Blizzard starts Diablo 3 bans for hacking, botting

Blizzard has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo III accounts associated with hacking or botting. Earlier in the day, a post on the game's official site reemphasized the company's stance on cheating.

57

Blizzard doesn't tolerate cheaters. Or hackers or botters for that matter. To make the point, Blizzard said today that it has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo 3 accounts suspected of taking unfair advantage in the game or exploiting loopholes in the game that violate the terms of service.

Community Manager Zarhym said in a post on the official forums that players were suspended or banned because they were "in violation of the Battle.net Terms of Use for cheating and/or using botting or hacking programs while playing." The post also noted that additional bans could be coming if Blizzard's monitoring uncovers more evidence of cheating.

Blizzard had warned some sort of action was in the offing, reemphasizing it's policy about cheats and hacks in a news post. Reports have been rampant of an exploit in the auction house that allows players to duplicate items, and Blizzard supposedly took servers offline to fix the problem.

With the launch of the real-money auction house coming soon and set to require an authenticator, Blizzard is making it clear that it won't tolerate anyone messing with the in-game economy.

Contributing Editor
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 12, 2012 11:30 AM

    John Keefer posted a new article, Blizzard starts Diablo 3 bans for hacking, botting.

    Blizzard has suspended or banned thousands of Diablo III accounts associated with hacking or botting. Earlier in the day, a post on the game's official site reemphasized the company's stance on cheating.

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 11:59 AM

      I don't want a Diablo game that is online-only and connected to real-life economy. I want a 1st person action game that I get lost in, with no threat of anyone hacking into my account and taking my characters weapons and armor. Sorry Blizzard. Diablo 3 is a fail. I will not puchase this.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:04 PM

        welp, they had a good run. RIP Blizzard...

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:09 PM

        You want an entirely different genre? What?

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:39 PM

          Yep, he wanted the same genre as D2.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:41 PM

            I want a 1st person action game...

            umm...

            • reply
              June 12, 2012 4:48 PM

              Well I missed that part.

              Maybe griffonwing doesn't know what 1st person is?

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:10 PM

        Then don't buy it?

        Did I just get trolled?

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 12:51 PM

          This is a front page post, everyone is super serious here.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:48 PM

        I know right.

        I really wanted a single player offline 1st person shooter that had a great story line, and then i get this. Cmon blizzard. gets with it.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:53 PM

        too bad I gifted you a copy its on its way to your house

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 1:27 PM

        Something about this post makes me want to start a power metal band called GRIFFONWING.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 1:33 PM

        I too, want a time machine.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 1:39 PM

        Lmao..

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 2:40 PM

        Blizzard will be taking Battle.net down from 4PM- Midnight Pacific Standard Time, in order to mourn the loss of griffonwing's business. Grief counselors will be on stand by in order to soften the blow.

        Hang in there, Blizz.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 2:52 PM

          That's shorter than the usual down time, they must not like him very much...

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 11:05 PM

          bullshit, it's always down 5am till 9am PDT, just to fuck with Australian peak playing times.. At least they bring it back at 1am just for a buttfucking lag death reminder.

          "Oh look you are standing in shit that will kill you in 500ms, but we won't tell you about it for 400ms JUST to give you enough time to MOVE far enough away from the shit you are standing in so it looks like you are NOT standing in it.. THEN WE KILL YOU.. HAHA". fuckers fuck you fucking blizzard /madbro

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 2:59 PM

        Without your purchase, they won't be able to claim fastest selling PC game ever =(

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 6:08 PM

        LAWL

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 11:16 PM

        That game is called Skyrim

        • reply
          June 13, 2012 10:58 AM

          Skyrim is like a fine cigar and Diablo 3 is a carton of cigarettes.

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 12:04 PM

      What kind of hacking?

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 12:05 PM

      why would i write a bot for a game that lasts only a few hours form start to finish? played it through a few times to reach a nice level, but eventually moved on.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 2:54 PM

        Some people finds that funny. Just that.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 2:58 PM

        You could achieve high level in D2 in a few hours by being powerleveled fighting Ubers. People still botted. To get items. You know, the whole point of playing Diablo games.

