i play Minecraft with a few friends on the Xbox 360. however, i have one friend who i think is a cheater. he doesn't think so. there's 2 things he does:
he duplicates items (iron, diamonds, etc)
whenever he dies, he resets his game back to before he dies
i don't know if i am wrong, but i'm pretty sure i'm right.i got so angry about this that i decided to let u guys decide who is right.
Is he doing this in single-player or multi-player?
If it's in single-player mode, it's not cheating because in order for cheating to happen, you have to be breaking the rules of competition. With no competition, that can't happen. You can "cheat" at Solitaire, too, by looking at the face-down cards, or at reading a book, for that matter, by peeking at the ending, but since you're not breaking the rules of competition with another person, there's nobody who can be cheated, so no cheating.
If, on the other hand, he's doing it in multi-player games, and other players don't have the same opportunities that he has (or have agreed not to use them), then it definitely is cheating. He's using an unfair advantage in a competitive situation. No question, he's cheating.
That is also true of any violation of shared rules, even if it is something explicitly part of the game. For example, if players all agree that they will only kill naturally-spawned cows, and not breed any more, and one guy is secretly slipping some wheat to the cows so he has more to kill, he's cheating. The players have agreed on a rule -- "no breeding extra cows" -- and he's sneaking around behind everyone's backs and breaking the rule.
So if there's no competition -- basically, a single-player game -- cheating isn't in the equation, because in order for there to be cheating, there has to be someone to be cheated, and in SP, there isn't anyone. But if there is competition -- generally, a multi-player Survival game -- and one person is giving himself advantages that his competitors don't have, that is unquestionably cheating.
Oh, if there is competition based on single-player games, such as competing to see who can get the highest score in Solitaire, or leaderboard position in Minecraft, that turns it in effect into a multi-player game, and the above regarding cheating applies. If you're playing by yourself, for your own enjoyment, do whatever you like. (confession: I peek at the endings of books sometimes) But if you're playing competitively in any way, for you to be able to say "I'm better than you at X" you both need to be doing X under the exact same conditions. If someone isn't, but is pretending that he is, then he is in effect lying. See above.
In a multiplayer world, cheating would be whatever either 1) the host dictates in advance would be cheating or 2) whatever all the players of the world agree is cheating. If, for example, a group of players got together and created a world where duplication was declared in advance to not be cheating... then, in that particular world with that particular group of people, it would not be cheating. The existence, however, of universal leaderboards complicates this, since duplication would boost those players' statuses on the leaderboards. However, this sort of issue can be avoided if the world is first put into creative mode (disabling it from adding any stats to the leaderboards) or playing only completely offline.
So, as you describe the instance you set out... If he, say, is the host and told you in advance of your joining that duplication was allowed for everyone in the world and you still joined knowing this ahead of time, you could not now effectively change your mind and suddenly say it's cheating. If, however, he did not state this in advance, then he would effectively be just making up the rules as you go and you could right consider that to be cheating. If he is not the host and the rest of you and/or the host have not agreed to this, then he would be cheating. (IMO)
It all depends on how you look at it.
I look at it as if you're not playing the game the way the designers intended, taking advantage of "bugs", it's cheating... and it makes no difference if you're playing single-player or not, whether you're only cheating yourself or (when playing multiplayer) if someone else says it's ok.
It's up to the individual if they consider it wrong or not. If others don't play the way you want, don't play with them.
It all depends on how you look at it.
I look at it as if you're not playing the game the way the designers intended, taking advantage of "bugs", it's cheating... and it makes no difference if you're playing single-player or not, whether you're only cheating yourself or (when playing multiplayer) if someone else says it's ok.
It's up to the individual if they consider it wrong or not. If others don't play the way you want, don't play with them.
"Cheating oneself" is, in some respects, more damaging than competitive cheating. It implies going against one's own moral code, so there is nothing to be gained either materially or emotionally by cheating oneself. To thine own self be true is the course of action that one should always undertake. By always resetting the game to a point before he dies, the OPs friend is denying himself an understanding of what he might be capable of doing to overcome the losses death inside Minecraft entail. He's lessening his own experience of playing the game as the designer intended. (ETA: But deleting one's world after death (e.g. emulating hardcore mode) could be said to also shortchange the player of finding out what they could do to overcome that death... but I believe it would be accurate to say that few people would classify that action as "cheating.")
