
Video Game Cheaters Outed By Logic Bombs 224
Lirodon writes: A Reddit user decided to tackle the issue of cheaters within Valve's multiplayer shooter Counter Strike: Global Offensive in their own unique way: by luring them towards fake "multihacks" that promised a motherlode of cheating tools, but in reality, were actually traps designed to cause the users who installed them to eventually receive bans. The first two were designed as time bombs, which activated functions designed to trigger bans after a specific time of day. The third, which was downloaded over 3,500 times, caused instantaneous bans.
Video Game Entrapment? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Assholes against assholes (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like a classical case of vigilantism.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a classical case of mafia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the #1 reason I gave up on PC gaming and went Linux desktop and PS4 for gaming.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's what prompted me to enjoy either standalone or Local Network Multiplayer games. The rest of the world cheats.
Why do I care abou this? (Score:5, Funny)
If doesn't help prevent cheating in tux racer or bzflag why do I care? This tool was probably written in Rust too, wasn't it? Don't lie
Just a fucking game (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bad enough you play it religiously, but cheating in it to get ahead? What a fucking loser.
It's the equivalent of cheating at old people's bingo night. Actually, it's even worse because at least if you cheat at bingo you have a chance to win money.
Re:Just a fucking game (Score:5, Interesting)
Way back in the distant dawn of time (or at least, of competitive Counter-Strike play), I ran a major UK Counter-Strike league. Cheating was a pretty big issue back then (not least because software anit-cheat was much less developed) and we spent a lot of time on the watch for it. In the 18 months or so I was running the league, we had maybe 10 cheat detections during competitive play. The guys running the "open" public servers sponsored by the same company were getting a similar number of detections in the average week.
By and large, I think there were three reasons why people cheated. The first was simple curiosity; people who were bored of playing the game honestly and just wanted to see what the cheats were like. There probably weren't too many of these.
The largest group were the trolls; the people who cheated not because it was fun in itself, but because they got off on pissing off other people and screwing up their leisure time. Some of them would try to hide their cheating, but a lot of them were pretty damned open about it. After all, it's annoying to play a guy you think might be cheating. It's even worse to play a guy who is open and proud about the fact he's cheating, in a world where it can take time (up to an hour, on the public servers) to summon an admin.
The third kind were the properly competitive gamers who felt they were struggling to keep up with the pack and thought that by making subtle use of cheats, they could give themselves an edge. This was the only kind we tended to see in the competitive league. "Pro-gaming" was in its infancy back then, but was already becoming "a thing" and there was sponsorship and prize money floating around. There were lots of players who frankly weren't good enough who thought they could make a fist of pro-gaming. When it became clear that they weren't cut out for it (you need both a hell of a lot of practice time and god's own natural reflexes to cut it in that world), they'd often resort to cheats. They would always try to hide the fact they were cheating, so unless you got a rare software detection, discerning cheating from good or lucky play was hard (but not impossible) for an admin.
A new low for Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Linking to a subreddit, this is a new low.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How many "new lows" can /. suffer?
I mean... by now we have passed all the way through the Earth and are, perhaps, halfway out of the Solar System...
Every single article has at least 1 "new low" comment... clearly they can't all be true.
Lesson learned (Score:2)
That's why I play it smart and never use logic!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lesson learned (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine and I used to play a football video game back in the NES days. He would employ football strategy to plan his maneuvers, but i knew nothing of the game so I's just choose random plays and button mash. More often than not, I'd beat him because he couldn't figure out what my strategy was to make a counter to it. He'd plan a defense based on the most logical (to someone who knows football) offense, but I'd do something completely different and would win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the Meaning of Liff:
Aboyne (vb.): To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
Re: (Score:3)
"Video Game Cheaters Outed By Logic Bombs" That's why I play it smart and never use logic!
It's an error by the editors. The title should be "Video Game Cheaters outed by other Video Game Cheaters."
