game cheating should be prohibited in multiplayer games, but is allowable in single player games.

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

© by IRIE – all rights reserved www.i-r-i-e.net 31 ISSN 1614-1687

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games

Abstract:

In this article cheating in network and specifically online computer games is looked into as a moral offence. Reasons for the public ignoring the issue are brought forth. We present what could be considered as cheating in generic terms and in context. Different kinds of cheating are delineated, and remedies proposed. We also identify what is not cheating.

Agenda

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Moral starting point.............................................................................................................................. 32 Why is cheating in online computer games ignored? ............................................................................... 33 What is cheating? ................................................................................................................................ 33 Cheating in network computer games.................................................................................................... 34

What could be considered cheating in network computer games?................................................. 34 Where to draw the line?............................................................................................................ 36

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 37

Authors:

K. K. Kimppa: • Organization and contact address: Department of Information Technology, Information Systems,

University of Turku, Lemminkäisenkatu 14 A, FIN-20520 Turku, Finland • Telephone, email and personal homepage: +358 (0)2 3338665 , [email protected]

A. K. Bissett • Organization and contact address: Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering & Science, Sheffield Hal-

lam University, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, England • Telephone, email and personal homepage: +44 (0)114 2253111, [email protected]

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 32

Introduction This paper discusses the question of cheating in network gaming communities. Cheating in net- work—particularly online—gaming is often over- looked and thought to be of little relevance to "real" ethical questions. We present some arguments to the contrary.

For some reason, the effects of cheating on other players have been largely ignored. Cheating in computer games is often dismissed with "well, it is not very important, it is just a game". Cheating in other games, such as chess or poker is typically not regarded as such a small issue but can lead to conflicts between the players. This holds true for computer games as well. Anyone enjoying a game, be it computer game or other, does not enjoy being cheated.

Spending substantial amounts of time creating something implies that one considers it of value. Disrupting that is typically, in the liberal tradition, considered morally questionable. Creating and nurturing a game character could be compared to an author writing an article. If someone was to destroy the article and thus deprive the author of the work done, the fruits of their labour would be lost; what specifically is different in that situation compared to destroying a game character, for example?

According to Bissett and Shipton1 breaking into other persons’ computers and destroying their digital works is considered immoral and even illegal in many if not most countries. It is, however, diffi- cult to press charges based on a destroyed com- puter game character2. The offence may be lesser in the consequences it creates, since typically the

1 Bissett, A. and Shipton, G.: Some human dimen- sions of computer virus creation and infection

2 see e.g. Krotoski, 2005 on trying and failing. A player of an online computer game in China lent a virtual sword to another player who then proceeded to sell the sword in an Internet auction. The first player tried to approach the police in getting com- pensation for the sword, but the police interpreted the law as inapplicable to virtual objects such as the sword. The case ended up in a very real knife being struck in the offending player's chest which resulted in the death of the offending player.

livelihood of a person is not affected by transgres- sions in a game3 but the intent is still blameworthy.

If we get above the basic levels of "food, warmth, etc." and can start to find the meaning for our life from the more abstract pleasures, then we must consider cheating an offence of the same type, if not of the same consequence, as destroying creative "work". If cheating reduces the happiness or joy which comes from the gaming experience, then cheating could be considered morally wrong.

In subsequent sections of this paper we examine the reasons why cheating in computer games is not generally considered an offence and why it should be considered an offence. We discuss various forms of cheating in the realms of first person shooters (FPSs), real time strategy games (RTSs) and com- puter role playing games (CRPGs) or massive multi- player online role playing games (MMORPGs) and discuss the amount of harm done to others in these various game types. We are by no means suggest- ing that these are the only types of games in which cheating can happen, but for the sake of the argu- ment presented, they will clarify certain issues considering the gravity of cheating. Following Ben- ford et al.4, we introduce a taxonomy of circum- stances in which cheating can take place. We use this framework to discuss different kinds of cheat- ing, with illustrative examples.

Our argument stands on the basis that cheating in a game without any other players might be bad for one’s virtue, but in other respects it is not morally wrong. However, when actually cheating other players, other human beings, it will become a moral offence, which should be remedied where neces- sary.

Moral starting point In this paper we have a liberal starting point; we do not presume to know what values people hold dear.

