Legality of cheats codes for paid content

[kzap]

I originaly posted this as part of another topic but thought I should make it it's own. (if that makes sense) mods feel free to delete the original in the topic about the latest episode.
]I'm just watching the bit at the end of the episode about paying to unlock things (characters etc) in games.
And it reminded me about a theory I had a while ago.
If you have pay to unlock an extra character or vehicle without winning them would that make, cheats, cracks and hacks illegal.
Because the game company could claim that you where getting the befits of something you didn't pay for or win.

[rsk_taker]

My Solution is this:

People need to stop supporting these new money grabbing schemes. If people had higher expectations and didn't pay for things like character-unlocks or paying $10-$15 for a few maps (in a game with so few maps to begin with), then none of this would be an issue.

The fact is, because there are many who pay for this nonsense, developers, game studios, the folks behind Live/PSN are ENCOURAGED (ie. have a monetary incentive) to intentionally leave content out of games, and ship incomplete/shorter/less-featured games for the same full price as otherwise and then charge for more later.

Because people support this, this is new way of games.

Pay for the TV, Pay for the Console, Pay for the Game, Pay for the Internet... now we must pay regularly to use them all together and even more to stay up to date with new popular content.

What happened to the ol' PC days where playing online was completely free and you would continually get FREE updates which included maps, weapons, or what have you :( It Makes Panda very sad.

[tokenuser]

I am OK with paying for new maps/levels. That extends the playability of a game. For example Diablo II was a great game ... Diablo II: Lord of Destruction added a whole new adventure. You got a new game.

Paying to unlock new cars, weapons, armour, etc., blows though. Those shold be the reward for playing through a level, or hitting a bonus of some sort. You no longer need to work your way through a game, you just buy all the cool stuff up front, then storm your way through - removing the challenge of starting with nothing and building up your skills and abilities.

If you want to pay for upgrades, thats great. But they should not be allowed for online play.
Same for cheats and cracks. Knock yourself out on your own local version, but they should be blocked on online play.

[kzap]

My Solution is this:

People need to stop supporting these new money grabbing schemes. If people had higher expectations and didn't pay for things like character-unlocks or paying $10-$15 for a few maps (in a game with so few maps to begin with), then none of this would be an issue.

The fact is, because there are many who pay for this nonsense, developers, game studios, the folks behind Live/PSN are ENCOURAGED (ie. have a monetary incentive) to intentionally leave content out of games, and ship incomplete/shorter/less-featured games for the same full price as otherwise and then charge for more later.

Because people support this, this is new way of games.

Pay for the TV, Pay for the Console, Pay for the Game, Pay for the Internet... now we must pay regularly to use them all together and even more to stay up to date with new popular content.

What happened to the ol' PC days where playing online was completely free and you would continually get FREE updates which included maps, weapons, or what have you :( It Makes Panda very sad.
I agree I mainly play old PC games anyway, I don't know any consoles (apart from my GP2X).
I watch TRS to keep upto speed on the latest games and occasionally I may buy a new game (never at full price).
I mean companies like Blizzard have been providing free mods for games like Warcraft 3 and they even included new units, heros and an new campaign.
They do still sell explains packs but I think that's different, although that is how companies would justify what they are doing.
One thing that scares me is that with all the DRM and paid content will be what will gaming be like in the future.
Also it will be like the modem days all over again: I had a modem and we couldn'y aford broudband so I always got trashed on any online game by the people who could aford it.
Now I understand that things like that are fine. However it could end up being when you play online whoever has the most real money can pay for the best wepons and people who can't (and have brought the game) always lose.
I think it makes it unfair to the people who don't have parents who will pay to unlock all the charactures for them and have to go the slow rout.

[kzap]

I am OK with paying for new maps/levels. That extends the playability of a game. For example Diablo II was a great game ... Diablo II: Lord of Destruction added a whole new adventure. You got a new game.

Paying to unlock new cars, weapons, armour, etc., blows though. Those shold be the reward for playing through a level, or hitting a bonus of some sort. You no longer need to work your way through a game, you just buy all the cool stuff up front, then storm your way through - removing the challenge of starting with nothing and building up your skills and abilities.

If you want to pay for upgrades, thats great. But they should not be allowed for online play.
Same for cheats and cracks. Knock yourself out on your own local version, but they should be blocked on online play.

I agree if you are paying for something that is not in the original game e.g. an expansion pack, that cost them money to make and adds more stuff to the game then that's great.
But I don't think people should have to pay for cheats or things that are already in the game or important updates (though I don't think anyone charges for them... yet)

[metallicnitro]

Well keep in mind, cheat codes are purposefully put there. If a person wants to pay additional money to unlock content that can be achieved for free, then let them do it. Sometimes it makes no difference what the unlocked content is, skill can triumph over stats.