Offline, single player ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why I continue to prefer console games with no internet access ... I don't have to worry about the other guy cheating, but if the company made ways for me to "cheat" it doesn't hurt anybody.
If I want infinite ammo and can't die, who cares if I'm sitting in my basement and nobody else is affected?
Cheat codes used to be part of the fun of one-player games.
Re: (Score:2)
I loved playing single-player games with cheat codes. I'd enter "It is a good day to die" into Warcraft (original - before all this "World Of" stuff) and would send a now immortal peon to take out the enemy's entire army. I'd also give myself unlimited money in SimCity and just buy out all the competing civilizations except for one city that I'd keep around to keep the game from ending. (I called that my "Microsoft Strategy.")
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also give myself unlimited money in SimCity and just buy out all the competing civilizations except for one city that I'd keep around to keep the game from ending. (I called that my "Microsoft Strategy.")
I feel like... I feel like you've combined SimCity with Civilization to create some weird mega-game!
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot... Meant to type Civilization. I used to do the same with SimCity, though. I'd build a city, purposely unleash a few dozen disasters on it, and then use cheat codes to give myself unlimited resources so I could rebuild.... only to wreck havoc on the city again.
Re: (Score:2)
E D24 7F FF.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the cheats allow things like auto-aim that instantly headshots the target, and wall hacks that allow you to see the other players through walls. There are also speed hacks, and I am sure many more hacks I haven't even heard about.
There is no enjoyment in it except ruining the game for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, finding cheat "codes" was (and is) part of the fun. Figuring out that Pirates! on the Amiga stored money x10 in the save file (for example, 20 gold = $C8) was the first kind of hacking (in a very broad sense) I did, or can remember.
And I still enjoy figuring out stuff like that in modern single player games, even if it makes actually playing the game less rewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
HalfLife 2 Deathmatch... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
have you taken a break that long before?
a month or two will seriously fuck up your aim and your timing, and that combined with other players improving quickly can be pretty thumping. I think two months off from one of my old favorites, and it took me a couple weeks to almost get back to where i was.
you're talking about half-life two, so i'm assuming you've got something like 1000 hours into it at least. you're still playing it, so i'm going to assume you play it at a decently high level. When you play at
That's where I stopped... (Score:2, Insightful)
A Reddit user...
Explains a lot...
Love It, Love It, Love It! (Score:2)
I don't play Counterstrike, but I do abhor cheaters of any type! Good for the company to make these honey pits, play a badger game, whatever it takes to crush the godz-cursed scum of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't play Counterstrike, but I do abhor cheaters of any type! Good for the company to make these honey pits, play a badger game, whatever it takes to crush the godz-cursed scum of the earth.
The company didn't do this, another cheater did. They turned on each other, just like the bible said they would.
Logic bombs? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think "logic bomb" means what the submitter thinks it means (the stories don't use that term). These were trojans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it means exactly [wikipedia.org] what the submitter thinks it means, and is right.
The first two "multihacks" contained a time-triggered change that caused the user to get banned. It's unclear whether the third only activated when joining an online game or instead unconditionally did something that was only checked by Valve when going online.
Either you don't realize that most of those fall withi
Not really a Trojan... (Score:2)
It actually Did the things it was supposed to do.
It didn't contain any malware.
Its downloader-claimed flaw was that it accomplished it's primary functions in such a way as to be easily noticed, which Actually Did perform the Overall Intent of the program as written by the programmer; which was to Draw the permaban for the downloader.
I would call that a Meatspace Hack, more than anything. :)
Code to overwrite all the HD boot files would have been just as easy to get them to load, lol.
The first programs were d
Why cheat? (Score:2)
Please, could someone PLEASE explain the logic behind cheating in multiplayer games?
Either you win. Then you won because you used a cheat. It was not your skill, you're not better than the person you triumped over, a dog with his paws tied to the keyboard could have done it.
Or you lose. Then you're even too stupid to win when you cheat. It's like having LOSER stamped on your forehead.