3 although there are counter examples of this—see e.g. ibid., in which the virtual sword was auctioned for three months' pay in China, or the Cyberathlete Professional League for players who get a major part of their income from playing games, at http://www.thecpl.com/league/

4 Understanding and constructing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 33

Thus the only values we presume are those neces- sary for people to pursue their own values. We propose the right not to be forcibly prevented from doing whatever the person sees valuable and thus the duty of not aiming to hinder others to do what they choose. Other ethical theories will also be addressed, but the fundamental ethical theories used are 1) the traditional liberalist ethic of trying to pursue one’s own happiness as long as it does not directly hamper another’s possibility to pursue their happiness, 2) the (Kantian) deontological stand- point, in which the others should be seen not merely as means to one’s own ends (i.e. in this case gam- ing satisfaction) but as ends in themselves and 3) a consequentialist (utilitarian) view, according to which the aim of the game-ethic is the pursuit of happiness of the people choosing to play the game.

Looking at the issue from a deontological stand- point, if one cheats in an online computer game, the other is not seen as an end in themselves, but only means to one’s own direct satisfaction. This would clearly be against the categorical imperative5. The problem is that it does not necessarily feel like doing something to another person. Distancing oneself from the other player is the main reason for not seeing even direct actions towards their characters as being wrong when cheating is done. On top of this indirect actions such as copying items instead of finding them from the game can harm the other players playing the game fairly.

The consequentialist problem appears most strongly in the possibility of the game becoming eventually unplayable for all. If enough cheating is done, e.g. through aiming proxies6, the game itself can loose all of its entertainment value and thus become unplayable by all players.

Why is cheating in online computer games ignored? The prejudice that computer games are for kids is still prevalent. This is often used as a justification for

5 Immanuel Kant: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, 1785

6 An aiming proxy is a third party software which aids the player of a first person shooter in aiming i.e. sees to it that he or she does not miss but instead hits a point (typically head) in the opposing player’s character which causes most damage.

ignoring the field. The justification is false for two reasons: computer games, and especially online computer games are not played solely by kids; and children do worthwhile things as well and are moral subjects. The average age of a computer game player is 29 years7. On top of this, it is very common to run into more mature players in online games. If we are consistent in the liberal ethic in which we cannot presume to know what is important to others and what is not, we must acknowledge that any- thing someone is willing to spend a lot of time on is worth something for them, then we should also consider things children do important—at least to them. Children can also of course be morally wounded by immoral behaviour.

Games are often considered to be low level enter- tainment and thus not worth serious consideration. The same argument which holds for children holds for anyone—if one is willing to spend considerable amounts of time on something (e.g. a computer game) it must be worth something to them. Locke’s labour theory of work8 rests on the assumption that if one spends one’s effort on something else, they own that other (as long as much and as good is left to others). Why would that only concern work in the liberal thinking? Is it not "work" which the players are devoting to the game and thus do they not "own" the results of that work? If those results are then reduced in value by cheating, is that not a moral question worth our consideration?

What is cheating? Cheating in games has probably been done as long as games have been played. Following Fairweather9, we note that cheating can be seen as "performing some act that falls outside the normal methods of play or competition with an expectation or hope that it will convey an unusual competitive advantage within the game or sport"10. Fairweather discusses how many cheating methods in stand-alone, single-

7 Entertainment Software Association: Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Indus- try: 2004 Sales, Demographics and Usage Data

8 John Locke: Two treatises of government

9 N Ben Fairweather: Cool New Cheats: cheating and the computer games industry

10 Ibid.

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 34

player games are actually deliberately designed extra features that are usually publicized as a mar- keting aspect of the computer game in question. They are far from secret, deceptive, actions. Cheat- ing in self-contained single-player games involves at most self-deception, but no deception towards other persons. Whether the rules programmed in the code are bypassed, it is done with the consent of all the players—namely the ones playing the game.

Issues such as the effects of playing computer games on one’s virtue11 have been addressed in the literature. This kind of thinking is easy to extend to cover cheating as well. It can be considered bad for one’s virtue if one learns to cheat on a computer game environment since learning to cheat in a computer game might well affect the player’s view on cheating in general. We do not consider the virtue-ethical point of doing bad to one’s character by cheating the focus of this paper since the harm to others is, if any exists, indirect. The issue is handled by others, for example Fairweather or Reynolds12.

