust the client to keep track of ammo? And so on...

Yeah, yeah. I know. It takes processing power to keep that sort of stuff on the server. So what. I paid for a game, with the expectation of fair play with other people. If they can't deliver that to the players, then perhaps they shouldn't be pushing the game out. Why aren't these companies held accountable for the mistakes they release?

Re:On cheating... (3, Insightful)

TheRoachMan (677330) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355135)

The amount of processor power needed to do all these things server-side is nothing. The amount of bandwith consumed by it is what matters.

Netcode (the code that is a compromise between some stuff client-side, some stuff server-side, and blending it together in a seemless and smooth play experience) is tricky stuff. If you let clients decide if their bullet was a hit or not, you can let people cheat by just sending out packets with the right data that tells the server "I hit that guy in the head! Really!"

Letting the server decide for every bullet (hit or miss) requires the knowledge of every player's exact current position. Impossible with latency above 0. So prediction is needed. But prediction can make for sluggish play. So it's really hard to balance.

This rant to just show you that it's almost impossible to write perfect, non-hackable, fair, smooth netcode. No matter how high the predicted sales figures are, or how much money you can spend on making the game. From what you want, every multiplayer game is a mistake, every company can be held accountable.

Re:On cheating... (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355321)

Bandwidth and latency (basically the fact that the game is running over a network).

The server can't wait until the character comes around the corner to start sending data; if it did there would be a noticable lag between the character coming around the corner and the client being made aware of that fact (and it would be all too common to be killed by a player on whose screen you appeared before he did on yours). So the client is told about the character a bit early. Wallhacks could be solved by using better visibility testing to not render the character at all unless you have line-of-sight to him, but that still wouldn't stop memory hack that check his 3D location, and would cost some performance for a more precise visibility check.

This is of course just a single case of client-side prediction, which is the only way modern network games can perform well even on broadband (How do you think games shove 64+ real-time player data streams, which update, say, 5 times a second each, into a 25K connection with 100ms of lag?)

If the client relied on the server for every bit of information in the game, lag would increase and the customers would bitch even more.

Re:On cheating... (1)

vaporakula (674048) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357414)

It's slightly more complicated that you make out. The war on cheating is not going to be "won" anytime soon - look at it this way:

People still hack websites! Despite all the patches and updates and upgrades etc, new vunerabilities are discovered every week. As soon as it is possible to win the war on hacking websites, it'll be possible to win the war on hacking games. I don't see this happening very soon.

What makes you think the developer should be held accountable? Do you hold Hasbro accountable if your friend starts stealing money out of the bank in Monopoly? When an athlete uses performance enhancing drugs to get an edge on the competition, is it the drug manufacturer's fault? Is it the race organisers fault? No - it is the athlete. It is the hackers who are responsible for hacking - go after them.

Long time players of multiplayer games know that the only way to have a cheat free experience is to play with people you know and trust, on private servers. Its sad, but true.

integrity check (2, Insightful)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355154)

The solution is to do an md5sum ofthe binary for the game. Players should be allowed to ban non-standard md5-sums from joining.

Re:integrity check (1)

*xpenguin* (306001) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355353)

The solution is to do an md5sum ofthe binary for the game. Players should be allowed to ban non-standard md5-sums from joining.

You're a genious! Next thing you know, people will start faking the md5sums!

Re:integrity check (1)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355413)

Which is why you include a protocol that allows one person to remotely check another's md5sum.`

Re:integrity check (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355429)

You're forgetting the basic rule of network gaming though: never trust the client. If you rely on the client for anything, you're vulnerable.

um... (1)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355499)

If I am allowed to run an md5sum check on another multi-player's binary from my computer -- using my run-times -- then how is that exploitable? Hacker's can't alter my run-times.

Re:um... (1)

*xpenguin* (306001) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355548)

If they can't alter your runtimes, why are you using an md5sum to check the integrity of the runtime?

Re:um... (1)

TheRoachMan (677330) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355620)

*xpenguin*: They can't alter YOUR runtime, so YOU check HIS runtime with an md5sum to see if HE altered HIS OWN runtime, which could mean he cheats.

Very nice and all, but for 1 thing: if he altered his runtime, he could well alter his runtime in such a way that it will return a correct but fake md5sum upon ANY request from ANY other user (admin,bot,whatever). He'd just send out a checksum number that will register as correct, regarless from his real md5sum result. For all he cares, the md5sum isn't even calculated.

As long as the data is _requested to_ and _handled by_ HIS runtime, it can be faked. If it wouldn't be handled by his runtime, people could fake md5 requests themselves to crash his runtimes and such. That's what rsmith-mac said in his comment.

Re:um... (1)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357045)

Your checking the integrity of *their* m35sum. So you can refuse to play w/ them if they have a hacked version.

Re:um... (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 11 years ago | (#6360696)

Sure, I'd be willing to wait while my 1GB (or so) Battlefield directory is uploaded in its entirety to the game server, so it can check its MD5 sum. No problem. I realize that it would only take a few hours on my capped upload cable modem, but what's a few hours when it comes to online playing?!

Of course, the cheaters would just upload pristine directory. So much for that!

Re:um... (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355590)

You still have to obtain the binary from the player's computer to run an md5 on it.

So he'll hack the md5 client to send the authentic binary but execute his haX0red one.

So you'll make the md5 part of the server login process.

So he'll intercept the fopen()s performed by the hacked binary to read itself, and return the authentic instead.

Face it, when push comes to shove you have no control over the other clients short of a hardware-level Palladium-style lockout.

Re:um... (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 11 years ago | (#6357525)

Face it, when push comes to shove you have no control over the other clients short of a hardware-level Palladium-style lockout.

This is not entirely true. A hardware-level Palladium-style lockout seems like such a great solution...to people who don't understand hardware.

There's an interesting tautology I learned a while back: If it can be done in hardware, then it can be done in software. By the same token, if it can't be done in software, then it can't be done in hardware either.

There are cryptographic protocols which allow a cheat-free game to be created, and you don't even need a dedicated server. But the processing power and bandwidth are prohibitive, even for simple games. It's much more cost effective to create cool games and hope that you can make your money selling to honorable people before the cheaters destroy the value of the game.

As others have suggested, if you want a cheat-free game, exclude people you don't trust, just like if you want a spam-free mailbox, blacklist everyone you don't know.

One day we'll wake up and discover how much of our world is being destroyed by cheaters, freeloaders, spammers, etc. and really get tough on them. Or maybe one day the cheaters will wonder why nobody wants to play with them anymore and grow up. I'm betting on the former.

So, would you support a law that allowed a game admin to "hack into" a cheater's system to disable it so they can't cheat any more? If so, I think Sen. Berman would appreciate your support.

Re:um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6357769)

That's not a tautology. A tautology would be "If it can be done in hardware, then it can be done in hardware."

Re:integrity check (1)

PeeweeJD (623974) | more than 11 years ago | (#6358399)

I think Unreal Tournament handles it this way on CHSP enabled servers (whatever that acronym menas).

Re:integrity check (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 11 years ago | (#6359156)

You mean, CSHP (Client Side Hack Protection) and CSHP didn't do that in the early versions AFAIK. I would know since I coded the first UT aimbot ;) -NoClanNeeded

Re:integrity check (1)

FauxReal (653820) | more than 11 years ago | (#6360796)

These are console cheats anyway... no one is hacking a binary. They're manipulating the memory space of the console.

The real problem with cheats (2, Insightful)

August_zero (654282) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355178)

Of course the real trouble with cheats, is that after the game has been "violated" the game in general is less fun to play online even without an actual cheater present.

Why?

Because as soon as many people are certain it is possible to cheat, they will begin accusing every single person that can beat them of cheating. It's like the camping thing. I used to play Unreal Champ on X-box live, I liked doing base defense, and I got accused of "camping" all the time. What the hell do you expect? I am defending a base, of course I am going to stay inside or near it.

See the problem isn't that its possible to cheat, the problem is that many many gamers are spoiled little brats that can't stand competition. If I win they will accuse me of cheating, or if they can cheat they will do so in order to beat me. In either scenario nobody is happy; even the passive observers on the server have to put up with the name calling and asinine behavior. I don't think this sort of problem will ever go away until someone designs a way of preemptively detecting assholes and kicking them off the server before they ruin the game.

Re:The real problem with cheats (1)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#6365281)

If I win they will accuse me of cheating, or if they can cheat they will do so in order to beat me.

Obligitory Penny Arcade link [penny-arcade.com] in reference to your comment.

Ego boost for $1 or why are the games so cheatable (1)

Rares Marian (83629) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355387)

I know companies put cheats in to test out the game. But why do they leave em in?

What's the point of cheating in a game with no plot only other players?

Re:Ego boost for $1 or why are the games so cheata (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355602)

Most of these cheats are not "real" cheats inserted by the developers. Gameshark-type devices patch the game in RAM (the data coming off the cartridge/CD) to alter its behavior. Find the correct address/value combination to change the instruction that commits a decrease in the player's ammo to the game world data and change it to a nop, and your ammo will never decrease. Find the place where the authoritative value of the other player's ammo is kept on your local listen server, and you can fuck with that too.

Re:Ego boost for $1 or why are the games so cheata (1)

TheRoachMan (677330) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355655)

Find the place where the authoritative value of the other player's ammo is kept on your local listen server, and you can fuck with that too.

That wouldn't matter, because the other (non-cheating)player still has the correct value and sends such info to the server. The server believes the (non-cheating)client and allows the gunfire to register as hits/misses, as opposed to invalid gunfire(if ammo really is depleted). In the cheating player's "world" the (non-cheating)opponent's ammo would be depleted, but the server is still telling the cheater that he's being hit. This can easily be countered by only sending packets to the sever telling it that your health is still at max. Of course server-side health calculation would prevent this, but that might prove heavy on processortime and bandwidth(constantly telling every client what his health points are)

Re:Ego boost for $1 or why are the games so cheata (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355829)

Also, some (un)fortunate lag could let you get an extra shot off before you died.

When you shoot it must be instant, so the shots must be handled client side, so you cannot have health server side because when you die that must be instant too.

Of course the server should be able to compare numbers and detect cheating.

For example if my clent registers hit hit hit hit, and your client registers miss miss miss miss, and that becomes a patern, someone is cheating.

And here... (2, Funny)

Gehenna_Gehenna (207096) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355490)

I just thought I sucked.

What a relief.

Sony's game plan... (2, Funny)

mcp33p4n75 (684632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6355586)

1. Purposely allow cheats to remain in SOCOM
2. Hundreds of thousands of people play SOCOM
3. Gameshark makers discover cheats
4. Rampant cheating destroys gaming experience
5. Sony announces cheats will be fixed in SOCOM 2
6. Profit!

Re:Sony's game plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6357290)

RTFA, twat. The cheats were not the type that were used in development for testing but are RAM hacks done by a third party device. You're a fucking moron. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE NEXT TIME YOU WORTHLESS JEW FUCK.

Hitler was right about you people.

These aren't cheats left in by the developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6356881)

Game shark and xploder type devices hack the values existing in RAM in order to enable infinite ammo, lives etc. They usually aren't exploiting existing cheats, they are simply locating in memory where the value exists and adjusting it. Trainers for PC games operate the same way.

Is it just me, or... (1)

Kyouryuu (685884) | more than 11 years ago | (#6359034)

... does it come across as incredibly stupid that:

- They plan to fix the bugs in SOCOM 2, but not address those in the original SOCOM at all? Down with consumer loyalty - who needs it! They'll all update like good little drones to the new version!

- That the ability to ban players was never a consideration in SOCOM? What, you think people will hack our system? No way! We are 1337. They don't stand a chance, banning is for sissy programmers!

Re:Is it just me, or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6362321)

It's just you. Or are you not aware that the original SOCOM has already shipped, and there isn't any current method of patching or addressing security holes / bugs in a shipped console game?

Unless you think there's something they can do server-side to address this issue? (from the tone of the story that it's client-side, not server-side that they're addressing)

Re:Is it just me, or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6363473)

You should make that PS2/NGC/GBA games. XBOX games can and have been patched to address exploits.

Re:Is it just me, or... (1)

Radius9 (588130) | more than 11 years ago | (#6363902)

Ummm, and how exactly are they going to fix bugs in SOCOM? Since you don't have a HD to save changes to. They could send out CDs I suppose, but that seems prohibitively expensive.

A possible fix for the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6360852)

The president of Sony's Playstation division should ask the Gameshark's president to meet over coffee and discuss this issue in a civilized manner. Then... once the president of Gameshark's company is nice and comfortable the Sony president should punch him in the eye and declare it a new civlility cheat he discovered.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?