However, in Minecraft setting differrent "rules" and "game parameters" is something that the designer clearly intended to build into the game. If the ENTIRE group playing in that world agree, then the fact that duping utilizes a glitch in the programming becomes irrelevant... if and only if the leaderboards are disabled for that world (since adding those stats to a universal leaderboard would then bring in peoples that did not agree to the arrangwment.) If the persons (host or group) keep changing the rules on the go as different people join, then this full agreement of the players has not been achieved either.
Using Monopoly money to play "store" is not something the designer of Monopoly intended and, in a sort of way, utilizes a "glitch" that the money can be taken out of the game context at all... but it's not "cheating" at Monopoly... it's just not playing Monopoly, it's playing "store." The money itself still has the same form and style. Comparatively, when playing "Hunger Games" in the virutual game tool called Minecraft, I am no longer playing the game "Vanilla Minecraft." The designer of Vanilla Minecraft has not set the rules for playing "Hunger Games" in a Minecraft world, the designer of that Hunger Games world has.
Of course, the TOS of a console maker cannot ever be truly removed from the picture as long as that console is tied into the system that maker controls. So modifying an Xbox that is ever hooked up to Live would always be cheating. If, however, I dismantled my Xbox completely and built a whole different thing out of the parts and never hooked it into Live again... Microsoft could not really say anything about it since I own that hardware.
I look at it as if you're not playing the game the way the designers intended, taking advantage of "bugs", it's cheating... and it makes no difference if you're playing single-player or not, whether you're only cheating yourself or (when playing multiplayer) if someone else says it's ok.
I have to disagree here.
UpUp brought up the example of Monopoly, and there's a good parallel there: the "Free Parking" space. What is supposed to happen if you land there? Absolutely nothing. It's a no-op space. But in virtually every Monopoly game I have ever played, the house rule was that all money paid for Chance and Community Chest cards was put into the center of the board, and when you landed on "Free Parking" you got it. I would venture to guess that more people play Monopoly that way than by the official rules -- that is, instead of the way the designers intended.
The designers can go hang. I bought the game, I'm playing it, and I'm entitled to enjoy it however I want. If I want to have a house rule that you get all the money when you land on "Free Parking", or that you're entitled to reload the Civilization game if that goodie hut only gave you a map of the area you already explored, that's up to me. My game. I'm playing it. In a single-player game, it's nobody's business but mine how I play.
As for "playing as intended" ... I have a little story for you.
Once upon a time, there was a tabletop wargame called Chainmail, published by a little company (actually a couple of guys in their spare time) called Tactical Studies Rules, and played by a small handful of wargaming enthusiasts here and there in the US. In the back of the Chainmail rulebook there was the Fantasy Supplement, because some people, instead of just doing medieval battles, wanted to do, say, the Battle of the Five Armies from Tolkien, so stats and unit data were provided. Now, there was a fellow who got tired of just running ordinary battles at his local club. Instead, he decided to take the whole thing underground. And since there wasn't really room for armies, he used the hero-character concept from Chainmail to have people play individual characters, rather than marshaling armies on open battlefields. This was a huge hit with the players, and they wanted him to do it again. They kept the same characters, in a continuing campaign. He hacked up the rules to make them work for what he was doing. He wasn't playing as intended; far from it. He was turning Chainmail into a whole new game. You've heard of it: it's called Dungeons & Dragons. The guy who didn't play as intended was Dave Arneson, the man who invented it. The other guy was E. Gary Gygax, who published and popularized it. And forty years after Dave Arneson didn't play as intended, it's still going strong.
The designers can go hang. I bought the game, I'm playing it, and I'm entitled to enjoy it however I want.
Hear, hear. The whole post was great, and that bit I quoted captures the essence. Games are entertainment, not a job; and if I find Minecraft more entertaining by breaking some arbitrary rules, then that's what I'm going to do.
Meh, This is why I don't the exit without saving thing. Everytime my friend dies, boop! Restart! Everytime I die in HIS world it's always the chance of a YES or a NO, and that makes it unfair to non-host players. IN my opinion, Duplicating, by yourself no with other players yeah.
I use to never restart because of dieing and losing all your stuff. I still will NOT do it for myself but occasionally I will be playing with someone new to minecraft and have reset the game to save their stuff if it's just us on the map.
Holy cow how can this be a discussion? Duplication is defo cheating. If you add the same number of items through creative your game gets flagged and your data wont be recorded for the leaderboards.
Playing with a local profile offline also means that your world stats don't get recorded for the leaderboards... so, using this sort of logic, merely playing offline would be cheating? Deactivating the leaderboards only means that to add creative worlds to the leaderboards would be unfair to the others on the leaderboards... it does not, in any way. imply that using creative mode is arbitrarily "cheating." Creative mode is a valid mode of the game, put there by the designers of the game. Using creative mode to build maps is as much part of the intended design of the game as survival mode.
It amazes me that people who are not involved in a world in any way can consider that they have a right to make a blanket declaration that what goes on in that world "cheating" or not. There are circumstances among the players of the world where those players could consider any number of different things "cheating" and other circumstances where they would not... and it's solely the business of those who play in that world... no one else's really. For example, in a world where the host has set a rule that players can't mine... mining would then be "cheating" in that world.
It really depends on the situation, if he's doing it on his own, then that's his choice, if he's doing it in another world without the approval of the owner, that's not good.
Twist it all you want, fact remains that obtaining blocks in survival mode through means other then the intended way of getting them is cheating.
It doesn't matter if other players are involved, it only says something about the scope of impact of the cheating (are you only cheating yourself or are you cheating on others too).
Prove to me then that Creative Mode is not intended by the designers to be used to create maps that might be later played in survival mode. Their only intent is that the results not be reflected on the leaderboards... and that was done specifically because the members here on the forums requested it.
IF, those leaderboards are deactivated and the world is played in single player... it is no one's business but that player what they do in that world. Similarly, if I'm not connected an Xbox to Xbox Live, the TOS have no bearing (they are terms of service - no service, no contract). I could chop my Xobx up up and make a toaster out of it and Microsoft wouldn't care. IF you personally believe that it's cheating in single player, then FOR YOU it's cheating... so don't cheat yourself ever. IF you personally don't believe it's cheating and you're the entire extent of the impact of that action (i.e. single-player, no leaderboars) then it's nobody's business but you're own. If you're a group playing in a world that is deactivated from the leaderboards, the rules are whatever you agree them to be.
Get over trying to control (micro-manage) everybody else... some things are just not your business.
The issue here seems to be a generation gap, cheating as in cheating in games relates to getting an advantage in the game outside of regular game mechanics. Players using debug codes in single player games that were left in the games by the devs unintentionally were cheating. Those debug codes have since been known as cheat codes, and are now even included on purpose by (some) developers. Some players hate using it, other love using them. Using a cheat code is cheating the game you are playing.
The point is not who is being cheated, the fact is there cheats being used. Where as the judgement call on wether it's bad or not is something entirely different.
Duplication in that sense is exactly the same, it's a bug being exploited for an advantage in game, thus cheating.
Bottomline is that everybody needs to play the game in the manner they like too, but it doesn't change the definition of cheating.
Actually I think we have duplication to thank for the original creation of creative mode, cheating doesn't need to be bad perse.
I'm not the one accusing others of cheating here. Akynth's question is valid... when no one else is involved, no one can be cheated (unless it is oneself). No generation gap involved.
The issue is that, in most cases, someone else is involved somewhere... e.g. through the leaderboards or others playing in that world who haven't expressly agreed to the practice. STILL, IF that entire agreement is reached among a group playing a game, then no cheating occurs. It still doesn't matter that the game is virtual or not. The principle of being able to do what you like with a product you've bought is imbedded in the consumer laws of most "free" countries (I don't know about countries that have other forms of law and government). Even if you disagree with this, the fact remains that the developer of this game expressly encourages the making of one's own games (with their own made-up rules) within Minecraft worlds.
Services (like Live) are different in that a contract comes into play (like the ToS)... but the contract does not apply to the product. If the service is not being used in any way, the rules of the TOS can't apply because the non-user of the service is not a party to the contract. As I said before - I CAN chop up my Xbox and make a toaster out of it... and Microsoft can't say a thing about it. (Similarly, if I'm not a player in a world - I am not a party to ANY "contract" setting out the rules for that world... and as such, have no business trying to dictate my own "rules" to those who are parties to that contract.)
The further complication/issue/ambiguity then with downloaded games is to determine at what point the consumer is not using the service. When the game itself is continually updated, then is the service still in use as long as the player avails themselves of updates? Does the contract then apply at all times the Xbox is in use (i.e. offline) or only when the player re-hooks the Xbox up to the service? Does the contract then actually extend to an "unmodded" in-game exploitation of an existing glitch? Here, I suspect, we can agree to disagree. I don't think the anti-modding terms of the TOS apply to existing in-game errors in the code merely used by the player... some of which the player cannot help but "use" (e.g. blocks reappearing is an in-game glitch and the player cannot help but re-mine those blocks again and again regardless of what type of block they happen to be) The responsibility for "fixing" the glitch rests with the game's programmers. Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/15/2014
Posts:
351
Member Details
The debate on whether or not duplicating in survival is cheating is quite debatable. That being said, I would like to point out that minecraft is a game that prides itself on giving the player the option to play any which way they like. Whether that is building in creative and then playing on survival, duplicating, or playing various game types. So as long as nobody else is technically cheated such as through leader boards, its really the players own business.
Now the part that I have to disagree with is that I honestly do feel that duplicating is in fact cheating for the simple reason that your not supposed to even be able to do that in survival. When you start a game in survival or creative, the rules are pre-set into the programming for you, and we have different game types for a reason. If you want to have infinite resources, go play in creative. Its fine for some to say that its up to the player to decide how they will play their game, but the general rules of said game modes are implied even before you buy it.
Now I would like to address the idea of cheating. When you begin to duplicate in survival, your are no longer playing survival. This is because what you are doing is altering the entire way in which the game mode is played, and therefore makes it into an entirely new game. If said player does this, but still says they play on survival, they are technically cheating because they are not playing within the pre-set rules of survival minecraft. So basically if you are playing survival and claim that you are playing the survival that minecraft pre-made for you, yet you start to duplicate, then you are cheating because you are breaking the standard rules you are using to play.
@ UpUp_away95
The further complication/issue/ambiguity then with downloaded games is to determine at what point the consumer is not using the service. When the game itself is continually updated, then is the service still in use as long as the player avails themselves of updates? Does the contract then apply at all times the Xbox is in use (i.e. offline) or only when the player re-hooks the Xbox up to the service? Does the contract then actually extend to an "unmodded" in-game exploitation of an existing glitch? Here, I suspect, we can agree to disagree. I don't think the anti-modding terms of the TOS apply to existing in-game errors in the code merely used by the player... some of which the player cannot help but "use" (e.g. blocks reappearing is an in-game glitch and the player cannot help but re-mine those blocks again and again regardless of what type of block they happen to be) The responsibility for "fixing" the glitch rests with the game's programmers. Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
It does not matter whether or not you are on or offline and susceptible to the TOI. The cheating in games is implied and has always been that way. When it comes down to glitches being exploited in game, that is still cheating whether the developers added it intentionally or not because you are no longer playing the game within the standard mechanics.
Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
Is anyone forcing you to use the glitches? It should be pretty obvious that knowingly using a glitch for is cheating.
The debate on whether or not duplicating in survival is cheating is quite debatable. That being said, I would like to point out that minecraft is a game that prides itself on giving the player the option to play any which way they like. Whether that is building in creative and then playing on survival, duplicating, or playing various game types. So as long as nobody else is technically cheated such as through leader boards, its really the players own business.
Now the part that I have to disagree with is that I honestly do feel that duplicating is in fact cheating for the simple reason that your not supposed to even be able to do that in survival. When you start a game in survival or creative, the rules are pre-set into the programming for you, and we have different game types for a reason. If you want to have infinite resources, go play in creative. Its fine for some to say that its up to the player to decide how they will play their game, but the general rules of said game modes are implied even before you buy it.
Now I would like to address the idea of cheating. When you begin to duplicate in survival, your are no longer playing survival. This is because what you are doing is altering the entire way in which the game mode is played, and therefore makes it into an entirely new game. If said player does this, but still says they play on survival, they are technically cheating because they are not playing within the pre-set rules of survival minecraft. So basically if you are playing survival and claim that you are playing the survival that minecraft pre-made for you, yet you start to duplicate, then you are cheating because you are breaking the standard rules you are using to play.
@ UpUp_away95
The further complication/issue/ambiguity then with downloaded games is to determine at what point the consumer is not using the service. When the game itself is continually updated, then is the service still in use as long as the player avails themselves of updates? Does the contract then apply at all times the Xbox is in use (i.e. offline) or only when the player re-hooks the Xbox up to the service? Does the contract then actually extend to an "unmodded" in-game exploitation of an existing glitch? Here, I suspect, we can agree to disagree. I don't think the anti-modding terms of the TOS apply to existing in-game errors in the code merely used by the player... some of which the player cannot help but "use" (e.g. blocks reappearing is an in-game glitch and the player cannot help but re-mine those blocks again and again regardless of what type of block they happen to be) The responsibility for "fixing" the glitch rests with the game's programmers. Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
It does not matter whether or not you are on or offline and susceptible to the TOI. The cheating in games is implied and has always been that way. When it comes down to glitches being exploited in game, that is still cheating whether the developers added it intentionally or not because you are no longer playing the game within the standard mechanics.
Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
Is anyone forcing you to use the glitches? It should be pretty obvious that knowingly using a glitch for is cheating.
Which is why I have clearly said that for it to be "not cheating" the full agreement of everyone involved in that world has to be obtained... and leaderboards have to be disabled. I also clearly stated that, in most cases, this level of ENTIRE agreement among all parties is not fulfilled (i.e. "someone else is involved somewhere").
The TOI/TOS etc., in legal terms, can only be in effect for those who are party to the agreement in the first place and the TOS applies to Live (the service), not to the product Xbox. Certainly the CD of the game is a product and, as such, I CAN tie a string through the hole and hang it on my Christmas tree or use it as a coaster if I want... and Microsoft, 4J and Mojang can have nothing to say about it. The legal question of whether the download is, in an of itself, a product or a service hasn't, to my knowledge, been definitively answered as yet (i.e. tested in a court of law, etc.)
As for your last comment, no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything here. No one should be trying to force others to not use a glitch by blanketly accusing them of cheating either (just the same as when they called the users of creative mode cheaters a year or so ago when it was intentionally introduced by the developers). AND I still feel that the game programmers should not be abrogating their responsibility to "fix" glitches by just telling customers not to use them. It would be somewhat akin to having a car manufacturer say something like - Yes, we know your car has defects in the brakes that we did not intend to put there... so, just don't use the brakes (since using brakes is to your advantage). Also, it might be prudent to consider how much control over what players do with a game you want to grant/hand over to gaming companies... heck, to companies in general. How much of a say do you want them to have in deciding what you can and cannot do for your own personal enjoyment?
If you feel it is cheating, then "to thine own self be true" - just don't do it... even in a single-player world. You can also opt not to play in a world with anyone who uses it... No one, after all, is forcing you to play with them... nor is anyone forcing you to call other people "cheaters." when all the specifics of the incidents are not being stated (e.g. here by the OP and indeed, the OP probably doesn't even know all the specifics either).
thank you for your time!
I'd call it cheating.
If it's in single-player mode, it's not cheating because in order for cheating to happen, you have to be breaking the rules of competition. With no competition, that can't happen. You can "cheat" at Solitaire, too, by looking at the face-down cards, or at reading a book, for that matter, by peeking at the ending, but since you're not breaking the rules of competition with another person, there's nobody who can be cheated, so no cheating.
If, on the other hand, he's doing it in multi-player games, and other players don't have the same opportunities that he has (or have agreed not to use them), then it definitely is cheating. He's using an unfair advantage in a competitive situation. No question, he's cheating.
That is also true of any violation of shared rules, even if it is something explicitly part of the game. For example, if players all agree that they will only kill naturally-spawned cows, and not breed any more, and one guy is secretly slipping some wheat to the cows so he has more to kill, he's cheating. The players have agreed on a rule -- "no breeding extra cows" -- and he's sneaking around behind everyone's backs and breaking the rule.
So if there's no competition -- basically, a single-player game -- cheating isn't in the equation, because in order for there to be cheating, there has to be someone to be cheated, and in SP, there isn't anyone. But if there is competition -- generally, a multi-player Survival game -- and one person is giving himself advantages that his competitors don't have, that is unquestionably cheating.