I am against paying for things that give you an advantage. It is kind of like the steroid use in the Olympics back in the 80s. It wasn't about skill, it was about who had the money to pay for the best steroids. It is unfair for someone on a limited to budget to have to constantly come behind the person who has a lot of disposable income.

Also, I am against developers shipping incomplete games and charging for things that should have originally been in the game. I would be disgusted to find out I payed $50 for a disc and then have to go online and pay additional money so I can be able to play my game.

[kzap]

Well keep in mind, cheat codes are purposefully put there. If a person wants to pay additional money to unlock content that can be achieved for free, then let them do it. Sometimes it makes no difference what the unlocked content is, skill can triumph over stats.

I am against paying for things that give you an advantage. It is kind of like the steroid use in the Olympics back in the 80s. It wasn't about skill, it was about who had the money to pay for the best steroids. It is unfair for someone on a limited to budget to have to constantly come behind the person who has a lot of disposable income.

Also, I am against developers shipping incomplete games and charging for things that should have originally been in the game. I would be disgusted to find out I payed $50 for a disc and then have to go online and pay additional money so I can be able to play my game.

What about cracks though there are 3rd party programs you can download that give you cheats in PC games, would the games company be able to sue you for using them to unlock the same content you pay for.
As much as I'm against cheating (I think the fun of the game is working to unlock characters etc) there was a game I had ages ago where I was stuck to unlock a certain character (can't remember what it was) so I went in and modified my save game file in notepad (you could do that in those days).
Now if you did that today would the company be able to sue you saying that you where receiving content you didn't unlock or pay for?

[joeyrock]

What about cracks though there are 3rd party programs you can download that give you cheats in PC games, would the games company be able to sue you for using them to unlock the same content you pay for.
As much as I'm against cheating (I think the fun of the game is working to unlock characters etc) there was a game I had ages ago where I was stuck to unlock a certain character (can't remember what it was) so I went in and modified my save game file in notepad (you could do that in those days).
Now if you did that today would the company be able to sue you saying that you where receiving content you didn't unlock or pay for?

If a developer puts in an "unlock" cheat, and then tries sell an "unlock" pack that's their own stupid fault. Because the point of this new trend is that they are selling cheats.
If today a developer released a game with saves that you could edit in notepad, then no, it wouldn't be illegal to change that, unlock pack or no unlock pack. Because of the DMCA, it's illegal if you circumvent copy protection or encryption. If they (governments) got rid of the DMCA, then you could crack whatever you want yourself, but if you try to distribute that pre-cracked exe, or download an exe some one else has cracked... that would be illegal. exe's contain game content, so that would be a copyright violation.
I don't think game saves are copy protected, so if you could make sense of the code and reverse engineer a "hack" to that save, then that would be fine. Distributing that would probably also be okay, but it depends what's in it. The last game save I downloaded was probably for GTA San Andreas. I'd already completed it on the PS2 and just wanted to play around in the completed world on the PC version.

[vegan]

If someone charges to unlock content that's on the disc, I think it's fair game to use any and all available means to access that content. Not from a legal standpoint, but from a personal belief standpoint. That code is in my physical possession, I paid for it.

[damnedeyez]

...

Agree with that whole post. I have no problem with the way Burnout did it (nor some of the other car games that let you pay money to unlock parts to upgrade your car, so long as you can get it yourself for free through time spent in the game.)

Burnout was just unlocking the cars you unlock through playing the game...you still start with a learner's permit (and I did fork over the $5, since I'd already gotten my Burnout license twice, bike license once fully and once most of the way...changed from Disc to the Download version of the game, only to find out the saves aren't compatible.)


But, yeah...if you can get it free in the game, then I don't see (personally, not legally, as someone mentioned) it being a big deal to crack so much.

[lordstandley]

If you can only unlock it by paying with real money, and you absolutely can not unlock it for free by playing the game, then something is wrong and I have a big problem.
If you can unlock it through the game and they also offer unlocks by pay then I see nothing wrong. They are offering a valuable service to it's players and ultimately up to the players themselves if they choose to take advantage of said service.

I personally just bought the all cars unlock pack from Burnout Paradise and I couldn't be happier about my purchase, and I'll tell you why.
I just don't have the time I used to have for playing games. With a wife, kids, work, finding better work (thank god no more school) I just don't all the time I would like to play games anymore, and I especially don't want to spend extra hours going over and over repetitive races, fights, levels etc just to unlock the car, fighter, character you really want to play with. So I'm glad they offer a quick unlock for just that situation.

