The Conduit 2 Hacked

[James0x57]

@James: I'm not protecting online hackers!

Let him hacking. He can do what he want. The bought the usb gecko and "online codes are not possible" is a joke too!

^ uh...

[Deathwolf]

that's your answer? I just don't understand why you get mad to seth.
maybe you didn't read the full post? "It's not seth... Strakn and 777 ruined the NTSC version"
Does this sounds like I'm protecting them?

[James0x57]

No, you're right. There was a misunderstanding. I was mad at Seth because he posted on the database:
"* Game destroying codes coming soon! :D"

[Deathwolf]

Oh.. then.. sorry I've never seen his post.

[James0x57]

np, It was a note under his Button Activator code. I told him to remove it.
Sorry for accusing that you support wifi hackers based on that. I misunderstood what you meant.


dcx2 might have thought you were defending wifi hackers too because of that. I'm not sure.

[777eThOd*]

idk why you mad, im glad i dont release my VIP codes, or else this game would have been gone, also seth releases online codes too, so dont pull it all out on me and strakn. also @bully, i did learn F6  O0

[Bully@Wiiplaza]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjMrs0A5zQA

...

[Deathwolf]

yep nice video! As Hetoan said "He's just making online codes to show them that they should make a better protection etc" lol

[Bully@Wiiplaza]

ahahahahaaa their security hole is obvious and a bit ridiculous.
I made some more codes.

working perfectly on the offline mode too... but I can´t release them sry
Maybe I make offline only codes, but it´s a bit dangerous aswell :rolleyes:

Edit: No Flash blinding & inf. money released!

[Ruffy]

You ruin online games.  When you ruin online games, the company that develops the game may stop making online games, or they may go out of business if their sales are bad enough.  Activision, for instance, is known for tossing acquired companies to the side when sales start to fall.  Exhibit A: Guitar Hero.

You think you're just having fun.  But if a developer like HVS goes under because nobody buys their games due to online cheating, wifi hackers like you will be responsible for the lost jobs.  You can ruin real people's lives, the very people who bring you the games that you are playing.

oh yeah, and if they started trying to use these techniques on Single Player, I would personally start raping every WiFi game on the Wii and plastering it all over the Internet.  And I would recommend allowing wifi codes on the database.  Trust me, they would have a great incentive to keep this wifi only.

Wouldn't you think, that you're a bit hypocritical there? Claiming that you care about developers lives and on the other hand you would destroy their games in an instant if they try to protect their intellectual property with harsh methods? Wouldn't you be doing what you claimed you hate?

[biolizard89]

You ruin online games.  When you ruin online games, the company that develops the game may stop making online games, or they may go out of business if their sales are bad enough.  Activision, for instance, is known for tossing acquired companies to the side when sales start to fall.  Exhibit A: Guitar Hero.

You think you're just having fun.  But if a developer like HVS goes under because nobody buys their games due to online cheating, wifi hackers like you will be responsible for the lost jobs.  You can ruin real people's lives, the very people who bring you the games that you are playing.

oh yeah, and if they started trying to use these techniques on Single Player, I would personally start raping every WiFi game on the Wii and plastering it all over the Internet.  And I would recommend allowing wifi codes on the database.  Trust me, they would have a great incentive to keep this wifi only.

Wouldn't you think, that you're a bit hypocritical there? Claiming that you care about developers lives and on the other hand you would destroy their games in an instant if they try to protect their intellectual property with harsh methods? Wouldn't you be doing what you claimed you hate?

Even though you appear to be trolling (this is a really old thread), I'll take your comment seriously enough to try to answer (although I don't speak for dcx2).  Cheating at single-player games is a protected fair use under Nintendo v. Galoob.  Go look up the court case.  Among other things, it's protected as fair use because it doesn't cost the game devs any profits.  Cheating at online games is not a fair use, because it devalues the game and costs devs profits.  Under Sony v. Universal, technology which has legitimate uses (e.g. VCR's) may be freely marketed even though it can be used for illegitimate purposes (e.g. movie piracy).  Look up that court case too.  dcx2 is pointing out that the game devs have the legal right to restrict online cheating, but that they have no legal basis for restricting single-player cheating.  As a result, dcx2 is saying that any assistance he might give to devs is on the contractual condition that they only restrict activity which they have the legal basis to restrict.  If the devs violate this contract, then dcx2 reserves the right to take action for the purpose of protecting the ability to cheat at single-player games.  This is acceptable even though it enables online cheating because the same workaround is necessary to enable offline and online cheating (as per Sony v. Universal).

(@dcx2, hope I characterized your position okay; feel free to correct me if necessary.)

[James0x57]

[dcx2]

biolizard pretty much nailed it on the head.

I would be willing to provide developers with anti-cheating protections to their wifi-only games, on the basis that such protections remain for only wifi games.  Should the protections that I provide be abused by the developers to protect single player games, then all bets are off.  Yes, I do care about developers, but single-player cheating does not hurt anyone, and blocking single player cheating will hurt this community and myself.  Caring about developers is not a suicide pact, and I will not let others exploit me in such a manner without retaliation.

Of course I would make sure any cheat protections I gave them also came with work-arounds.  Such work-arounds would be an insurance policy of sorts, ensuring that if they renege on my deal, we have some form of recourse.

The only way wifi protection can work is if they leave single player alone.  Otherwise, 1) we implement a work-around and they can no longer protect either wifi or single player, and 2) I will treat abuse of my IP (i.e. any anti-cheating protections I provided them with) as an attack on this community and myself, and I will respond in kind.

Also, there's no IP of theirs to protect.  No action that we take is against their copyrights or patents.

edit grammar

[hetoan2]

you speak as if you've already been in contact with some developers... did they contact you, or did you seek out them? or is this all purely hypothetical?

[dcx2]

All I see is hypotheticals.

I did try to contact a few different companies in a few different ways but there was never any reply to any of them.  I wrote it off as typical white-hat-rejection syndrome.