Oh, if there is competition based on single-player games, such as competing to see who can get the highest score in Solitaire, or leaderboard position in Minecraft, that turns it in effect into a multi-player game, and the above regarding cheating applies. If you're playing by yourself, for your own enjoyment, do whatever you like. (confession: I peek at the endings of books sometimes) But if you're playing competitively in any way, for you to be able to say "I'm better than you at X" you both need to be doing X under the exact same conditions. If someone isn't, but is pretending that he is, then he is in effect lying. See above.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
So, as you describe the instance you set out... If he, say, is the host and told you in advance of your joining that duplication was allowed for everyone in the world and you still joined knowing this ahead of time, you could not now effectively change your mind and suddenly say it's cheating. If, however, he did not state this in advance, then he would effectively be just making up the rules as you go and you could right consider that to be cheating. If he is not the host and the rest of you and/or the host have not agreed to this, then he would be cheating. (IMO)
I look at it as if you're not playing the game the way the designers intended, taking advantage of "bugs", it's cheating... and it makes no difference if you're playing single-player or not, whether you're only cheating yourself or (when playing multiplayer) if someone else says it's ok.
It's up to the individual if they consider it wrong or not. If others don't play the way you want, don't play with them.
"Cheating oneself" is, in some respects, more damaging than competitive cheating. It implies going against one's own moral code, so there is nothing to be gained either materially or emotionally by cheating oneself. To thine own self be true is the course of action that one should always undertake. By always resetting the game to a point before he dies, the OPs friend is denying himself an understanding of what he might be capable of doing to overcome the losses death inside Minecraft entail. He's lessening his own experience of playing the game as the designer intended. (ETA: But deleting one's world after death (e.g. emulating hardcore mode) could be said to also shortchange the player of finding out what they could do to overcome that death... but I believe it would be accurate to say that few people would classify that action as "cheating.")
However, in Minecraft setting differrent "rules" and "game parameters" is something that the designer clearly intended to build into the game. If the ENTIRE group playing in that world agree, then the fact that duping utilizes a glitch in the programming becomes irrelevant... if and only if the leaderboards are disabled for that world (since adding those stats to a universal leaderboard would then bring in peoples that did not agree to the arrangwment.) If the persons (host or group) keep changing the rules on the go as different people join, then this full agreement of the players has not been achieved either.
Using Monopoly money to play "store" is not something the designer of Monopoly intended and, in a sort of way, utilizes a "glitch" that the money can be taken out of the game context at all... but it's not "cheating" at Monopoly... it's just not playing Monopoly, it's playing "store." The money itself still has the same form and style. Comparatively, when playing "Hunger Games" in the virutual game tool called Minecraft, I am no longer playing the game "Vanilla Minecraft." The designer of Vanilla Minecraft has not set the rules for playing "Hunger Games" in a Minecraft world, the designer of that Hunger Games world has.
Of course, the TOS of a console maker cannot ever be truly removed from the picture as long as that console is tied into the system that maker controls. So modifying an Xbox that is ever hooked up to Live would always be cheating. If, however, I dismantled my Xbox completely and built a whole different thing out of the parts and never hooked it into Live again... Microsoft could not really say anything about it since I own that hardware.
I have to disagree here.
UpUp brought up the example of Monopoly, and there's a good parallel there: the "Free Parking" space. What is supposed to happen if you land there? Absolutely nothing. It's a no-op space. But in virtually every Monopoly game I have ever played, the house rule was that all money paid for Chance and Community Chest cards was put into the center of the board, and when you landed on "Free Parking" you got it. I would venture to guess that more people play Monopoly that way than by the official rules -- that is, instead of the way the designers intended.
The designers can go hang. I bought the game, I'm playing it, and I'm entitled to enjoy it however I want. If I want to have a house rule that you get all the money when you land on "Free Parking", or that you're entitled to reload the Civilization game if that goodie hut only gave you a map of the area you already explored, that's up to me. My game. I'm playing it. In a single-player game, it's nobody's business but mine how I play.
As for "playing as intended" ... I have a little story for you.
