Handling Cheaters Gracefully vs Hardline ToS + Questionable legality of bans

Lets be real here, this is an MMORPG

The ability to revoke player access is essential to making a game in the first place, otherwise you would have to keep it running forever.
No one is going to launch a successful suit for this.

This is vastly oversimplifying and just not true. I refer you to past posts. Trying to apply your own version of common sense to the courts is not... sensible.

None of the legal discussion is important. For every company, in all circumstances - it is always a legal and financial liability to come down hard on your customer base. To intentionally end the value of what you sold after selling it. It is always foolish to make enemies of customers rather than profit. SE already acts as a company with the knowledge of these risks.

You aren't going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince them because they already know.

I'm sorry but I am very frustrated now. I have people calling me a gaslighter, a cheater, a liar and all sorts of things which add nothing of value and simply as a way of expressing their dissent take things too far. Such folks owe me an apology and are being quite jerks. I'm going to cut my activity here for tonight before I do the same.

We don't need to agree to anything about the legalities. We all know an addon problem exists
I wish yon haters would stop derailing productive conversation and stop trolling the effort to discuss solutions

I hope that third party programs are never allowed in FF14. Just see WoW, many players there can't even play anymore without third party programs. And in FF14 some players tell that the game play is to easy without realizing that they have a dozen third party cheat programs running already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loonies

I hope that third party programs are never allowed in FF14. Just see WoW, many players there can't even play anymore without third party programs. And in FF14 some players tell that the game play is to easy without realizing that they have a dozen third party cheat programs running already.

---

It depends. Because addons have a negative impact in WoW, this is not a necessarity for other games. An addon can only do things, which are defined and allowed through an API. If the addon API does not allow too much then there is no problem at all.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

This is vastly oversimplifying and just not true. I refer you to past posts. Trying to apply your own version of common sense to the courts is not... sensible.

None of the legal discussion is important. For every company, in all circumstances - it is always a legal and financial liability to come down hard on your customer base. To intentionally end the value of what you sold after selling it. It is always foolish to make enemies of customers rather than profit. SE already acts as a company with the knowledge of these risks.

You aren't going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince them because they already know.

I'm sorry but I am very frustrated now. I have people calling me a gaslighter, a cheater, a liar and all sorts of things which add nothing of value and simply as a way of expressing their dissent take things too far. Such folks owe me an apology and are being quite jerks. I'm going to cut my activity here for tonight before I do the same.

We don't need to agree to anything about the legalities. We all know an addon problem exists
I wish yon haters would stop derailing productive conversation and stop trolling the effort to discuss solutions

---

There is no productive conversation to come from this thread. You are debating something that isn't up for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

None of the legal discussion is important.
I wish yon haters would stop derailing productive conversation and stop trolling the effort to discuss solutions

---

There is nothing else constructive to be had here.

The topic you made literally includes “Questionable legality of bans”.

The other half of it is about a “graceful handling of cheaters”; there shouldn’t be. If you are cheating, and doing so gets you caught, then you deserve whatever punishment is dealt. People who are doing stuff like texture changes aren’t the ones getting caught.

If the devs do notice you doing something fishy but don’t care….that should be enough. They don’t need to do extra work to justify their bans.

I believe SE should take action against any and all violations of the ToS. Not enforcing your own rules only breeds contempt and discontent among those to whom the rules have been applied. Try managing a classroom and you'll see what I mean.

It's clear that the ToS are written to protect SE and give them complete freedom to enforce the ToS in any way they see fit when they see fit to do so. It's sad to me to see that they don't enforce things regularly enough, as evidenced by the number of people saying "They won't do anything; I know X people who do Y thing and haven't had issues." or "SE are too lazy to enforce their own rules except the ones they feel like because the community has thin skin.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illmaeran

I believe SE should take action against any and all violations of the ToS. Not enforcing your own rules only breeds contempt and discontent among those to whom the rules have been applied. Try managing a classroom and you'll see what I mean.

It's clear that the ToS are written to protect SE and give them complete freedom to enforce the ToS in any way they see fit when they see fit to do so. It's sad to me to see that they don't enforce things regularly enough, as evidenced by the number of people saying "They won't do anything; I know X people who do Y thing and haven't had issues." or "SE are too lazy to enforce their own rules except the ones they feel like because the community has thin skin.".

---

SE not lazy to enforce their own rules.. they don't see any profitable reason to rule game platform with iron fist, this is not a classroom this is a company trying to make profit.
Add-on made due necessity if majority of community using it banning all of them not a smart business decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

Having mods bannable in the ToS of a service like FFXIV is not actually legal, at least in the US. Of course, doesn't stop Steam and others, but it's rarely challenged in court -- and usually results in a settlement out of court when attempted. There is a huge difference for an MMO tho

---

An MMO is nothing like the law you've mentioned. Blizzard have permanently banned cheater and even taken paid cheat makers to court and won which had their products pulled from sale in several markets as well as financial penalties on the creators. Not to mention Japan, where Square Enix are based and a large chunk of the player base is, has laws against modding games.

What a lot of people seem to misunderstand or just ignore is that a portion of MMO players, regardless of the game, doesn't actually see cheating as a bad thing. They're happy to use any and everyone tool under the sun to gain an advantage with no regards for the consequences.

In fact, we even seen this in games like WoW that have an official UI add-on framework. Combat addons like DBM, BigWigs and WeakAuras are so perfected these days that they're ready for new raids very quickly. Beyond that, there's tons of tools for min-maxing to the point in which large chunks of the game is reduced to balancing values in a spreadsheet.

Now I understand there's a lot of frustration around cheating and concerns of ALL plugins going away this time but you ultimately have to blame Square Enix for their inactions and vague statements. They've asked people not to use certain third party tools, including lewd mods, but they've not actually done anything to deal with their idea of bad actors. Not to mention really vague statements about typing the battle log into Excel or using Discord also being third party tools.

This is a key area in which Square Enix are failing the entire player base. Cheating is real and in PvP will just kill the game mode really fast if they remain hands off. However, there's also users that are so reliant on appearance mods or QoL UI plug-ins that they're threatening to quit if they no longer work.

They've backed themselves between a rock and a hard place while also ignoring the macOS and PlayStation player base which doesn't have ANY of these tools, QoL or just outright cheats/hacks. It needs addressing and all portions of the player base will probably have to concede on something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

You have a version of me in your mind that does not exist. Plus, there are many factual errors in what you have just said. There are also problems of "not even being wrong".



Not sure what the rest of this statement was supposed to be, but there are plenty of cases which set the precedent outlined. Though winning is not even the issue. To say that is somewhat revealing of a lack of understanding.



No. Only terms the court holds valid are valid. For any agreement, but as I pointed out the standard is far stricter for the type of software SE has. There is no point trying to convince anyone -- we are the judge of future attempts to take them to trial. Your argument that "oh it IS legally binding" doesn't matter. A lawyer convincing a judge that they should at least go to trial is all that matters. Not winning or losing, not what the ToS say not any of that.

Those are tools SE's lawyers use to say hey, lets dismiss the case look its in our ToS and our EULA. That doesn't mean the court is going to do it.

Oy... so tiring. ok here. Look a lot of this revolves around developments with what's known as the FAA regarding Supreme Court various rulings on arbitration and class action clauses especially. State courts, especially California but many states -- not cut across any political line, are finding ways to get around FAA and deny such clauses.

You can absolutely find records of such cases by doing citation-based searches. