Blizzard Take Another Legal Crack At Cheat Makers

I miss the days when cheats for multiplayer games were quaint little things which didn’t quite work – wallhacks which turned levels into confusing glass mazes, aimbots which mostly missed unless you had a really low ping. I almost felt sorry for people using them. Now cheats are everywhere, they’re horrible, and they’re difficult to stop. Blizzard are going straight to the source, recently filing a lawsuit against a company who make and sell hacks for WoW, Hearthstone, Diablo III, Heroes of the Storm, and, most recently, Overwatch [official site]. Well, they’re going after them again.

Blizzard have filed suit against the German company Bossland, who create cheats for Blizzard’s games – among others – and sell them as subscription services. For example, 12,95€ (£11) would get you one month’s access to an Overwatch hack revealing enemy positions on a radar and showing their health bars and so on. They also sell bots for farming in Diablo III, grinding in WoW for Battleground honour points, and so on. Blizzard, unsurprisingly, are none too pleased about all this. They’re accusing Bossland of various forms of copyright infringement, “unlawful reverse engineering”, harming them by causing frustrated players to stop playing, and so on.

“By Blizzard’s estimation, such damage is in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars,” the filing says. Lawks!

This isn’t Blizzard’s first crack at Bossland, mind. They’ve been scrapping since 2011 over various bots and hacks, often not going nearly as well as Blizzard might have hoped. Bossland are even keeping score. So far they’ve fought in German courts – where several cases are still ongoing – but this time Blizzard are trying in California.

Blizzard claim that Bossland sell their services to people in the USA and California, use servers and content delivery networks there, contract with banks and domain registrars there, and so on, so the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Blizzard’s home courts. They must be hoping for a favourable do-over there.

Bossland’s reply declares that trying in California indicates Blizzard are “devastated, clutching at any straw”.

Thank TorrentFreak for pointing this out and sharing the filing.


  1. Emeraude says:

    Thought experiment: what if Blizzard itself provided the cheats?

    • hennedo says:

      Down that road lies real money auction houses…

    • Calculon says:

      To use the term ‘Thought Experiment’ it would require that you first put some thought in.


      I dont want to play a competitive game where people cheat. End of story.

      Hacks have literally ruined many FPS’s and make them un-enjoyable and un-playable.

      The real shame is the fact that players buy them – and dont seem to care that they are literally destroying the game they have (in some cases) paid for.

      Why Blizzard is losing these law suits is beyond me. One would think that if you tie up ‘Bossland’ enough in the courts their financial resources would exhaust themselves and they would be out of business.

      Im personally very very tired and frustrated with cheaters. It makes me have a dim view of humanity as a whole when people are that sad and pathetic that they need to cheat to play a computer game – and thereby ruin the experience for everyone else. Talk about selfishness.

      • njury says:

        Seems like the sentiment is that it’s ok?
        If it wasn’t Blizzard, or computer games, people would be outraged.
        The people from Bossland are making a living ruining not only Blizzards intellectual property, but also the majority of said propertys’ user group.
        The people at Bossland should stop being snide and start making something worthwhile for a living.

        • Emeraude says:

          If it wasn’t Blizzard, or computer games, people would be outraged.

          Would they though? I mean, I play in tabletop clubs and have had the occasional deal with cheating for as long as I can remember, and people are not “outraged”. They just deal with it.

          If anything, the outrage here is directly proportional to the powerlessness of the user base, which itself is only a direct product of the protectionism.

          So I do think asking about empowering users so they can deal with it is at least a valid interrogation.

      • Emeraude says:

        The real shame is the fact that players buy them – and don’t seem to care that they are literally destroying the game they have (in some cases) paid for.

        They’re not though. They’re making the game better according to their wants. They don’t have any obligation to make it better for you. They’re just as much customers as you are.

        And certainly, blizzard has that responsibility toward pleasing you… but it also has it toward that customer whose interests do not coincide with yours.

        My question is: is there a valid set up that would please more people instead of those with your profile only.

        Maybe the answer is no. Maybe griever profile is the only player profile interested in those cheats, and there’s no possible conciliation, because it’s not about having the cheats,n it’s about others not having them. Given how often “cheating” experimentation can lead to new mechanics and conversely new games, I find it worth investigating though.

