Games – Page 19 – The Gaming News Corner

Epic Games and Fortnite cheaters Lawsuit finished

Epic Games, creators of Fortnite: Battle Royal, settles their lawsuit with one of its cheater: Charles Vraspir. If you’re curious on reading more about the allegation, you can read my previous article here. The lawsuit was from Epic Games regarding Charles Vraspir‘s usage of using aimbots and using cheats the game to deliberating targeting Twitch streamers in the game. He was also banned numerous times before the lawsuit. Vraspir was agreed to delete all software related to Addicted Cheats from his computer. He is forbidden from cheating on Fortnite and any Epic Games in the future. If he were to violate the policy, he would be charge a minimum of $5,000. The cheats affected the game code which was against the company’s policy: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Link to the injunction from Torrent Freak here.

In regards to the 14-year-old, Caleb “Sky Orbit” Rogers, his case is still being discussed. He was also caught using the same cheating software in the game but also creating tutorial guides on how to utilize cheats in Fortnite: Battle Royale. Epic issued a DMCA takedown on the video which Rogers contested. This led to legal action by Epic. However, they were unaware that Rogers was 14. Rogers’ mother contested the lawsuit based on his age that Rogers was not affected the sales of the game because it is free and the EULA was not binding because of his age. As of December 7, the lawsuit is still active against Rogers and the protection of anonymity is void because his mother put his name on her letter.

What do you think of Gaming companies taking legal action against cheaters? Do you feel that it crosses the line or that they have the legal right? Does making the game free affect your opinion on potential lawsuits?

Opinion:

I personally think suing the players is quite extreme. While I agree cheaters should be punished, I think permanently banning them or their IP address similar to Blizzard is more effective.

Sources:

Rolling Stones

Polygon

EA wants to keep Microtransaction in Star Wars Battlefront 2 and doesn’t understand Gamers

Electronic Arts have lost $3 billion in stock value after the microtransaction loot box system was discovered to create a pay-to-win situation in Star Wars Battlefront 2. Many fans were critical of the system and EA pulled loot boxes from the game before the official launch. After news programs and governments around the world began to notice, EA received mass criticisms from many audiences. The Belgian Gaming Commission waded in, as did Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee, who publicly denounced EA‘s game as “a Star Wars-themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money”.

Despite this, EA decided to double down on keeping MTX (Microtransaction). EA‘s Chief Finance officer, Blake Jorgensen said “”We’re not giving up on the notion of MTX [microtransactions].” Whether they will continue to use the loot box feature in the future is still a debate for EA. Many fans protested the game because players could earn Star Cards that buffed the characters which created an imbalance in multiplayer. You could also not predict what you would obtain in a loot crate which some government leaders considered similar to gambling. To earn enough currency to purchase certain characters or features required substantial game time or you could bypass with real currency.

Jorgensen said that EA was focusing on improving the beta over the MTX and wasn’t aware how the public would react. The statement is quite outlandish considering many of the gaming community has shunned the loot box system; including for popular games that use them such as Overwatch. He also stated that certain players have more money than other while others have more time. EA worked to create a balance between the two to create a value system that would appeal to both. That is usually a fine method if there wasn’t boost in the game that would make you stronger than other players.

“For us it’s a great learning experience. We are trying to run the company with an ear to the consumer at all times, not only in the testing phase but when the game is up and running” said Jorgensen. EA, a gaming company which is older than 30 years, is still trying to understand their modern audience. It is unacceptable and an excuse that nobody who understands the modern game market would believe.

Supposedly, LucasArts is extremely focused on Star Wars Battlefront 2 following the canon according to Jorgensen. “There might be things we can do cosmetically, and we’re working with Lucas on that, but coming into it, it wasn’t as easy as if we were building a game around our own IP where it didn’t really matter. It matters in Star Wars, because Star Wars fans want realism. But Star Wars fans also may want to tailor things: different colour Lightsabers, things like that, so you may see something like that.” This would make EA look better if the skins were added to the game but it has been shown on Uninspired Zebra’s YouTube channel that there is a menu for customizing skins. Also, the previous game had skins! So EA is trying to manipulate the narrative by trying to tell people that they are making changes to Star Wars Battlefront 2 when they should already understand the backlash from their audience over microtransaction and what is the modern method most multiplayer use MTX. It is embarrassing for the company and mostly the developers who put in so much effort to make Star Wars Battlefront 2 a good game.

Sources:

Eurogamer

Polygon

Epic sues 14-year old for cheat mods in Fortnite

Fortnite, Epic Games‘ battle royal type game, has an issue with cheat mods in the game and community. They have filed two civil complaints against two alleged associates who use cheats from Addicted Cheats to actively kill Twitch Streamers players live online. This is known as stream sniping. Players actively look at Streamers live cam footage to find them and actively hunt them from an unfair advantage.

