Treyarch: Black Ops Exploiters Are "Douchebags"

[Danish rage]

Nice, im pretty sure this game as well as WAW did, will cost me 12-18 month of my life.

Singelplayer is tight.

Multiplayer is a fun random clusterfuck, the way i like it.

And Zombies is nothing less then genius.

Question?

Does people mind rapidfire pads i Zombies?

 

[V8 Ninja]

Unfortunately, I have to refer to Penny Arcade for my thoughts on this;

True, people who exploit glitches and etc. are douchebags, but they wouldn't exist if Treyarch had tested the hell out of their game. It's also hard to blame them for doing what works.

 

[smithy_2045]

Still not buying it.

 

[Popido]

Didnt something like this happen a while ago?

Oh yeah, Starcraft. Hahahaha~ ok carry on.

 

[stdragon]

To the people saying you can't possibly test as well as millions of players, well, the designers have some major advantages you're not taking into account, including the ability to do automated testing, and the ability to talk internals with the actual developers who know the weaknesses and corner cases of every algorithm in the game. They would be utterly lazy if they didn't have a version of the game that can easily be played by bots that can try every permutation of every action at every seam, corner, and clip intersection of every map.

Of course, when it's so easy to manipulate people into hating cheaters, companies can choose to be lazy.

Personally I don't care if companies rush and there are minor bugs, but at least have the decency not to whine about players who uncover the flaws. If it's not serious enough to bother testing before shipping, why is it suddenly so serious when someone wins a few online games? I think finding a bug is a bigger achievement than winning a game anyway. Or rather, it's an achievement on a more important level.

And the people cheering on Treyarch, I wonder if you feel as strongly about cheaters who exploit product activation bugs in Windows, Office, Photoshop, etc? Who exploit flaws in DRM so they can copy movies and songs and ebooks?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Personally I don't care if companies rush and there are minor bugs, but at least have the decency not to whine about players who uncover the flaws.

They're not. They're grumbling about players who use these flaws to spoil the game for other players... Treyarch has expressly asked people to seek out and report flaws to them so that they can patch them, so it's not that they're opposed to people criticising their work.

There should be a name for people who exploit game bugs in order to ruin gameplay for other players who just want to enjoy the game... but for now, I'm happy applying the term "douchebag".

And the people cheering on Treyarch, I wonder if you feel as strongly about cheaters who exploit product activation bugs in Windows, Office, Photoshop, etc? Who exploit flaws in DRM so they can copy movies and songs and ebooks?

Yes, yes I do because I'm not that hypocritical. (And, having once made a go at making a living making games, I'm horribly biased against people making it tougher for others to do so.)

-- Steve

 

[beema]

Douchebags in a COD multiplayer game? Nah, that never happens.

 

[ryanxm]

good job treyarch this is deserving of a golf clap

 

[ryuuki]

Am I the only one that thinks 'If you'd bothered to sufficiently playtest this game and ensure it was glitch free instead of releasing it before it was finished (like almost every other bloody game that's come out in the last 5 years), then glitching wouldn't be a problem'?

I don't glitch, I prefer to act fairly in a game, but I mean seriously, you bring out a product which isn't properly designed/built and then blame others for using it in ways you should have foreseen/safeguarded against? That's a joke right?

Speaking as a QA tester I can tell you that it's impossible to find and fix ALL bugs in a game. Even with a team of 100 people working on testing not all bugs will be found. Some will only emerge during live play through emergent gameplay from gamers and some will only occur uniquely. Bugs have always been present in finished products, they always will with more and more getting through as developers go into overdrive with their franchises where getting several games out quick to a reasonable finish is more profitable than making one really well polished game. It's the sad truth and I hate it, but unless gamers stop buying the cheap franchise stuff like the new CoD games and the like then developers won't change their minds while their pockets are getting heavier.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Am I the only one that thinks 'If you'd bothered to sufficiently playtest this game and ensure it was glitch free instead of releasing it before it was finished (like almost every other bloody game that's come out in the last 5 years), then glitching wouldn't be a problem'?

I don't glitch, I prefer to act fairly in a game, but I mean seriously, you bring out a product which isn't properly designed/built and then blame others for using it in ways you should have foreseen/safeguarded against? That's a joke right?

Probably has been tested to bits already, some people may just try things that they didnt think of. The same with mmo's and all that jaz, you can test and test all you want but you can be pretty much guaranteed that you missed something.

 

[coldshadow]

so this means that zombie mode will be playable the way it was intended rather than having some twelve year old yell at me to help him get into a glitched spot every time I try to play.

also I like it when devs work on their games after release for things other than money

 

[stdragon]

They're not. They're grumbling about players who use these flaws to spoil the game for other players... Treyarch has expressly asked people to seek out and report flaws to them so that they can patch them, so it's not that they're opposed to people criticising their work.

You're right, I should have been more specific. I was talking about people who uncover and exploit flaws.

Yes, yes I do because I'm not that hypocritical. (And, having once made a go at making a living making games, I'm horribly biased against people making it tougher for others to do so.)

-- Steve

Really, you can muster up the same indignation against someone using a cheap Chinese DVD player that doesn't respect region coding, and uses it to play legally bought foreign DVDs? They are douchebags pure and simple because they are exploiting the hardware device's flaws without hacking it or introducing flaws themselves? I don't know. I have a hard time getting upset about people winning a game by playing the game exactly as it was designed and delivered.

On the same token, I read a really funny article about debit card fraud. It argued that debit card fraud is actually theft from the bank, not theft from you, and should be entirely the bank's problem. Imagine if your bank was robbed, and the bank said "Sorry, turns out the individual bills taken were from your account, you have no money anymore." I only mention it because it's another example of an institution misdirecting blame and responsibility by riling up public sentiment about thieves, cheaters, etc. Obviously it's much more serious, but the notion that people become convinced that someone stole money from *them*, when in reality they stole from the bank, strikes me as similar. The end result is that banks don't care as much about security as they should. It's a minor cost of doing business. How many banks today offer even basic and obvious services like instant one-time card numbers, the ability to selectively approve/deny purchases online *before they go through*, etc?

 

[L3D]

"Vonderhaar's opinion is that the players showing off glitches are just trying to become "internet nerd famous" and that the best thing to do is ignore them."

Sure thing, just ignore the glitchers and hackers that ruin the game balance and dominate the game, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and hum very loudly. That's hardly the best thing to do. It would be better if the games were tested better, fixed soon after finding problems and banning (or gimping*) the exploiters.

*like giving them only bad weapons, dunce caps or something like that.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I think they should do what Bungie did and reset their rank.

 

[kouriichi]

Well personally, all exploiters, modders, and hackers need to be shot in the mouth.

And not the kind of shot that kills you. One of those ones that only nik your spine and leave your arms paralized so that they can never touch another controller or keyboard again.

But banning works too i guess.....

 

[starrman]

Speaking as a QA tester I can tell you that it's impossible to find and fix ALL bugs in a game. Even with a team of 100 people working on testing not all bugs will be found. Some will only emerge during live play through emergent gameplay from gamers and some will only occur uniquely. Bugs have always been present in finished products, they always will with more and more getting through as developers go into overdrive with their franchises where getting several games out quick to a reasonable finish is more profitable than making one really well polished game. It's the sad truth and I hate it, but unless gamers stop buying the cheap franchise stuff like the new CoD games and the like then developers won't change their minds while their pockets are getting heavier.

Sure, I understand that, but we're not talking about bugs specifically, but about glitches, in other words functionality issues with the gameplay, not errors or exceptions in the code that lead to problems. Glitches should be found a lot easier than bugs since I assume they occur irrespective of the system setup. If these things come to light in just a few days I am lead to assume that either they have pretty boring un-explorative games testers, or that they just grossly overlooked that part of the game. I agree that it's good that Treyarch are committed to eradicating problems in their game, both bug and glitch, but to have the severity of problem that leads to calling people 'douchebags' after just a few days seems lame on their part. Too concerned with marketing, release dates and production profit and not concerned enough with quality and stability of game.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

On the same token, I read a really funny article about debit card fraud. It argued that debit card fraud is actually theft from the bank, not theft from you, and should be entirely the bank's problem.

And so theft is okay because it just hurts the banks, right? Except that they turn around and charge more fees to compensate for the extra costs, which comes out of whose pockets again? That's right, those honest enough not to screw others over for their own selfish gain are the ones who get screwed.

Just like exploiting glitches in online play that way, come to think of it.

-- Steve

 

[stdragon]

And so theft is okay because it just hurts the banks, right? Except that they turn around and charge more fees to compensate for the extra costs, which comes out of whose pockets again? That's right, those honest enough not to screw others over for their own selfish gain are the ones who get screwed.

Just like exploiting glitches in online play that way, come to think of it.

-- Steve

I was pointing out a similarity in the reaction of the companies involved in how they divert responsibility from themselves. Drawing an equivalence to the screwing over that a fraud victim gets compared to someone who loses an online game, as you're now doing... that's just laughable.

 

[Rabarberskurk]

Correction: Exploiting glitches is merely a clever use of in-game mechanics. Fix your game or deal with it.