So why would anyone want to cheat?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you met any humans?
Because, really ... if it's got rules, someone is cheating.
Winning by cheating doesn't seem to bother people, and it never has.
Are you seriously surprised by this? Has anything about human nature left you thinking you should expect otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware that humans tend to be irrational. That makes them funny to watch. But in this case it leaves me mystified.
There is nothing to gain. If there was some additional benefit like, say, a trophy, money, any kind of motivation outside the feeling of winning, I could see this motivation as the reason behind cheating, wanting to gain this additional prize. But if there's nothing to be gained outside of the knowledge that, yes, you won, where is the benefit?
I honestly don't understand this. This makes sim
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational? You don't think there are perfectly rational reasons for cheating?
Because, smug is a surprising motivator ... either beating you without you knowing how, or just because the act was fun. Because it was there. Because they could.
Wait, what? Since whe
Re: (Score:2)
I can only assume these cheating dimwits actually think they are good at the game and mostly won due to their skill. And of course they assume they are winning, but of course it's not really winning if you cheated - I don't think they understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you not enjoy having super powers? Cheats are super powers: you get to walk tall among the mere mortals. Most people don't have the slightest desire to be challenged, they just want to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah see, here is what I think happens.
The cheater wins because of the cheats. but it is not really about winning, it is about enjoying other people's pain. Even if it is about winning, the mental gymnastics required to make the cheater believe that it was justified are not all that complex. People do that kind of thing all the time. Take any given person's political beliefs. A lot of people will believe what they believe and have no trouble at all performing the necessary justifications in their head to bo
Re: (Score:2)
Please, could someone PLEASE explain the logic behind participating in multiplayer games?
The rules of these games are made up anyway and winning is not an indication of any admirable real world trait or skill. So some people get a kick out of making yet another game out of beating the game without getting caught, seeing people hide behind walls they can see through and then fragging them and taunting them in chat.
Re: (Score:2)
More mystified by the human species. So irrational it should have gone extinct ages ago.
Cheaters was my favorite show on tv. (Score:2)
Just quietly stick the cheaters together. (Score:5, Interesting)
Valve should just quietly put the cheaters all by themselves, let them piss each other off whilst everyone else gets on with life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That already happens doesn't it? With a VAC ban, you can't connect to VAC servers, but nothing stops banned people from connecting to non-VAC servers. It's just assumed they're full of hackers, so nobody else goes there (except pirates).
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a gamer but I've read about EVE. Even if they made a client for my system, I'd not play. Nope... Someone's gonna shoot someone over the antics in that game - by the players themselves. I've read stories about some of the greatest takeovers, robberies, and con jobs - and they all took place in EVE. Iceland has like a half dozen firearms, in the whole country. A bunch of crazy Americans are going to hop on a boat, row to Iceland, and just start shooting the developers.
Seriously, EVE is gonna result in someone waking up dead one day. I live vicariously through the stories. No, I seriously do look for the stories and read them. I like the long, exposé, types of stories that go into full details and actually describe what happened. It's like watching a wreck happen in slow motion where the people are cheering and wearing party hats. They know, they have to know, that they're going to die. I'm just waiting for someone to die in real life.
Hell, for all I know, it's already happened and I've just not read about that story yet. Someone, somewhere, is plotting how best to stitch another EVE player's skin into a body suit so that they can wear it while they kill the rest of the team. I'm not saying that I'd agree with such a person, or their behavior, but I'd have a little sympathy. I've read what those fuckers do to each other - intentionally.
It's an evil, vile, game that brings out the worst in people. That has some certain benefits to it and, from a pure outside view, it appears the owners actually appreciate, if not condone, that sort of practice. I know that I'd do so if it were my game to control. Absolutely... I'm just not sure how they'll deal with it when it spills over into the real world and people actually kill each other over their in-game antics.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, KGIII, reading a few articles about the crazy shit that goes on in EVE doesn't give you any notion of what the game is really like.
While there are some notorious Alliances and Corps that are out and out trolls the vast majority of players just like to play rough. The way EVE is structured all of that rough and tumble play, the meta-gaming, the scheming and theory crafting make the game a hell of a lot more fun than just about any other game I have played.
I don't know of any other game where literal
Gamerscore (Score:3)
You can't actually cheat in a single player game
Or at least you couldn't until console makers introduced achievements (Xbox) or trophies (PlayStation) as a means of comparing your e-PINGAS to those of your friends.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come now ... people are selfish bastards, and if there are rules, someone is always trying to get around them.
Don't go expecting noble acts from video gamers or the internet just because you seem outraged.
This is really no different than real life ... someone is always trying to bypass the rules and not get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because not everybody wants to play the way the game designers meant.
When I play Skyrim I now just ignore the major quests and mostly just explore and collect stuff and level up ... because the free-roaming aspect of it is what I consider more "fun" than trying to beat the quests. Who needs a plot line when I can just go kill some time wandering around? I make a point to not accidentally advance
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, if people will cheat for FUN, they'll sure as hell cheat for MONEY.
EVERY endeavor with rules has had someone cheat. The Olympics, car racing, the fucking stock market ... all of it.
Are you so naive as to think that the higher the stakes the less likely someone is to cheat? Because if you are, you need to get out into the fucking real world and look at what humans are really like.
Yes, they're all very bad people who should be punished with spankings and sentenced to hard labor to atone for their sins ... now grow the hell up and stop acting like you just fell of the hay wagon.
I don't play online games because a) I have no desire to interact with some smart ass 12 year old half way around the world who can kick my ass, and b) because I prefer to pick up a game, play for a couple of hours, and put it down. On-line gaming provides no value to me. In fact, it's a negative.
The fact that you felt the need to make an ad hominem attack tells me you're fucking asshole with an inflated sense of self importance, in addition to a woefully incomplete picture of what human nature really is.
I'm not advocating cheating in multi-player games.
But I am saying people who are shocked it happens are probably idiots.
Of course my Skyrim example is nothing like cheating where money is on the line, because it was about why people might choose to define "fun" other than the game designer intended.
But if you think your moral outrage will change the world ... good luck with that. Humans will ALWAYS cheat in large enough samples.
Acting like they don't is naive and childish.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you think your moral outrage will change the world
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so naive as to think that the higher the stakes the less likely someone is to cheat?
no, i think that the higher the stakes, the higher the scrutiny and the less chance of cheating successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure ... but it always comes down to "trust, but verify". Which really means you can't trust.
People will keep trying to cheat, and sometimes might even find ways to make it work. The higher the stakes, the higher the reward.
I consider it an unfortunate fact of human nature that, someone, somewhere will ALWAYS be motivated to cheat. Correspondingly, I think people would cheat just because you had rules.
Re: (Score:2)
But a game is supposed to be entertainment, Why bother playing a game if you are not actually playing the game?
"Nerd rage is the best rage." When you beat someone in an online game, and they just start raging, saying senseless things to you, and you know they want to throw their keyboard out the window.....
Online team games are even worse, like League of Legends, where you are teamed with a random stranger. Then your teammates will purposely play badly (even attacking their own teammates) just to produce the rage.
Remember that a lot of these people are teenagers, or even pre-teens (some are so young they can't e
Re: (Score:2)
Entertaining yourself watching others frustration of losing doesn't even require a computer.
I vividly remember a guy decades ago in school who was so reproduceably upset by losing (soccer games, card games and alike) that others started to intentionally play bad whenever they happened to be teamed up with him, just because it was so much fun watching him getting upset.
The whole time, he never seemed to realize that it was no coincidence people were losing when playing on his team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
World Of Tanks. Getting matched in random battles is more miss than hit that you'll get a decent team. Most of the time you're getting matched with assholes who think random firing is fun and they seem to completely get off on team kills. Really, the only way you're going to guarantee that at least a fifth of your team aren't going to do that to you is find a few players you trust, add them to your contact list and platoon up when you're online at the same time. Or, go into Team Battles (it's a point-based
I can give input there! (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to make bots for my own use in Puzzle Pirates. Less directly competitive, but there were global ratings and you helped your crew by performing highly (without directly griefing other players). I found that writing them was a lot of fun--it was a challenge to see how optimized I could make them, and how realistically I could make them act as humans. Big 'oops' moment when my bot went to the top of the world rankings after it'd only been running for a couple days, and I think I got banned because my bot optimized for weird combos that humans are unable to predict very well; it would stand out blatantly if anyone ran those particular statistics, but at least it had delays and mistakes and weird mouse movements like a person. In any case I found the 'botting puzzle' to be much deeper than the 'bilging puzzle'. It would still be fun if it was single-player.
But, that's just me as a writer. I could see distributing it to friends as a kind of intellectual challenge in managing people, and getting ahead in the game to see more high-level content. In a one-shot game like CS:GI though, downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself. All you get is the meaningless short-lived internet points from seeing yourself on top of a scoreboard, and you won't even win fights in a way that earns respect from your enemies.
Now see, what I'd REALLY love is a game (fps, mmo, puzzle, mud, etc) that is populated by user-submitted bots only. Upload and then forbid human communication with bots while they're running. Your bot needs to adapt to the way other bots behave that season, maybe your bot even needs to be designed in a way that it can try to form alliances with other bots for common interest--I guess some kind of open spec for communication protocol within the game would be good there. Who's trustworthy, who's not, can you share information, can you trust information, and of course just basic ability at playing the game. THAT would be a serious intellectual challenge. Things like Corewars just aren't as in depth as I want.
Re:I can give input there! (Score:5, Interesting)
You may be interested in screeps.
MMO world run entirely by bots.
Seems interesting, haven't tried it yet.
No direct control as far as I can tell.
https://screeps.com/
Re: (Score:2)
This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you so much for the link, I think I'm going to kill a LOT of hours here.
Progress Quest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and make the requirements on the bot :
1) Your bot must have a unique hash
2) You must sign the hash with a key associated with only your account
I used to like Corewar but the problem is the VM it runs in is too limited in scope for it to be interesting after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to like Corewar but the problem is the VM it runs in is too limited in scope for it to be interesting after a while.
Yeah, I've spent time trying to figure out how to make the VM better. I think what you really need is a way to limit rocks, so program size can increase. Right now, any program too large loses quickly to a small, dumb script. And "too large" means larger than 15 lines......
Re: (Score:2)
Could you elaborate? What do you mean, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
If you write a program that is only one line long, then this program only has a 1/5 chance of winning.
So the longer the program
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though. For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.
Also, this crude approach would eventually clobber itself if the number of addresses in the VM was not evenly divisible by 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though.
In fact, it is the original published by A.K. Dewdney himself.
For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.
Yes, the multiprocessor warrior is the original counter to this, but it can't be too long otherwise it will not demolish this. The dwarf is the thing in the ecosystem that prevents programs from getting too long.
CS:GO items sell for real money (Score:2)
There's some motivation for cheating right there. I don't play because CS:GO is fucking terrible compared to the original CS (1.3 was the best version, then they removed jumping but even 1.6 is better than GO) so I'm not sure how that translates but if it were just passively having the client running like TF2 you'd still have cheaters because dying means sitting in the time-out chair.
Re: (Score:2)
props for 1.3, back when the AWP was the AWP instead of the AWM or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself.
buying food grown by someone else is just pointless. you don't get the challenge of growing the food yourself.
see how well that logic works?