Once upon a time, there was a tabletop wargame called Chainmail, published by a little company (actually a couple of guys in their spare time) called Tactical Studies Rules, and played by a small handful of wargaming enthusiasts here and there in the US. In the back of the Chainmail rulebook there was the Fantasy Supplement, because some people, instead of just doing medieval battles, wanted to do, say, the Battle of the Five Armies from Tolkien, so stats and unit data were provided. Now, there was a fellow who got tired of just running ordinary battles at his local club. Instead, he decided to take the whole thing underground. And since there wasn't really room for armies, he used the hero-character concept from Chainmail to have people play individual characters, rather than marshaling armies on open battlefields. This was a huge hit with the players, and they wanted him to do it again. They kept the same characters, in a continuing campaign. He hacked up the rules to make them work for what he was doing. He wasn't playing as intended; far from it. He was turning Chainmail into a whole new game. You've heard of it: it's called Dungeons & Dragons. The guy who didn't play as intended was Dave Arneson, the man who invented it. The other guy was E. Gary Gygax, who published and popularized it. And forty years after Dave Arneson didn't play as intended, it's still going strong.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
Hear, hear. The whole post was great, and that bit I quoted captures the essence. Games are entertainment, not a job; and if I find Minecraft more entertaining by breaking some arbitrary rules, then that's what I'm going to do.
https://www.youtube.com/user/IAMBaldur/feed
Mewtwo is the best pokemon!
https://www.youtube.com/user/IAMBaldur/feed
Playing with a local profile offline also means that your world stats don't get recorded for the leaderboards... so, using this sort of logic, merely playing offline would be cheating? Deactivating the leaderboards only means that to add creative worlds to the leaderboards would be unfair to the others on the leaderboards... it does not, in any way. imply that using creative mode is arbitrarily "cheating." Creative mode is a valid mode of the game, put there by the designers of the game. Using creative mode to build maps is as much part of the intended design of the game as survival mode.
It amazes me that people who are not involved in a world in any way can consider that they have a right to make a blanket declaration that what goes on in that world "cheating" or not. There are circumstances among the players of the world where those players could consider any number of different things "cheating" and other circumstances where they would not... and it's solely the business of those who play in that world... no one else's really. For example, in a world where the host has set a rule that players can't mine... mining would then be "cheating" in that world.
Prove to me then that Creative Mode is not intended by the designers to be used to create maps that might be later played in survival mode. Their only intent is that the results not be reflected on the leaderboards... and that was done specifically because the members here on the forums requested it.
IF, those leaderboards are deactivated and the world is played in single player... it is no one's business but that player what they do in that world. Similarly, if I'm not connected an Xbox to Xbox Live, the TOS have no bearing (they are terms of service - no service, no contract). I could chop my Xobx up up and make a toaster out of it and Microsoft wouldn't care. IF you personally believe that it's cheating in single player, then FOR YOU it's cheating... so don't cheat yourself ever. IF you personally don't believe it's cheating and you're the entire extent of the impact of that action (i.e. single-player, no leaderboars) then it's nobody's business but you're own. If you're a group playing in a world that is deactivated from the leaderboards, the rules are whatever you agree them to be.
Get over trying to control (micro-manage) everybody else... some things are just not your business.
Who is being cheated?
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
I'm not the one accusing others of cheating here. Akynth's question is valid... when no one else is involved, no one can be cheated (unless it is oneself). No generation gap involved.
The issue is that, in most cases, someone else is involved somewhere... e.g. through the leaderboards or others playing in that world who haven't expressly agreed to the practice. STILL, IF that entire agreement is reached among a group playing a game, then no cheating occurs. It still doesn't matter that the game is virtual or not. The principle of being able to do what you like with a product you've bought is imbedded in the consumer laws of most "free" countries (I don't know about countries that have other forms of law and government). Even if you disagree with this, the fact remains that the developer of this game expressly encourages the making of one's own games (with their own made-up rules) within Minecraft worlds.
Services (like Live) are different in that a contract comes into play (like the ToS)... but the contract does not apply to the product. If the service is not being used in any way, the rules of the TOS can't apply because the non-user of the service is not a party to the contract. As I said before - I CAN chop up my Xbox and make a toaster out of it... and Microsoft can't say a thing about it. (Similarly, if I'm not a player in a world - I am not a party to ANY "contract" setting out the rules for that world... and as such, have no business trying to dictate my own "rules" to those who are parties to that contract.)