Beyond this self-contained game is the newer di- mension of network computer games. Here we argue that cheating can cause offence towards other players. We agree with the point that Powers13 makes that the possibility of direct real moral wrongs in virtual communities exists.

Cheating in network computer games In online computer games the other person is not physically present and often (typically) is not even known outside the context. Where the other can be considered to be known at all is not relevant to this article due to the other in any case being a person investing their effort in the game.

11 See e.g. Ibid and Bissett et al.: Addressing Ethics In Entertainment Software Development

12 N Ben Fairweather: Cool New Cheats: cheating and the computer games industry, Ren Reynolds: Playing a “Good” Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games

13 Thomas Powers: Real wrongs in virtual communi- ties

As Powers14 notes, "it would seem easy to dismiss these actions and reactions as morally insignificant, due to the play-like [and in our case actual play] nature of the online community and the mediations of events by 'make-believe' characters." Benford et al.15 have created a chart which illustrates the point. In the chart, they identify four different types of situations with shared-space technologies. 1) Physi- cal Reality, which is both local and physical, 2) Tele- presence, which is physical but remote, 3) Aug- mented Reality, which is synthetic but local and 4) Virtual Reality, which is both synthetic and remote. Most network computer games fall within the fourth category, and thus the game is distanced from the user. This distorts the feeling of importance in the mind of a person not playing computer games. For a gamer, the distance is irrelevant in the sense that the hours spent on perfecting skills or characters in a computer game do not disappear even though the distance from the user’s physical space can seem to matter. A very emotional relationship to the charac- ters and even items results from playing the games. After all, some items are so rare that the players are willing to specifically design characters around such items or do tasking quests in order to name the items.16 Although it is clear enough that the rela- tionship is not one-to-one with the person in ques- tion, this, however, does not mean that the wrongs made in the virtual would not have consequences in the real world for the non-virtual player. The acts done in real world cause the acts which happen in the virtual environment and those again affect the people in the real world17.

What could be considered cheating in network computer games?

We will start by introducing several forms of cheat- ing in different kinds of computer games (see tables 1-3). These examples are by no means meant to be all-inclusive, but just examples clarifying different categories of cheating possible in different gaming environments.

14 Ibid.

15 Benford et al.: Understanding and constructing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries

16 See e.g. Ren Reynolds: Intellectual Property Rights in Community Based Video Games

17 Thomas Powers: Real wrongs in virtual communi- ties

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 35

Cheats Countermeasures

"Camping", i.e. reserv- ing a spot which is optimal for spotting and killing other characters; typically near a respawn area

Verbal (written) complain- ing, although there are modifications to games which slay or kick the character if they camp too long. Also, some more creative methods exist, such as changing the character to a chicken which cannot attack at all

Non-stop jumping to make aiming harder

Verbal (written) complain- ing, although there are some patches in some games which have rectified this problem

See through walls, "wallhacks"

Try to find out if extra information is going in the packets sent to the server from the player and try to divide the map information going to the player to smaller parts to hamper the use of the map infor- mation

Reflex augmentation Use program counter measures which try to stop the cheating applications from being used

Aiming proxies, i.e. third party applications which enable the player to shoot unerr- ingly

Use program counter measures which try to stop the cheating applications from being used, data scrambling e.g. via encryp- tion

Enhanced damage by compromised client

Using checksums

Table 1. First Person Shooters

Cheats Countermeasures

"Unfair" alliances Verbal (written) complain- ing

Raw materials which Turn beta testing features

do not belong to the player

off from the games before releasing them

Map and other infor- mation revealing applications

Do not send more informa- tion than necessary to the player’s client about the map

"Horde" handling applications, i.e. third party applications which enable handling of large groups easily

Try to snoop the players using them and shut down the accounts if encoun- tered

Enhanced damage by compromised client

Using checksums

Table 2. Computer Strategy Games

Cheats Countermeasures

"Muling" items (mov- ing items from the played character to characters which are kept as "mules")

If wanted, can be stopped or hampered with game technical measures

Creating characters specifically designed to kill other players’ characters and then killing other players’ characters (designed for player vs. envi- ronment play) with them