        • Calculon says:

          What are you talking about?? Seriously?

          The game is designed to be a level playing field competitive FPS shooter – Competition being its focus.

          Players that are hacking are CHEATING – they are using an ‘against the rules advantage’ to beat other players that do not cheat.

          There is no new functionality added other than increasing their probability of winning – Skill based competition and winning are core components of the game which they are compromising. This inherently destroys the game and erodes the player base by creating a game which no longer requires any skill because cheats remove that requirement – which removes the fun from the game.

          To simplify Blizzards goal to ‘pleasing players’ is very short sighted and indicates you lack comprehension of how game design and implementation works.

          Yes – pleasing players is A goal that the game has – but one of many. The rest of the goals likely include: Creating a level BALANCED playing field for FPS competition that is has sufficient room/options for both new players and high skill cap players. By introducing cheats – it destroys that goal. Their other goal likely includes the development of a professional scene which is where the real money is at – and again – cheats ruin that.

          There are no ‘new mechanics’ that can be introduced. The fundamental problem is you have a large set of players that dont want to put in the time/effort to be ‘good’ at a game or want to be better than someone else and need to cheat to do so. They simply want/need the recognition. That’s it. That’s selfish. Yes there are griefers too – and they make up a subset but I would argue that’s not the predominant subset.

          I’ve seen many games destroyed by ‘players’ that want to use hacks because they want to be ‘the best’ – in the end it just ruins it for everyone, scandalizes the game and makes many players turn away from it because “that guy only beat me because he cheated – not because he/she is a better player” – once that starts – its downhill.

          • Emeraude says:

            There are no ‘new mechanics’ that can be introduced.

            It’s not as if new ways of playing, and conversely new games, had been devised out of those old cheating private servers of yore, no sir. Never happened.

            I also think you’re severely overstating the desire of the playing community for this to be the kind of competitive game you describe. Case in point people (ab)using (to use the weird official parlance)the “Avoid This Player” command to compartmentalize certain perfectly good non-cheating players, because it made the game less fun for them.

            But that’s beside the point.

            If this cheating is going to happen – and it is going too happen – then better to put everyone on equal footing from the start. You’re no more likely to suffer cheaters if that happens, but you have a lot more latitude and leeway to deal with them. Individually and collectively.

            And non-grievers that enjoy cheats can use. Collectively even.

            Unless your point happens to be that the gentleman’s agreement of not cheating only happens because it’s being enforced from top down and not because the people playing the game actually want it to.

          • monsieurZb says:

            “It’s not as if new ways of playing, and conversely new games, had been devised out of those old cheating private servers of yore, no sir. Never happened.”
            Never happened indeed. Modded games giving us new games, well, yes. Servers riddled with aimbots- and wallhacks-using palyers though? What do you think they gave birth to?

          • Emeraude says:

            “It’s a mod if I like the change, it’s a cheat if I don’t.”

          • monsieurZb says:

            Ahah! Are you serious? Man, you’re an amazing piece of work.

          • Emeraude says:

            And you’re quite certainly not, for better and worse.

            But do tell me then, when is a cheat not a mod?

            The difference between the two is in the acceptation of use not in the technical aspects.

            If people agreed to create their own game mode where one player was allowed that very cheat that gives perfect player location and then pitted said player against all others in an asymmetric match-play, the very same “cheating” program would be a mod, wouldn’t it?

            And it it would generate a new way of playing.

          • monsieurZb says:

            Er… I never said cheats were not mods. You said “on these cheating private servers of yore”. I assumed, according to your very own definition (“The difference between the two is in the acceptation of use”), that you were talking about badly-protected private servers on which cheating was rampant. On which the mods used were not agreed upon by all players. And these servers were never the hotspots of creativity the modded servers were -are. Because of the frustration, eternally-ongoing pissing contest, lack of general fun.
            What’s your point again exactly?

          • Emeraude says:

            I guess having our own agreed upon rule-bending servers labeled as “cheating” at the time colors my judgment.

            Not to mention, private servers…

          • Press X to Gary Busey says:

            Steroids, weight class shenanigans, blood transfusion cheating, stuffing a jet powered motorbike in a horse costume at the tracks.
            It’s okay then as long as everyone else is allowed the same things; the box of Pandora.

            I’d imagine a Steroids League in every sport where the best stable of pharmacists and surgeons win, tuning their athletes like F1 cars.

          • Emeraude says:

            @Press X to Gary Busey

            To be honest, I’m always amused at the idea that people find pitting athletes with the benefit of millions spent in support infrastructure – including medical – against people that have basically nothing is perfectly acceptable, but the symbolic line of using certain chemicals is unacceptable.

            We all have our lines in the sand.

          • Inph says:

            Emeraude, you are a smart individual. Not everyone realises they have biases and a narrow view of the world. Your statements make it clear you are not a black and white thinker.

            I had a similar fascination with cheats for Counter Strike. I ran my own private cheating server, exclusively for the use of cheats and it was so much fun! I’m not the type to ruin other people’s fun, so I kept to my own private server with my ‘cheating’ buddies. Really, this was a case of using cheats, as you describe, to mod the multiplayer.

            I have no idea how Calculon can’t see this.

        • cockpisspartridge says:

          Oh, do FO. Relativism strikes again.

        • emotionengine says:

          @ Emeraude

          I regret having read the entirety of your batty replies here, they are some of the most fantastically spectacular failures of logic I have had the misfortune of coming across recently on the internet – and that includes Youtube comments. In fact, I think the most appropriate response to your hopelessly derailed and wrecked train of thought is a Youtube clip: link to

        • drakan_aur says:

          If I mug you, I’m making the world better according to my wants. I don’t have any obligation to make it better for you. I’m just as much a person as you are.

      • Otterley says:

        Ruining opponents through protracted and expensive legal battles isn’t quite as viable in Germany (fortunately, I’d say).

        I get your anger at Bossland, having quit a few multiplayer games just because of the escalating cheating. So I’d be pleased if Blizzard can get a ruling against Bossland.

        I do, however, prefer if people can defend themselves in court and reach an actual judgement without being forced into settlements or bankruptcy. Whenever the latter is possible, you don’t have to be right to win.

    • notcoffeetable says:

      I’m not sure what the experiment is supposed to enlighten.

      If Blizzard sold them, it would be “pay-to-win” and people would know what experience they’re buying into. It’s legal to destroy your own property (ie. Blizz sabotaging their own game), it isn’t to damage someone else’s (which is what Bossland is doing).

      • Emeraude says:

        Who mentioned paying?

        Give the cheats for free. Allow filtering for those that use or don’t them. Allow private servers while increasing the security of the ones you maintain. Allow segmentation of your community according to its wants.

        How much would it cut off from the profit of the third party?

        Would it be better overall for customers or not? How many niche would be more satisfied?

        As for sabotaging… there is a submarket to whom Blizzard doesn’t want to provide. Competition provided the service instead.

        • gunny1993 says:

          You’re getting the mentality of a game cheater wrong, they have inferiority complexes, usually because they’re super pathetic in real life. They want to dominate people, not give them a fair game through legal cheats.

          Basically what you would get is servers so. Legal cheats that no one plays on and the normal amount of cheaters anyway.

          • Emeraude says:

            See my post just above.

            That being said it’s not as fun when everyone can turn on the same cheat at any given time. It’s not as fun when you have tools to compartmentalize the cheaters.

            Arming people with more ways to deal with the issue is better than giving them none, as far as I’m concerned.

          • spearhavoc says:

            Assuming you’re being genuine and not just trolling, I’m having a great deal of trouble understanding your point. Blizzard has created a game experience to their exact specifications, and everyone who plays it engages in an informal social contract that they’ll play the game as it’s provided to them. It’s the same thing with board games, card games, and games of all kinds.

            When you cheat, you’re unilaterally violating that social contract. I think this is the part you’re failing to understand: when someone cheats, they’re dictating to you how your game experience is going to go. Cheating right back at them is no solution because you’re still not playing the game you paid for. You’re not playing Overwatch, you’re playing “Overwatch+Aimbot” or “Overwatch+Wallhack” or whatever.

