Microsoft cracks down on Gamerscore cheating
Jonah Falcon
reds.b...@hotmail.com
Jonah Falcon wrote:
> http://www.xboxic.com/news/1933
That whole "gamerscore" thing is something I've never understood. I
thought at first it was related to "points", so that at least you could
get something out of it. I guess it was just an attempt to get people
to play more games. Kind of funny that it has backfired on them and
the people don't buy more games to up their score, but just cheat.
Serves them right. They established a silly, artificial thing like
that for their own profit, but all they got was a bunch of kiddies with
self-esteem problems.
Jonah Falcon
<reds.b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162906073....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Backfired? How?
And basically, to me, Achievment points are a carrot, and its a nice way for
devs to get a gamer to go out of their way to explore places they might have
just skimmed over. For example, Oblivion tries to get you to do all of the
Guild side-missions.
Achievements are FUN. You're attacking them because a few people cheat? Why
not attack Valve for people who cheat in Counter-Strike? Or Blizzard for
gold farmers in World of Warcraft? Your "argument" makes no sense.
reds.b...@hotmail.com
Jonah Falcon wrote:
> <reds.b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162906073....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jonah Falcon wrote:
> >> http://www.xboxic.com/news/1933
> >
> > That whole "gamerscore" thing is something I've never understood. I
> > thought at first it was related to "points", so that at least you could
> > get something out of it. I guess it was just an attempt to get people
> > to play more games. Kind of funny that it has backfired on them and
> > the people don't buy more games to up their score, but just cheat.
> > Serves them right. They established a silly, artificial thing like
> > that for their own profit, but all they got was a bunch of kiddies with
> > self-esteem problems.
>
> Backfired? How?
The point was to get people to buy more games so they could brag about
their gamerscore. It's of no real value to gamers, only to the
publishers. Now people just cheat to get a high score, so the plan
kinda backfired. It's not a thesis or anything, just a commentary.
The score is meaningless, even without cheating; some games it's easy
to rack up points and others it's not so a person's gamerscore means
almost nothing except they play a lot, or a lot of games (or, now they
cheat). If I unlock 10,000 easy points while you work twice as long to
unlock 1000 hard points, what do our scores say about us in comparison?
Absolutely nothing, in fact they are misleading.
>
> And basically, to me, Achievment points are a carrot, and its a nice way for
> devs to get a gamer to go out of their way to explore places they might have
> just skimmed over. For example, Oblivion tries to get you to do all of the
> Guild side-missions.
And what was wrong with the old system, showing what percentage you
have completed, which still works just fine? Does the recognition mean
something to you? It apparently means enough to some people to
cheat...lol
>
> Achievements are FUN. You're attacking them because a few people cheat? Why
> not attack Valve for people who cheat in Counter-Strike? Or Blizzard for
> gold farmers in World of Warcraft? Your "argument" makes no sense.
I was attacking them because they are of no value to anyone except the
publishers; I was laughing at the fact that people cheat.
Jonah Falcon
> >
> > Backfired? How?
>
> The point was to get people to buy more games so they could brag about
> their gamerscore.
There's such a thing as "rental", too. The real point was to track what
people were playing, not buying.
Once more, you're bashing literally hundreds of thousands of people who
enjoy Achievements.
Dub
> The point was to get people to buy more games so they could brag about
> their gamerscore. It's of no real value to gamers, only to the
> publishers.
Baloney that it's of no real value to gamers. Gamers love 'em. It
gets gamers playing in ways they'd have never tried before -- like
staying alive in Robotron for a certain amount of time without firing a
shot. It's something I'd have never thought to try, but when I had
incentive to (and succeeded) it was like "Cool". In addition to Xbox
reviewers, I've seen contributors from the major PC gaming mags (PC
Gamer, CGW, and CG) tell how they've gotten hooked on the Gamerscore
and how it's a pretty addictive concept.
> Now people just cheat to get a high score, so the plan
> kinda backfired.
It could really only be said to have "backfired" if it meant decreased
software sales. And judging by the attach rates and sell-through of
Live Arcade demos, exactly the opposite has happened.
> The score is meaningless, even without cheating; some games it's easy
> to rack up points and others it's not so a person's gamerscore means
> almost nothing except they play a lot, or a lot of games (or, now they
> cheat).
Everyone who enjoys the Achievements likes them BECAUSE they are
pointless and meaningless. You don't get any special recognition, you
don't get any prizes, you don't get anything beyond a number and a
scoresheet. You have to be pathetic to get obsessed with the
Gamerscore, and even a bigger dorkwad to cheat your way to the top.
Yes, there's a disparity in the way some games hand them out
(especially at first), but developers are getting better at tying
Achievements more closely to the effort put in by the gamer, both at
the "casual" and "hardcore" levels.
> If I unlock 10,000 easy points while you work twice as long to
> unlock 1000 hard points, what do our scores say about us in comparison?
> Absolutely nothing, in fact they are misleading.
You're treating it like it's supposed to be some type of scientifically
accurate Gallup-style barometer of gaming greatness, with a margin of
error of +/- 3 points. That was never the point.
> And what was wrong with the old system, showing what percentage you
> have completed, which still works just fine?
Nothing was WRONG with it; but the new system is a logical evolution of
the concept. It's unified, it's addictive, it's fun, it's better.
It's not perfect, but it really doesn't have to be. Anyone who doesn't
dig the Achievements a) really hasn't experienced them, and b) doesn't
get the fact that you're perfectly free to ignore them altogether if
you wish.
reds.b...@hotmail.com
Jonah Falcon wrote:
> > >
> > > Backfired? How?
> >
> > The point was to get people to buy more games so they could brag about
> > their gamerscore.
>
> There's such a thing as "rental", too. The real point was to track what
> people were playing, not buying.
>
So you agree that there was an ulterior motive, having nothing to do
with adding value for gamers. Thanks, that's what I'm saying too.
> Once more, you're bashing literally hundreds of thousands of people who
> enjoy Achievements.
I'm not bashing anybody. If you guys love them, then that's cool with
me.
reds.b...@hotmail.com
Dub wrote:
> reds.b...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The point was to get people to buy more games so they could brag about
> > their gamerscore. It's of no real value to gamers, only to the
> > publishers.
>
> Baloney that it's of no real value to gamers. Gamers love 'em. It
> gets gamers playing in ways they'd have never tried before -- like
> staying alive in Robotron for a certain amount of time without firing a
> shot. It's something I'd have never thought to try, but when I had
> incentive to (and succeeded) it was like "Cool". In addition to Xbox
> reviewers, I've seen contributors from the major PC gaming mags (PC
> Gamer, CGW, and CG) tell how they've gotten hooked on the Gamerscore
> and how it's a pretty addictive concept.
Look, don't get so worked up about it. I think you're misunderstanding
my position. They can add whatever they want to a game and I'm all for
it, put publishing them to Live and making it a sort of competition is
what I think is stupid. You say yourself that you enjoy the challenges
and you didn't mention at all that you are proud of your
accomplishments. That because you're what we call normal. The part
about putting them on Live doesn't mean anything to you, nor should it.
So why do they do it? Back to where we began...because they know some
people will buy more, play more, in order to boost their score
publicly.
>
> > Now people just cheat to get a high score, so the plan
> > kinda backfired.
>
> It could really only be said to have "backfired" if it meant decreased
> software sales. And judging by the attach rates and sell-through of
> Live Arcade demos, exactly the opposite has happened.
What's your rationale? I think people cheating on something, instead
of playing as intended, is a backfire of sorts. They get their
prestige without any hassle. Neither of us can prove what the end
result is on sales. Again, you don't see this because you actually
enjoy the challenge and don't care about the prestige. But this thread
is about gamerscore and about cheating.
>
> > The score is meaningless, even without cheating; some games it's easy
> > to rack up points and others it's not so a person's gamerscore means
> > almost nothing except they play a lot, or a lot of games (or, now they
> > cheat).
>
> Everyone who enjoys the Achievements likes them BECAUSE they are
> pointless and meaningless.
Like Jonah, now you are agreeing with me.
>You don't get any special recognition, you
> don't get any prizes, you don't get anything beyond a number and a
> scoresheet. You have to be pathetic to get obsessed with the
> Gamerscore, and even a bigger dorkwad to cheat your way to the top.
> Yes, there's a disparity in the way some games hand them out
> (especially at first), but developers are getting better at tying
> Achievements more closely to the effort put in by the gamer, both at
> the "casual" and "hardcore" levels.
Exactly!
>
> > If I unlock 10,000 easy points while you work twice as long to
> > unlock 1000 hard points, what do our scores say about us in comparison?
> > Absolutely nothing, in fact they are misleading.
>
> You're treating it like it's supposed to be some type of scientifically
> accurate Gallup-style barometer of gaming greatness, with a margin of
> error of +/- 3 points. That was never the point.
I stated they were meaningless and you agreed, but you've lost me here.
>
> > And what was wrong with the old system, showing what percentage you
> > have completed, which still works just fine?
>
> Nothing was WRONG with it; but the new system is a logical evolution of
> the concept. It's unified, it's addictive, it's fun, it's better.
> It's not perfect, but it really doesn't have to be. Anyone who doesn't
> dig the Achievements a) really hasn't experienced them, and b) doesn't
> get the fact that you're perfectly free to ignore them altogether if
> you wish.
I'm category (b). I'm not going to be cajoled into buying playing more
games just so I can see this meaningless score go up. I understand you
like them for legit reasons. That's cool with me.
Dub
> Look, don't get so worked up about it. I think you're misunderstanding
> my position.
I probably have, in part, so apologies.
> They can add whatever they want to a game and I'm all for
> it, put publishing them to Live and making it a sort of competition is
> what I think is stupid.
I don't have a problem with the public nature of the achievements, even
if it does mean a few losers take them too seriously. At least in my
circle of friends, I know that none of them are dishonest, and it keeps
us up to date on what we're playing and how far along we are. I don't
put any stock in gamerscores beyond people I know and trust, but the
public nature of the tally is still fun.
> What's your rationale? I think people cheating on something, instead
> of playing as intended, is a backfire of sorts.
Well, from Xbox Live, to Battlefield 2, to Diablo, to Ultima Online, to
Half-Life, to RTCW, it's pretty clear there will always be people who
take advantage of the system because, in essence, they're dweebs. It's
unfortunate, but it doesn't necessarily diminish the value of the
product entirely ... especially for those of us who have lives outside
the game. =)
Doug Jacobs
> And basically, to me, Achievment points are a carrot, and its a nice way for
> devs to get a gamer to go out of their way to explore places they might have
> just skimmed over. For example, Oblivion tries to get you to do all of the
> Guild side-missions.
> Achievements are FUN. You're attacking them because a few people cheat? Why
> not attack Valve for people who cheat in Counter-Strike? Or Blizzard for
> gold farmers in World of Warcraft? Your "argument" makes no sense.
They're essentially ubiquitous "Skill Points" like from Ratchet & Clank,
only in this case, they don't unlock any extra content in the game.
They're purely a vanity thing.
And so it comes as no surprise that people would try to "cheat" the system.
What I don't understand is why does Microsoft care? The gamerscore thing
is just a vanity feature. It gains you nothing. You can't trade points
in for anything. It'd be like bragging you made 1 million points on
Neopets or something. Yeah, good for you, but who really cares?
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98