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 12:05 PM

      I best most if not all of those are ghost accounts anyway. QQ

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 12:25 PM

      Yea, I'm glad I spent 20 on torchlight two instead of 60 on this mess.....

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:34 PM

        I'm glad you're not playing Diablo 3 too.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 12:50 PM

          i'm glad you're glad that he's glad he's not playing D3 too.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 12:54 PM

        Yeah, because T2 is such a great game, right? Judging by the beta, T2 is the same as T1 only with co-op, but still the same thing. Fun in limited spurts, but just doesn't have what it takes for long term play. Sorry, even with some issues, D3 is a far superior game.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 12:57 PM

          Hours of grinding with little reward?

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 2:08 PM

            And T2 is different how? Sorry, but D3 just "feels" better as far as the combat goes.

            • reply
              June 12, 2012 2:10 PM

              I thought the complete opposite. The combat was tight and super-responsive in TL2 than in the D3 beta. To be fair, I was always lagging all over the place most of the time in the D3 beta.

              • reply
                June 12, 2012 2:12 PM

                Sorry to hear that you had lag issues and I'm sure that takes a lot of the fun away. But for me, the physics in D3 (exaggerated and unrealistic of course) really makes the difference for me.

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 2:14 PM

                  I thought the physics were cool. I'm a huge fan to see how melee handles in games like this and the melee classes always felt better to me in Torchlight. Usually because I think melee heroes are a joke in most ARPG's.

            • reply
              June 13, 2012 6:04 AM

              Actually, D3 "feels' worse because of the input lag.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 12:58 PM

          I had just as much fun playing through the beta as I did act 1 of D3, and I appreciate that the overworld tilesets are actually random and not static every time.

          I'll still be playing Diablo 3 longer, but I'd say yeah, T2 is a great game.

          I don't understand the folks who think there can only be one.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 2:10 PM

            I agree, T2 will be fun for sure. It's just not going to have enough to compete with D3 in the long term.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 12:59 PM

          It's not the same as T1 only with co-op. The scale is a lot bigger. The outdoor maps and enemy spawns are a lot better. As is the randomizing engine which is better than D3's. It's got a lot more stuff going on for it than the first Torchlight. Don't be mad.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 2:06 PM

            Oh, I'm not mad at all. I think T2 will be a solid game, but it just isn't in the same league as D3, nor should it be. I've already per-purchased T2 because I think it is fun. But please, don't kid yourself into thinking that T2 has more to offer than D3. T2 is a huge bargain for $20, no doubts about it. But it just doesn't have same staying power as D3. Regardless, I will be playing both for a long time to come.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:36 PM

          Yeah, I'm not convinced D3 has what it takes for long term play. I guess time will tell. I just know I was bored before I beat Diablo the first time and I resist the notion I need to get to nightmare for it to get "good".

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 1:45 PM

        Wait, are you unhappy that they are banning hackers and botters? This same thing happened in basically every other online Blizzard game as well.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 3:24 PM

          Im just unhappy with Blizzard in general, could be the whole "online only" think and I'm just venting, but everything I read about it makes me glad I saved 40 bucks.

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 1:07 PM

      Love seeing people act like no other game has ever been hacked.... people KNEW there was no single player... and exploits have been in EVERY game to date....

      If you dont remember TownKill or have experienced it... you dont belong here and should move along... troll somewhere else where noone cares

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 1:33 PM

        I remember the first time I saw a sorc pull up a mana-shield in Tristram. It was the final time I played Diablo 1 :(

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 1:59 PM

      its crazy they don't admit gold duping, but disable gold auctions on RMAH, giving them enough time to track down the dupers and hey look nothing to see here.

    • reply
      June 12, 2012 4:33 PM

      Countdown to banned players banding together for a class action lawsuit because now they can't play the game they purchased AT ALL. And probably winning.

      Not that I'm rooting for these asshats. However, banning someone from your online service is one thing. If they can't play well with the community, they can play with themselves. Banning that renders the $60 program you just purchased useless? That's kind of a horse of a different color. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit recently that the plaintiffs won?

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:35 PM

        I doubt it. you agreed to terms of service and a EULA, and then you go break them? lol nice try

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:38 PM

          I really only mention it because I thought I remembered another case like this within the last year under similar circumstances. People banned from something and the company being forced to reimburse them. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just making the prediction.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 10:33 PM

            I think that was people complaining on XBox forums and having their entire Live Accounts banned. Like the forum ban was fine, but the Live Account was not. This is not the same thing as violating the TOS with hacking.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:42 PM

          They would have to prove it in court....good luck on Blizz not looking like a colossal asshole after that.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:50 PM

            You seem to misunderstand which side of the lawsuit Blizzard would be on in that situation. The plaintiff has to prove that their claim has legal merit to survive a motion to dismiss. If they survive that, then they still have to survive summary judgment. Given that the parties entered into a contract, and assuming no other contradictory evidence of additional terms favorable to the plaintiffs, I don't see how they'd get through those hurdles and make it to a jury trial.

            • reply
              June 12, 2012 6:46 PM

              You know damn well that Eula that everyone has to click before they can even "try" the software has never been really challenged in court.

              • reply
                June 12, 2012 11:01 PM

                LOL.

                Please, elaborate. Really, look up some of the basic case law out there and you'll know what you are saying isn't true. There is no legal requirement that software first be tried before having to agree to terms of use. I'm not talking about shrinkwrap agreements, but full agreements presented prior to a user installing/using the software.

                ps: here's some reading. http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 11:21 PM

                  Im pretty sure the EULA aint worth shit in EU.

                  • reply
                    June 12, 2012 11:27 PM

                    I'm presuming enforceability in the US is the issue absent any other indications that we're talking about the EU or other parts of the world.

                  • reply
                    June 12, 2012 11:44 PM

                    Afaik in Germany EULAs are only part of the contract agreement if the buyer has seen and agreed to it before buying the product from the seller. In Switzerland its the same, EULAs that have not been presented to the consumer before buying a product are legally not binding. STILL its Blizzards product and they can ban people from bnet as they see appropriate, these guys wouldn't stand a chance.

            • reply
              June 13, 2012 8:07 AM

              An EULA is not a binding contract in any way shape or form. You can stuff it full of all the protection clauses you please, but judges can render clauses void if they see fit as it's been done in the past.

              EULAs are ridiculous to begin with. It's not as if you know what you're getting into before you buy the game. Nope. You've already forked over money for something that you often can't return for a refund, and if you don't agree with the EULA you can just go pound sand.

              • reply
                June 13, 2012 8:26 AM

                You seem to be making some very authoritative statements. Care to give me sources of these prior decisions where the EULA was determined non-binding and which clauses were rendered void?

                • reply
                  June 13, 2012 12:48 PM

                  Wired wrote an article that showed many examples of EULAs being challenged. You can look through it and their examples. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commentary/circuitcourt/2007/08/circuitcourt_0801

                  There are plenty more scattered throughout the web. I know of one where ATT had a line that stated you could not file a class action suit against the company. I know Second Life's EULA came under fire at least twice.

                  EULAs are designed to protect software creators and their intellectual properties, anytime they cross that boundary and impede a purchaser from fairly using that software or product they can be challenged. These are not contracts. A contract is a mutual negotiated agreement. That's not what these are.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:43 PM

          There are laws on what can and cannot be in a EULA/TOS --e.g., you can't have someone sign away their rights. You can always take someone to court about a EULA/TOS being illegal.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:47 PM

            sure you can. you likely agreed to binding arbitration instead of court anyway.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 11:13 PM

          valve lost that case in germany if i recall correctly

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:35 PM

        blizzard has been banning people from WoW for 8 years without issue

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:37 PM

          You can play WoW on a private server.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:38 PM

            i rate this retort 1/10

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:39 PM

            if you're under the mistaken belief that this matters at all, then i will direct your attention to the existence of diablo 3 private servers

            • reply
              June 12, 2012 4:40 PM

              Are there? I had heard that too much was kept on the server for someone to run a private server. Interesting. I did not know that it had happened, and so quickly. Didn't it take em longer to break AC2?

              • reply
                June 12, 2012 4:45 PM

                There hasn't been technology made by man so far that cannot be reverse engineered by man. Being able to make a private server for D3 was only a matter of time, not difficulty.

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 4:51 PM

                  Fully in agreement. Just hadn't heard it happened already.

                  • reply
                    June 12, 2012 4:53 PM

                    If you google it, you'll find the longest running Diablo 3 Private Server has been up for over five years now!

                    • reply
                      June 12, 2012 4:57 PM

                      AhmNee's current events score -10.

                      Preemptive reverse engineering. Nice. You do know the next step is instant video technology, right?

                      "What they hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?"
                      "Now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now."

              • reply
                June 12, 2012 4:46 PM

                They're been around since the beta and they suck, like WoW private servers were nothing really works.

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 4:47 PM

                  Have you not been on WoW private servers?

                • Ebu
                  reply
                  June 12, 2012 4:59 PM

                  So kind of like the live servers. burn

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 11:20 PM

                  Wow private servers doesnt really suck, though.

              • reply
                June 12, 2012 4:47 PM

                yes but again, it does not matter in the slightest with regard to your idea about a class action lawsuit

                • reply
                  June 12, 2012 4:55 PM

                  As I mentioned below, stating they would "probably win" was likely overstating it. But with the way a civil suit works in this country, if someone gets one through the door it's really rolling the dice to the initial verdict.

                  Even if they did get a case to court and won, that's not saying it would stand up on appeal. I'd just not be surprised in the slightest to see "Banned players sue Blizzard and win" in the headlines six months from now.

                  • reply
                    June 12, 2012 5:36 PM

                    we all likely agreed to binding arbitration and no class action lawsuits anyway.

                    like on cellphone contracts and such.

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:36 PM

        ... it's like Diablo 3 was the first online-only game EVAH around here...

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:40 PM

        lol? No way they'd win. They purchased a revokable license to play the game and as per the terms of agreement that they accepted, their conduct represented a breach of the agreement, and thus their license (although purchased at one time) is revoked. There isn't a need to compensate them for the loss of that license.

        Also, the EULA probably contains a forced arbitration/anti-class action clause.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:45 PM

          I'm not a lawyer but a lot of how binding a contract is comes down to interpretation in a contract and how legally binding a EULA is, is currently murky. One group tries to claim that breaking a EULA constitutes computer fraud. Other groups are trying to push that a EULA is too one sided.

          Perhaps "probably" is overstating it but would you really be surprised if a judge out there somewhere ruled in favor of the banned because he doesn't really get videogames/software/computers/technology?

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 5:29 PM

            Sure, there is no clear rule on EULA enforceability, it usually comes down to evaluating the facts (terms, conduct, and assent of parties) but generally these kind of agreements are upheld baring extraordinary factors.

            Here is a good rundown of holdings and applicability of unconscionable claims:

            http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:46 PM

        Yes it's a horse of a different color. And I hope they choke on it.

        • reply
          June 12, 2012 4:47 PM

          * they = banned players.

          • reply
            June 12, 2012 4:50 PM

            Honestly, I agree. But I think Blizz put a target on their back by binding D3 to Bnet unnecessarily.

            • reply
              June 14, 2012 7:21 PM

              why? online only games have existed for some time now. are you dense?

      • reply
        June 12, 2012 4:55 PM

        Or people whose accounts were hacked and then the hacker duped and botted before the victim even knew he was hacked.

        A friend of mine got banned from WoW years ago because this happened. This was before authenticator, BDF.