            It’s just like when I’m playing Settlers of Catan (or whatever). I’m playing the game described in the rulebook. I don’t want to have to check to see if people are palming cards or fixing the dice or what have you. If someone at the table decided by themselves that they were going to make everyone play “Settlers+Palmed Cards”, then I’d ask them (firmly) to take that shit to a different table.

          • Emeraude says:

            I’m having a great deal of trouble understanding your point

            My point is that the cheating is going to happen. Now if everyone has access to it from the start, the griever players have a harder time to find a proper window to satisfy their urge, while creative players that use them for any other reason get that space back.

            And one question remains, if the cheats are being provided by Blizzard proper, for free, is there even a market for them? Are you going to pay for masking your use of a cheat everyone has access to at the drop of a button?

            It’s just like when I’m playing Settlers of Catan (or whatever). I’m playing the game described in the rulebook. I don’t want to have to check to see if people are palming cards or fixing the dice or what have you.

            But then everyone has equal power across the table. That makes all the difference.
            Not to mention of course being at punching distance.

          • bjohndooh says:

            My point is that the cheating is going to happen. Now if everyone has access to it from the start.

            This is the part I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.
            What exactly are you saying – give everybody aimbots and wallhacks or godmode?

            If you remove skill from the game to prevent cheaters from seeking an advantage – haven’t you just perverted the whole design of the game?

          • spearhavoc says:

            But then everyone has equal power across the table. That makes all the difference.

            Read my post again. What I said was that NOT everyone has equal power. The person who decides to cheat forces, forces, everyone else to make a choice: cheat alongside them, play the game at a huge disadvantage, or leave. There’s no option for “play the balanced game they signed up for.” The only difference between Overwatch and playing around a table is that around a table you have a fourth option: “force the cheater to leave.” That’s exactly what I would do in a tabletop game. Can’t do that with Overwatch; I have to rely on Blizzard to do it for me.

          • Emeraude says:

            This is the part I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.

            If anyone has access to the hack at the drop of a button, then its value is diminished to grievers. Any player can just equalize thing whenever wanted. Then blacklist the player that used the hack without common agreement. And it allows players that do not mind mind to experiment with the rule changes.

            If the value of the hack is low enough – it’s freely given by the developer and its potential for us is diminished, then is there even a market for a third party to thrive on? Hiding the use of the hack becomes where its at of course. So I may be wrong, not to mention, knowing us, new form of grieving by creating suspicion could emerge I guess. But I thought it was at least an interesting question.

            Always nice to be welcomed by some “fuck off you non-thinking relativist” answers.

            Can’t do that with Overwatch; I have to rely on Blizzard to do it for me.

            That’s why you’re on equal footing around the table: you have the very same power to act as the cheater. Collectively with other players that have the same bend as you, you’re even stronger. You don’t have that equal footing in Overwatch, on that we agree.

          • Symarian says:

            And what, pray tell Emaraude, game modes would rise from deliberate use of aimbots and wallhacks? Yes, blizzard has incorporated them into Overwatch, however those are single use power ups that only last a few seconds before you have to get enough points to get them back up. Constant wall hacks, constant aimbots create what interesting mechanics? It’s true that hacks do add interesting game mechanics in certain games, but I cannot fathom how you would think someone who is using a cheat to gain an unfair advantage against players who aren’t using them would create an interesting game modes.

        • Calculon says:

          You haven’t addressed any of the key points other posters have made so I think I’m wasting my time. Regardless – I’ll try one last time.

          What exactly is the point in playing an FPS where everyone is hacking? Lets take this argument you are making to its full logical conclusion with your parameters.

          Let’s say I decide I want an automatic kill hack. Now everyone gets that hack under your rules so now we can all kill each other with one click instantly anywhere on the map – because according to you it’s just a ‘mod’ and we should give it to all the players because that’s their desire.

          Now what’s the point of playing? Who has the faster click? What kind of game is that to play or watch? It isn’t. It’s a waste of time and players will abandon it- obviously. So again I fail to see your point.

          • Emeraude says:

            You haven’t addressed any of the key points other posters have made

            Or we do not see eye to eye to what the questions and the answers are, because barely anyone has addressed any of mine either from where I stand. “Dialogue for deaf people” as we say, pardon my French.