Where I do have a problem with DLC is something like the first Lego Star Wars for the 360. If you had the original game on the Xbox and you bought the new one for the Xbox, it would automatically get the characters from the first game to use in the new one. On the 360 they charged you $4.00 to do this. That to me is bull shit. It's free on one systems and $4 on another?? F that!
Viva Pinata unlock keys for merchandise that is already on the disc? Bull shit!

For the most part I see nothing wrong with the bulk of the DLC that is out. Buying extra money in Godfather, no problem. You can go earn it if you want, or you can throw down some cash and get it this second. Why is that bad?

[aerodash84]

I have more of a problem with say Street Fighter 4 and how they've handled new costumes. They announced that new costumes would be available for donwload shortly after release. Now my problem is more that it's like you're going to pay $60+ (especially for collector's edition) and we want you to spend stuff next week we didn't include in the game. I really enjoy a game like the Mortal Kombat games for PS2/XBOX where you got tokens to redeem on bonus content like artist work, videos, costumes, and all that. I think I would rather invest in a game with those options then pay as you go. Just feels like a rip off to pay for content so shortly after the game releases. I disliked how one of the Need for Speed games though it would cost a decent amount of money to unlock cars and there were a lot of those packs. Something like Burnout Paradise isn't as bad since it's been over a year since release and only a few cars are for actual sale.

The one pack I did enjoy was for Marvel Ultimate Alliance with the new heroes/villians. Gave me a chance to play as some of my favorite characters that weren't in the game originally. Long enough after the release that I went back and played through again. Those and expansions I will say are great, because it does extend the value of gameplay.

[kzap]

If someone charges to unlock content that's on the disc, I think it's fair game to use any and all available means to access that content. Not from a legal standpoint, but from a personal belief standpoint. That code is in my physical possession, I paid for it.
I completely agree with you from a moral stand point, however, as much as I hate it, when you buy any program you never 'own' it.
That's why I now use open source.

[kzap]

If you can only unlock it by paying with real money, and you absolutely can not unlock it for free by playing the game, then something is wrong and I have a big problem.
If you can unlock it through the game and they also offer unlocks by pay then I see nothing wrong. They are offering a valuable service to it's players and ultimately up to the players themselves if they choose to take advantage of said service.

I personally just bought the all cars unlock pack from Burnout Paradise and I couldn't be happier about my purchase, and I'll tell you why.
I just don't have the time I used to have for playing games. With a wife, kids, work, finding better work (thank god no more school) I just don't all the time I would like to play games anymore, and I especially don't want to spend extra hours going over and over repetitive races, fights, levels etc just to unlock the car, fighter, character you really want to play with. So I'm glad they offer a quick unlock for just that situation.

Where I do have a problem with DLC is something like the first Lego Star Wars for the 360. If you had the original game on the Xbox and you bought the new one for the Xbox, it would automatically get the characters from the first game to use in the new one. On the 360 they charged you $4.00 to do this. That to me is bull shit. It's free on one systems and $4 on another?? F that!
Viva Pinata unlock keys for merchandise that is already on the disc? Bull shit!

For the most part I see nothing wrong with the bulk of the DLC that is out. Buying extra money in Godfather, no problem. You can go earn it if you want, or you can throw down some cash and get it this second. Why is that bad?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here.
What I'm ageist is the business ethics of selling you something that is free.
It doesn't cost them a penny to unlock this content for you, why do they charge you? because they can. The work on the principle of; we have this 'something' that costs us nothing to give away, what is the most we can get people to pay us for it?
It's like Windows Vista. They created the entire operating system, but then had a business idea to make more money, instead of selling you the whole operating system for £80 (which would still make them a nice profit) they diced to lock certain features out and create a home basic version, they then made the full, super version a couple of £100 more (because they can).
Now all the feature of Vista Professional Premium are in Vista Home Basic, however they are disabled, if you do enabled them however they will remotely shut-down your PC (they can do that by the way) and lock you out.
It's the same in games they charge you because they can. If everyone boycotted this idea then they would give these cheat codes away free.
God only knows what would happen if you downloaded one of these unlock packs and created a torrent of it. They would probably try and sue you.
I can see your point of view that you are paying for a service you want but I still think it's immoral.

[lordstandley]

I can see your point but I couldn't disagree more.
Vista for example is just like every other product on the market. They have cheap version for people who will only use 100 out of say, 1000 total features. Most people do not use all 1000 features, but there are some that do. So why make people pay higher prices for the full version when all they want is the cheap basic pack. Honda DX as opposed to the EX. Offering other variations of the model is just good business.

As for DLC, I do agree that companies selling you something that is free, or already on the disc, is absolutely BS. But I don't think that the time saver packs are BS at all. You can get all these things if you play the game. I see no problem in offering me a quick unlock for a small fee if I don't have the time to unlock all the extra features but still want to play the full game. I could still get it for free if I wanted too. That is a good service that I will gladly pay for in certain games. This type of content is the carrot on the stick to keep players playing. If Burnout or Skate 2 didn't have these things locked you would have nothing to achieve in the game, thus not really a game.
If you did not have the option to get these things by playing the game then I would agree with you and have a big problem. (The endings for Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider for example)

I do see your point, but in regards to the time saver packs I don't see the problem.

[kzap]

I can see your point but I couldn't disagree more.
Vista for example is just like every other product on the market. They have cheap version for people who will only use 100 out of say, 1000 total features. Most people do not use all 1000 features, but there are some that do. So why make people pay higher prices for the full version when all they want is the cheap basic pack. Honda DX as opposed to the EX. Offering other variations of the model is just good business.

As for DLC, I do agree that companies selling you something that is free, or already on the disc, is absolutely BS. But I don't think that the time saver packs are BS at all. You can get all these things if you play the game. I see no problem in offering me a quick unlock for a small fee if I don't have the time to unlock all the extra features but still want to play the full game. I could still get it for free if I wanted too. That is a good service that I will gladly pay for in certain games. This type of content is the carrot on the stick to keep players playing. If Burnout or Skate 2 didn't have these things locked you would have nothing to achieve in the game, thus not really a game.
If you did not have the option to get these things by playing the game then I would agree with you and have a big problem. (The endings for Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider for example)

I do see your point, but in regards to the time saver packs I don't see the problem.
The reason I don't like the time saver packs is that they used to be free and don't cost the company a penny (like I said).
The reason they charge for the game is that it cost them to pay voice actors, programmers, energy bills. But it wouldn't cost them any more to put a cheat code in the game that you could use to skip a tough leval or get an extra vehicle.
It's like picking up a realy nice free pen at a convention that you don't want but your friend (who wasn't there) really does, now I would give it him free because it didn't cost me anything, but this way of thinking dictates, what is the most he will pay me for that pen, that is what I will charge him.
No I understand that it is good business I just can't see how anyone can moraly justify that.
The same with Vista the OS was complete before Micro$oft started locking out features, they could have sold the full version for £80 but they think if they lock out features they can charge more to unlock them.
Now all the features are there in the first version, they are actully on the disc you own and taking up your hard drive space, but if you try to use them Micro$oft will call you a pirate and point to the Terms and Conditions you had to sign and then sue you.
Maybe it's just my world view but I think if you can give someone something that they want and it won't cost you anything at all you should give it them no matter who they are or if you think they can aford it. Maybe that's bad bussiness (I do bussines at school but I hope never to do it as a correia) but that's just the way I think.
BTW I use Linux incase you are wondering and support The Pirate Bay (though I never download anything from them because I don't want to go to jail)

[dolson]

As long as what ships on the disc is a complete game and I don't HAVE to buy DLC if I don't want to, then I don't see much of a problem with it.

What I won't pay for, however, is the ability to play my games online. Sorry, Microsoft.

[lordstandley]

As long as what ships on the disc is a complete game and I don't HAVE to buy DLC if I don't want to, then I don't see much of a problem with it.

What I won't pay for, however, is the ability to play my games online. Sorry, Microsoft.

I think that is exactly what good DLC comes down too, are they holding the game back because of it. If not then it's Ok by me and up to me if I want to throw down real money on it.

As far as the Live situation, I love live and gladly pay once again for a brilliant service. I mean it's less than $4 a month, I pay more per month to Taco Bell for the opporutnity to have horrible heart burn and frequent bathroom stops :D.
I can fully understand why some don't pay for it though. But I think it is much more of a service than just playing online, and I am reminded of this every time I fire up my PS3 and try to do anything on it with friends, or in fact anything online.
I mean hell, Microsoft could offer an online service much like the Wii. :mad:
;)

[kzap]

As long as what ships on the disc is a complete game and I don't HAVE to buy DLC if I don't want to, then I don't see much of a problem with it.

What I won't pay for, however, is the ability to play my games online. Sorry, Microsoft.
I don't have an Xbox so forgot about that, but that is another sign of "we can charge them so we will". M$ don't even provide the servers (right?) so it doesn't cost them a penny yet if you hacked your console so you could play online, let me guess, you would get sued.