Re: (Score:2)
i know, analogies can be a tough nut for some people but it's a really useful tool to help understand the world at times.
see how well that logic works?
no, we don't. you said this,
downloading someone else's bot is just pointless
why? we all use tools produced by other people (even you). you may get additional satisfaction from building your own tools, but the benefit of using a tool isn't negated because it was built by someone else. the usefulness of a tool is orthogonal to how it was acquired.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 2002 maybe, IBM had a java tank competition using nothing but bots: http://www.ibm.com/developerwo... [ibm.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not an MMO, but MindRover [wikipedia.org] was a game completely around building bots and sending them to fight each other. There also were contests were you sent in your bot for competing against others on a manufacturer hosted machine.
And the grand father of such games, of course, was "Core Wars" [corewars.org], without any fancy 3d-graphics.
Re: (Score:2)
MindRover: The Europa Project was actually pretty good! And I'm working on a...well, not clone of it right now, but directly inspired. You program it with transistors and stuff. It's not computer-newbie friendly like MindRover was, but it's kinda fun to implement super-tiny computers out of bare metal.
Re: (Score:2)
I tweaked a ROM2.4 mud very mildly so that it exposed monster and item ID numbers (so bots wouldn't have to actually understand English), and had my bots go in without any knowledge of areas/monsters/items. The goal is that they would explore the world themselves, and learn their own fastest way to XP and gold at whatever level they were at, finding the correct weapons and the correct monsters and the right times to use them, cataloguing it for their second run through. Forming parties when appropriate wo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't cheat, or even play, but some people I know who do, and write there own hacks, developing hack is more interesting than the game.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's right. Cheaters were discarded by the DoD and hired by the NSA instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, America's Army was a US military recruitment tool.
Cheating in that game could be considered patriotic, educational trolling of the DoD to teach them that video games are a terribly useless way to find new recruits.
Bravo, good sir! The b-tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of simulated patriots and aimbotting tyrants.
In a real war, cheating is considered a good thing. It means fewer of your troops going home in body bags vs the enemy.
General Patton: “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”
The Last Starfighter (Score:3)
special video game and it turns out that it was a real recruitment tool
So it wasn't The Last Starfighter (1984)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheating at single player games (say, to see more content) isn't so bad because you're not ruining anything for anybody else. Just don't post your ill gotten high score :)
Cheat at multiplayer, especially MMOs where you can't simply leave the cheat-affected server, and you're simply being a douchebag.
Re: (Score:2)
If the mechanics of the game are so tiresome as to make cheating look like a good idea, the game probably isn't good enough to warrant playing in the first place, let alone cheating at it.
I would speculate that the answer to that is because as a game, it is supposed to be fun... and cheaters make a game less fun for the people that don't cheat. If that weren't true, after all, one would not feel pressure to cheat in the first place simply be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I care about this juvenile, jaded game and all the prepubescent cheaters it attracts? Why can't Slashdot ever report on that stuff that matters? LIke Perl 6 or the latest bugs and security holes, thanks to our beloved C / C++ languages we use to write our open sores software. Makes me really feel this world is going to shit. In the non-technical realms we have a severe infestation of mindless logic-hating libtard SJWs. In the "tech" side we have a bunch of moron wannabe programmers using baby new wave "programming" languages. They're too fuckin afraid to manage their own memory and heaven forbid they actually even understand the bit patterns of various strict types. I'm sorry to rant, but I just really feel I'm the end of my rope. I think this world is doomed so I might as well just use the last of it hang myself before I have to sit around in my basement and witness things get even worse. Over and out, Slashdot!!
Slashdot was purchased by Dice. Maybe you missed it? It's not really stuff that matters now. It's stuff that might get hits and make dice more money.
Re:News for gamers with no life? (Score:5, Informative)
Dice sold Slashdot. Maybe you missed it?
http://meta.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The particulars of who wants to sell ads to us isn't really something we much care about, though I'm sure the new owners will have their own spin on pissing off the users depending on what their favorite things to shill for are.
Re: (Score:2)
In MMOs I can at least understand the motivation behind bots. Circumventing a game mechanic you don't enjoy but have to do to get to the enjoyable part. Very understandable.
But why the fuck cheat in a FPS game?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
once you go asshole... you never grow up