            I’ll repeat my question up-thread: do you think most people follow the gentleman agreement of not cheating because it’s enforced from the top down, or just because they want to?

            Now, call me naive but I do think the later for the most part.

            Grievers/cheaters want to dominate other players. If everyone has access to the cheats, they can’t to that for very long, can they? Because *anyone* can level the field at the drop of a hat. The cheats becomes close to value-less *in game* because anyone can use them at any time. And the cheaters are deprived of their fun, then blacklisted.
            The cheats become close to value less on the software market too, because everyone has access to them for free. They’re already built in, so no money to be made in coding them.

            People who collectively just want to play with some cheat on can.

            And last, the competitive players can have their competitive play because they don’t want the cheats, so they won’t use them unless in retaliation to a cheating player.

          • Calculon says:

            Yes – they tried that in an FPS recently – Titan Fall – cheaters were moved to the same server to play onl against each other – and guess what? They hated it. Your proposal defeats itself as the same logical conclusion will unfold on the cheaters servers and thus they will move to infect the competitive servers. When they are all able to cheat against one another – they will be bored as there is no acclaim in that – no glory in being the ‘best cheater’ and then they will use their hacks on the competitive server.

            Not only that but you’ve now made it easier to hack competitive games by reverse engineering the supplied blizzard hacks. Same result as I posted earlier – everyone killing with one click.

            Fundamentally you don’t understand why people cheat.

          • Emeraude says:

            cheaters were moved to the same server to play only against each other – and guess what? They hated it.

            You don’t say? Did you you miss that bit in my post about depriving them of their fun? You’ll notice I’m not advocating for outright cheater segregation here. Case to case blacklisting.

            Not only that but you’ve now made it easier to hack competitive games by reverse engineering the supplied blizzard hacks

            And as I was saying up-thread too, perhaps there will be a market for hiding the built-in cheat usage, but then how is monitoring those hack attempts any different from monitoring the currently existing hack attempts?

            Built-in cheating can deprive the grievers of their fun, it allows non-competitive-focused players – and those I believe are much more numerous than you want to admit – to tailor the game to their needs. And I don’t think it will hinder competitive play any more than external cheating.

        • notcoffeetable says:

          Implementing “cheats for free” doesn’t solve the problem because as you and others have said “cheaters don’t want a level playing field.”

          Assume cheats are implemented in a game. People who don’t want an equal playing field will still want to find “no cheat servers” to cheat in with external software. Then everyone else will turn on the in game ones, and the server/game/round will be ruined. I bet most cheaters would still have fun ruining “no cheat” games/rounds. Trolling is the same kind of high as aimbotting/wall hacking.

          That is compounded with the fact that a very high skilled (or relatively high skilled compared to their competition) player can seem to be cheating. Then what? Everyone turns on cheats to counter the guy who doesn’t need them? It’s similar to the problem Overwatch had with the guy so good everyone had him on his “do not play” list. In this implementation people might think he had a 3rd party cheat and turn on their in game cheats against him.

          Vigilante justice doesn’t work because the mob is fickle, irrational, and poor at differentiating between criminals and people it just doesn’t like.

        • bad_cluster says:

          Sounds like a new kind of Utopia.
          Please do tell me what happens to it when a cheater playing on a non cheat server starts using third party cheats that mimic game’s own built in cheats to avoid being flagged as cheater and being “moved” to “cheater heaven”?

          Do you realize that developing such third party cheat would be easier too, since all the tools to make it work would be already present within the game?

          You assume that cheaters will go away and stop trying to cheat the system just because you have created just another system for them in which everyone cheats equally. What do you think cheaters will do with that? Not try to cheat that system, no way, how could they? How could they stop doing what they always did, how could they stop competing while having a huge and unfair advantage over everyone else around them?

          Only thing that remotely resembles what you are talking about would be for Blizzard to give people an ability to run their own servers and manage said server’s communities, or at very least, add a custom game lobby browser to their game. And I cannot wait for that, if it ever happens at all.

          • Emeraude says:

            I mentioned that case already, actually.

            The formatting here doesn’t really help though.

          • Emeraude says:

            Damn it, accidental reply.