The service from Addicted Cheats is $5 – $15 a month. It allows people to use aimbots and track players throughout the map. The cheat has to modify the game’s source code which is against Fornite’s End User License Agreement and the Copyright Act. Fortnite‘s rule of conduct doesn’t forbid stream sniping like Player Unknown Battlegrounds but forbids cheating. One defendant has been banned multiple times and has created multiple accounts and continued cheating. When asked why “Because its [sic] fun to rage and see streamers cry about how loaded they are and then get them stomped anyways.” He also found another way to cheat after Epic created a block on cheaters stating “Now method is exposed . . . Epic Eat my ass.” As you can tell, he doesn’t feel guilty over his actions.

The other accused is a 14-year-old. Whether Epic was aware of their age prior to the lawsuit. The mother is quite unhappy and has written a letter to the court which attacks Epic‘s handling of the case. TLDR version below from Kotaku:

She says that Fortnite’s terms require parental consent for minors and that she never gave this consent.
She says the case is based on a loss of profits but argues that it’s a free-to-play video game. In order to prove a loss Epic would need to provide a statement certifying that Rogers’ cheating directly caused a “mass profit loss”.
She claims that by going after individual players, rather than the websites selling/providing the software necessary to cheat in an online game, Epic is “using a 14-year-old child as a scapegoat”.
She claims that her son did not, as Epic allege, help create the cheat software, but simply downloaded it as a user, and that Epic “has no capability of proving any form of modification”.
Finally, the mother says that by releasing her son’s name publicly in conjunction with the move that Epic has violated Delaware laws related to the release of information on minors.

The 14-year-old lives in Delaware and can be sued for damages based on how much the considered loss in money Epic states in the lawsuit. The parent would have to pay the sum. Adolescents can also sign contracts but have different degrees. Epic has yet to respond on whether they will proceed on using the 14-year-old.

Sources

Kotaku

14-year-old sued with mother’s letter

TLDR: EA and Star Wars Battlefront II Controversy

Many people have heard the controversy surround Electronic Arts and their business practices about Star Wars Battlefront 2 which was released on 11/17/2017. The game itself initially left many people skeptical after the first game only contained a bare-bones Story and multiplayer. However, a great trailer, a bigger emphasis on a unique story and the ability to play more Star Wars characters gave everyone hype about the game. However, early access players noticed a huge issue with Star Wars Battlefront II that has snowballed into a horrible situation for EA.

Players discovered that it would 4,528 hours or $2100 to unlock all content for Star Wars Battlefront II. Many characters are locked including Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker who are playable in the previous game. They must be unlocked by earning enough credits or obtaining them via a loot box by chance. Even purchasing the premium edition of the game didn’t unlock the main Star Wars characters.
Microtransactions can actually affect the actual gameplay. Rather than purely cosmetic items in loot boxes, players can potentially buy boost that can increase damage or armor for players. This creates an imbalance in the game and people willing to spend actual money earn competitive advantages.
Fan outcry led to a controversial statement from EA’s Community team. It has become the most downvoted comment on Reddit history. Players felt they were being ridiculed and that EA believes the high cost was reasonable.

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we’re looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we’ll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

EA then lowers the cost of the characters but also lowers the amount players can earn to compensate. After players discovered it, EA then shuts off all in-game purchases temporary until future changes are made.
Many people began to return their purchases of the game but EA temporary disabled the feature until returning it. This led to low reviews from many users and has dropped the Metacritic score to 69 but 0.9 for users.
Shares for EA have dropped 10 percent and continuous fan and gamers outcry continue to trend over social media and news outlets. Many news organizations such as CNN are reporting Star Wars Battlefront II microtransaction loot boxes as “gambling.” European countries are potentially banning the loot box system as it is considered gambling.
KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren stated that players anger are not justified. He compared the value of game time to monetary value and that games should be more expensive. Compared to how much time a game is played, Evan believes that microtransactions are ways for companies to earn money based on the “actual value.” It was revealed that he was an investor of EA and Comcast (EA’s parent company) which immediately discredit his statements as they are a potential bias.

Star Wars Battlefront II is an example of the game as a service model. You are making an initial investment in the game only to pay more to gain more features. Many players are angry at this model as it differs from the original “buy once and that’s it.” Games as a service have greatly increased the value of the industry but has distanced gamers and sowed in the Gaming companies. Star Wars Battlefront II is an extreme example and another example of EA‘s poor business practices to squeeze as much money from consumers as possible. Despite the backlash, EA is planning to bring back loot boxes to Star Wars and in their future games. EA is also aware of this backlash and actively strategized against it. By creating a Beta for players to learn about the initial flaws and show them to the world, EA can then market themselves as bringing changes into the game once it is released. When people learn that EA is changing the model, then people may actively begin purchasing Star Wars Battlefront II again. This creates a better view for consumers who don’t research too far into the changes which leave them to fall victim of similar business practices.

If you are against this system, don’t buy their games. Besides spreading the word about it, the biggest way you can affect them is not purchasing their games in the near future.