Verbal (written) complain- ing

Killing and stealing from inexperienced and ill equipped play- ers

Verbal (written) complain- ing

Fake messages from the server administra- tions

Rising user awareness or trying to protect account names that resemble administrator accounts

Money that does not belong to the player

Turn beta testing features off from the games before releasing them

Item duplication or creation

Try to snoop the players using outside applications and shut down the ac- counts if encountered

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 36

Enhanced damage by compromised client

Using checksums

Outright killing of characters by cheating

Finding out about these players and closing down their accounts

Table 3. Computer Role Playing Games18

Where to draw the line?

From the previous we can identify at least the following categories that could be considered cheat- ing:

1. Macros 2. Game mechanical cheats 3. Beta functions 4. External information sources 5. External software 6. Third party user interface 7. Client changing software 8. Password scams 9. Server affecting software 10. Server hacking

Macros offered by the game itself are very implicitly available and thus can hardly be considered cheat- ing. Game mechanical cheats19 in which one finds something that one can exploit in the game that was not meant by the game programmers or de- signers to gain a large amount of experience for the character are more problematic. In-game cheats, through the game beta testing functions can be left in the game and then exploited. The previous two are more a question of patching the game rather than cheating. They should be corrected or turned

18 Various sources used for the tables 1-3 from personal online gaming to consulting other online gamers, also see e.g. Suler and Phillips: The Bad Boys of Cyberspace: Deviant Behavior in Multimedia Chat Communities; Brundage: Making EverQuest Easier to Play: Cheating or Not?; Pritchard: How to hurt hackers: The scoop on Internet cheating and how you can combat it; Smed et al.: Aspects of networking in multiplayer computer games; Smed: Offending other players; Smed and Hakonen: Pre- venting Look-Ahead Cheating with Active Objects.

19 E.g. luring a monster to a place where it gets stuck and then it is easy to destroy even though it is considerably higher level than the player.

off if the game provider does not intend them to be used.

External sources, like web pages which provide in depth information about the game, to a detail not available to a single gamer or even in any direct form through the game20 are more problematic. For this information the player must go outside the game itself and can then use information which is not necessarily available to all players. Also, external software which does not affect the game itself in any way but offers a possibility to quickly check things not readily available from within the game, such as the Runeword wizard for Diablo II, or even within the game as user interface enhancements such as Ingredient helper in World of Warcraft, change the game balance towards those who have knowledge and access to such programs. Many of these are, however, approved by the game devel- oper. If we compare this with using chess-playing computers to aid in a game against another human player, it is typically considered cheating when used in over-the-net or over-the-mail games and it is definitely not allowed in tournaments.

Software which changes the client’s functioning, e.g. map hack; getting passwords off new players by fooling them with administrator-like messages either in-game or outside21; software which directly affects the server functioning, sending certain packages directly to the server; and straight hacks into the server to change things—these are clear situations in which cheating is taking place. These should be closed with any legal means possible. Counter software is available22 and should be used even more aggressively than is done now. Bans should also be used to exclude players exploiting these.

Conclusions To conclude, at least some of the cheats used (specifically the last four listed) can always be considered non-allowable cheats, while others are more problematic. Some seem to be in the spirit of the inherent rules of the game, and thus could be considered to be comparable to "cheating" others in

20 See e.g. www.diabloii.net

21 E.g. in news groups or e-mail

22 See e.g. Smed & Hakonen: Preventing Look- Ahead Cheating with Active Objects

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 37

poker by giving them clues on what one has in one’s hand while having quite something else. Where to draw the line seems to be the difficult issue, but in some cases, such as the use of most unapproved third party software, it is also very clear.

Destroying other peoples’ work is always immoral if no other motive than personal gain or pure mali- ciousness exists, and in the cases handled, no virtuous motives are to be found. Gaining an unfair advantage in the game is also taking away—at least indirectly but often also directly—from other players through the direct loss of items or characters, or at least through devaluation of the worth of the items fairly playing players gain through approved meth- ods. Unfair players gain them either through the use of "bots"23 or other advantage-giving third party software.

The arguments according to which games are of little or no moral significance are false—at least from a liberal standpoint. Games are obviously of value to the players of the games, and to the industry, and thus moral issues resulting from them cannot be bypassed by claiming that games would not be important—they are. Also, children and youth both do things which matter, and as humans are most clearly moral subjects.

The issues regarding online computer games and their moral significance have largely been ignored. The authors hope this will not be the case in the future, but that steps are taken to ensure a more fair and moral playing ground in online games.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for their invaluable input on what kinds of forms of cheating in various games exist: Pasi Uuppo and Tomi "bgt" Mäntylä (especially but not only MUDs), Ville Jansen (especially but not only FPSs) and the alt.games.diablo2 Usenet News-group crowd for CRPG related examples.

References Benford, S., C. Greenhalgh, G. Reynard, C. Brown

and Koleva B. (1998). Understanding and con-

23 Automated software which plays a character very quickly through a certain area in which items of value are easily found.

structing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries, ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 185—223.

Bissett, A., P. Parry, I. Ritchie, B. Steele and Vacher P. (2004). Addressing Ethics In Entertainment Software Development, in Proceedings of Ethi- comp 2004, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece, 14 to 16 April 2004, pp. 143—49.

Bissett, A. and Shipton, G. (2000) Some human dimensions of computer virus creation and in- fection, International Journal of Human Com- puter Studies, 52, (5), May 2000. 899-913.

Brundage, S. (2000) Making EverQuest Easier to Play: Cheating or Not?, gamers.com, available online at http://www.gamers.com/news/322928, last checked 15.07.2002.

ESA (Entertainment Software Association) (2004) Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry: 2004 Sales, Demographics and Usage Data, available at http://www.theesa.com/files/EFBrochure.pdf, last checked 26.4.2005.

Fairweather, N Ben (2000) Cool New Cheats: cheat- ing and the computer games industry, 2000 Conference on Sports Ethics, St. Martin’s Col- lege, Lancaster, England.

Kant, Immanuel (1785) Originally Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, several translations used, most commonly translated as Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals as in http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/kant/kantc.ht m, last checked 4.11.2004, but e.g. Brendan E. A. Liddell’s translation is called Kant on the Foundation of Morality.

Krotoski, A. (2005) Virtual sword theft result in real- life retribution, Guardian Unlimited, 30th March, 2005. Online at: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/200 5/03/30/virtual_sword_theft_results_in_reallife_ retribution.html

Locke, John (1690) Two treatises of government. Various versions used, e.g. Everyman, Orion Publishing Group, London, UK, 2002. Second Treatise of Government available for example at http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/locke/lockcont .htm (Last checked September 23, 2005).

Powers, T. M. (2003) Real wrongs in virtual commu- nities. Ethics and Information Technology Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 191—198, 2003. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Pritchard, M. (2000) How to hurt hackers: The scoop on Internet cheating and how you can

IRIE International Review of Information Ethics Vol. 4 (12/2005)

K. K. Kimppa and A. K. Bissett: The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games 38

combat it. Gamasutra, July 24, available at http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000724/ pritchard_pfv.htm, last checked 30.9.2004.

Reynolds, R. (2002) Intellectual Property Rights in Community Based Video Games, Proceedings of Ethicomp 2002, Universidade Lusíada, Lisbon, Portugal, 13-15 November 2002, pp. 455—470.

Reynolds, R. (2002) Playing a “Good” Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games, International Game Develop- ers Association, available at http://www.igda.org/articles/rreynolds_ethics.ph p, last checked 10.11.2005.

Smed, J. and Hakonen H. (2004) Preventing Look- Ahead Cheating with Active Objects, in the Pro- ceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computers and Games (CG'04), July, 2004.

Smed, J., Kaukoranta T. and Hakonen H. (2002) Aspects of networking in multiplayer computer games, The Electronic Library, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2002, pp. 87—97.

Smed. J. (2003) Offending other players http://staff.cs.utu.fi/staff/jouni.smed/a4cg/slides /slides20031022.pdf (Lecture slides), last checked 10.3.2005.

Suler, J.R. and Phillips, W. (1998) The Bad Boys of Cyberspace: Deviant Behavior in Multimedia Chat Communities. CyberPsychology and Behav- ior, 1, 275-294. An extended version available at www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/badboys.html, last checked 30.9.2004.