            Anyway, yes, to me the perfect answer was private servers, but since we’re not getting those back (talking in general here, not this game in particular), I was trying to go for something that would at least mitigate the copyright legal abuses.

            Not like I loved the solution either, given I tend to be pro-authorial intent as far as game design is concerned.

            I’m thinking there’s something wrong with the crowd here and/or something lost in translation at some point, because I managed actual conversations with two different groups face to face and while the back and forth was heated, it never reached the hostility it got here.

    • drakan_aur says:

      Thought experiment: what if you took a dump in the shower?

  2. Calculon says:

    And just in case it wasnt clear – Im against hacks in games. I thought my passive gentle statement might have not been clear enough.

    • cockpisspartridge says:

      You need to emote. And would it kill you to throw a pie?

  3. Legion23 says:

    Some of the comments really gave me an insight how people defend cheating for themselves. Interesting and depressing. I stopped playing multiplayer a few years ago and stuff like this just makes me sure I don´t want to try it again. Not worth the time and hassle.

    • PseudoKnight says:

      You should read the pcgamer article called “Hacks! An investigation into the million-dollar business of video game cheating”. It gives a better insight into why some people cheat, how it’s done, etc. While we typically think of the worst types of cheaters, those that want to get ahead or troll other players, there are some that actually need cheats to level the playing field. I empathize with their situation, but they don’t have to play a particular game if they can’t compete (or have fun) without cheating. It undermines the experience for others, and at BEST it’s incredibly rude. Though it does make me wonder if it’s possible for a developer to have an official implementation of handicaps, similar to golf, and how that might that be received.

      • Calculon says:

        I don’t know if it addresses your point or not – but in overwatch it pretty much pairs you with even competitors in casual and competitive play. They seem to take an average of levels of the 6 players and juggle the opposing team until it’s +- 1 level.

        It’s funny – you can feel like you’re rocking it out in OW – getting like 30 eliminations and 2-3 gold medals a game until you look at higher level player stats and they are getting 50 elimstions a game etc – and you almost never run into them into your games because your suck level is too high – and might only rarely see them join your team to balance stats – so it does a good job at handicap management.

        You can’t help but wonder what it’s like to play at higher levels though

  4. monsieurZb says:

    Er… I never said cheats were not mods. You said “on these cheating private servers of yore”. I assumed, according to your very own definition (“The difference between the two is in the acceptation of use”), that you were talking about badly-protected private servers on which cheating was rampant. On which the mods used were not agreed upon by all players. And these servers were never the hotspots of creativity the modded servers were -are. Because of the frustration, eternally-ongoing pissing contest, lack of general fun.
    What’s your point again exactly?

  5. Schnallinsky says:

    this is interesting on a technical level: network purity is the holy grail of multiplayer games – if the client isn’t displaying where the other players are and how much health they have, why does the server even send the information? there might be client side hacks you can’t easily prevent (i.e. wallhacks, aimbots), but how is this not a case of sloppy network code? someone enlighten me please.

    • hotmaildidntwork says:

      I believe that the reasoning tends to center around latency, response time, and the unpredictability of human action. For example, let’s say that you only want to send the client information for players in their field of vision. If a player suddenly spins around then you have to update the information you’re sending them, including anyone who happened to be standing behind them. You can’t anticipate that they’ll turn around, humans aren’t sufficiently predictable, and the timeframe for rotation 180 degrees is too short to get the new information to them before they’ve adjusted their view. So you end up with a situation where someobody turns around and then a heartbeat later the person standing behind them renders. This is undesirable at best, rage inducing at worst. Not to mention the extra work required to determine what a player can and can’t see at a given moment, which also slows the response time.

      • Schnallinsky says:

        ah well, you’re most certainly right about that. even though i think servers can compute a rough visibility model nowadays – i mean, clients have to calculate the visibility of millions of pixels (hidden behind millions of polygons) every single frame. so you probably can’t prevent the disclosure of a laggy, knife-wielding ninja sneaking up behind you, but the position of a random goon in the cellar of a different building (or behind an opaque wall) should still be mostly (i.e. no sight lines plus a confidence interval) unknown.