The further complication/issue/ambiguity then with downloaded games is to determine at what point the consumer is not using the service. When the game itself is continually updated, then is the service still in use as long as the player avails themselves of updates? Does the contract then apply at all times the Xbox is in use (i.e. offline) or only when the player re-hooks the Xbox up to the service? Does the contract then actually extend to an "unmodded" in-game exploitation of an existing glitch? Here, I suspect, we can agree to disagree. I don't think the anti-modding terms of the TOS apply to existing in-game errors in the code merely used by the player... some of which the player cannot help but "use" (e.g. blocks reappearing is an in-game glitch and the player cannot help but re-mine those blocks again and again regardless of what type of block they happen to be) The responsibility for "fixing" the glitch rests with the game's programmers. Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
Now the part that I have to disagree with is that I honestly do feel that duplicating is in fact cheating for the simple reason that your not supposed to even be able to do that in survival. When you start a game in survival or creative, the rules are pre-set into the programming for you, and we have different game types for a reason. If you want to have infinite resources, go play in creative. Its fine for some to say that its up to the player to decide how they will play their game, but the general rules of said game modes are implied even before you buy it.
Now I would like to address the idea of cheating. When you begin to duplicate in survival, your are no longer playing survival. This is because what you are doing is altering the entire way in which the game mode is played, and therefore makes it into an entirely new game. If said player does this, but still says they play on survival, they are technically cheating because they are not playing within the pre-set rules of survival minecraft. So basically if you are playing survival and claim that you are playing the survival that minecraft pre-made for you, yet you start to duplicate, then you are cheating because you are breaking the standard rules you are using to play.
@ UpUp_away95
The further complication/issue/ambiguity then with downloaded games is to determine at what point the consumer is not using the service. When the game itself is continually updated, then is the service still in use as long as the player avails themselves of updates? Does the contract then apply at all times the Xbox is in use (i.e. offline) or only when the player re-hooks the Xbox up to the service? Does the contract then actually extend to an "unmodded" in-game exploitation of an existing glitch? Here, I suspect, we can agree to disagree. I don't think the anti-modding terms of the TOS apply to existing in-game errors in the code merely used by the player... some of which the player cannot help but "use" (e.g. blocks reappearing is an in-game glitch and the player cannot help but re-mine those blocks again and again regardless of what type of block they happen to be) The responsibility for "fixing" the glitch rests with the game's programmers. Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
It does not matter whether or not you are on or offline and susceptible to the TOI. The cheating in games is implied and has always been that way. When it comes down to glitches being exploited in game, that is still cheating whether the developers added it intentionally or not because you are no longer playing the game within the standard mechanics.
Game programmers shouldn't be able to just release a game full of exploitable glitches and effectively just tell their customers not to use those glitches lest they (the players) be labeled "cheaters."
Is anyone forcing you to use the glitches? It should be pretty obvious that knowingly using a glitch for is cheating.
Which is why I have clearly said that for it to be "not cheating" the full agreement of everyone involved in that world has to be obtained... and leaderboards have to be disabled. I also clearly stated that, in most cases, this level of ENTIRE agreement among all parties is not fulfilled (i.e. "someone else is involved somewhere").
The TOI/TOS etc., in legal terms, can only be in effect for those who are party to the agreement in the first place and the TOS applies to Live (the service), not to the product Xbox. Certainly the CD of the game is a product and, as such, I CAN tie a string through the hole and hang it on my Christmas tree or use it as a coaster if I want... and Microsoft, 4J and Mojang can have nothing to say about it. The legal question of whether the download is, in an of itself, a product or a service hasn't, to my knowledge, been definitively answered as yet (i.e. tested in a court of law, etc.)
As for your last comment, no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything here. No one should be trying to force others to not use a glitch by blanketly accusing them of cheating either (just the same as when they called the users of creative mode cheaters a year or so ago when it was intentionally introduced by the developers). AND I still feel that the game programmers should not be abrogating their responsibility to "fix" glitches by just telling customers not to use them. It would be somewhat akin to having a car manufacturer say something like - Yes, we know your car has defects in the brakes that we did not intend to put there... so, just don't use the brakes (since using brakes is to your advantage). Also, it might be prudent to consider how much control over what players do with a game you want to grant/hand over to gaming companies... heck, to companies in general. How much of a say do you want them to have in deciding what you can and cannot do for your own personal enjoyment?
If you feel it is cheating, then "to thine own self be true" - just don't do it... even in a single-player world. You can also opt not to play in a world with anyone who uses it... No one, after all, is forcing you to play with them... nor is anyone forcing you to call other people "cheaters." when all the specifics of the incidents are not being stated (e.g. here by the OP and indeed, the OP probably doesn't even know all the specifics either).