        • hotmaildidntwork says:

          I do feel that what you suggest is logical. If the hack works as well as the article seems to indicate then I’m not sure exactly why Blizzard would choose not to limit that location data to at least some extent.

  6. aircool says:

    Cheats = scum. Anyone selling cheats = motherscum.

    No doubt the cheaters will claim it’s their human right to cheat or some such bollocks.

    • MajorLag says:

      Not going to disagree about cheaters in multiplayer being the scum of the earth, but I for one am a bit horrified by how supportive people are being of Blizzard abusing the legal system as a solution.

      And their justification is basically “It costs us potential future earnings”. What’s next? Nudie-mods because they “damage our brand”? Are they going to sue a let’s player because their bad playthrough may have lost them sales? How about griefing? It’s about as experience-ruining as cheating after all. The One True God Profit must be appeased.

      • pepperfez says:

        As a group, gamers are really horrifyingly pro-corporate. That the ideal is for a game to run exclusively on tightly regulated first-party servers is beyond bizarre to me.

  7. DJ Topicality says:

    As an American J.D. and legal professional (caveat: none of the following should be construed as legal advice and I don’t practice IP law), I have to say the response by Bossland is amateurish at best and clearly demonstrates that they haven’t retained legal counsel in the U.S., and their representation in the EU is either incompetent or, more likely, furious with their client for letting them post the response linked here. Making a statement like the one they have regarding doing business in the U.S. qualifies in California courts as an admission by an opposing party, and can be submitted as evidence for the truth of the matters asserted in the statement that they made here. It also betrays a pretty demoralizing lack of comprehension of U.S. Civil Procedure. (e.g. making fun of Pennoyer v. Neff as being an old case on which to base law is basically like making fun of the U.S. Constitution for being a bad source of law due to its age: each have had dozens or hundreds of extensions since – think ‘WoW is a bad game because Warcraft is an old game’)

    Ultimately, the European courts tend to have a reputation for plaintiff friendliness when it comes to ‘injured person v. faceless horrible corporation,’ but when it comes to biz v. biz suits there’s no better place to file than in California. U.S. law allows jurisdiction where the stream of commerce brings a company’s product into contact with a U.S. market, in this case, they’re making sales directly to U.S. players, so they didn’t have a great shot to begin with. I would be unsurprised if Blizzard gets a preliminary injunction against Bossland being able to do business in the U.S. long before this case is actually finished. I’m honestly surprised it took Blizzard this long to file stateside, presumably because until now they’ve been more a minor irritance than an actual concern.

    Also I don’t play a lot of online games because I find most games’ communities generally way better than I’ll ever be and overwhelmingly hostile to n00bs to the point that it isn’t fun to play, but I imagine if I had put the time and effort into blizzard products that I’ve seen friends do I’d be pretty cross about cheaty-folk.

  8. Ashabel says:

    All the kerfuffle up there aside, Bossland’s bravado is really embarrassing. To claim that Blizzard are “devastated, clutching at any straw” would imply that Blizzard are in fact losing the legal battles, but their own score indicates that Blizzard so far hold a legal victory lead of 6:4 in the German courts.

    It’s like their particular choice of business left them increasingly detached from reality.

  9. UniuM says:

    This is deeper than the average CS:GO/OW/RSS kid spinhack cheat WH etc etc….
    Some months ago i watched a piece of 60 minutes about the russian doping scandal and why affected the london olimpics athletics team.
    they call it a generation of cheating, its bigger than videogames. This days standarts are so high people will look everywhere for the advantage, and if that means play a 10 dollar sub to see people through walls in a videogame, so be it.

    People cheat exams,
    People cheat on spouses and loved ones.
    People cheat at work, cut corners.
    People cheat driving, trample each other to get to work faster.
    People cheat even their own curriculums
    Its in peoples nature, and will allways be.

    Now, i think blizzard should tighten even more cheating in overwatch because its easy for a game get labeled like CS:GO, and i payed 40€ for a game i’d like people against me play the same way as i do.

  10. TomA says:

    There’s a post on their blog about some Chinese group ripping off their hacks/bots and selling it for double the price. Cheaters getting their cheats cheated off them by Chinese cheaters.

  11. PoulWrist says:

    This company is a disgrace. Disgusting.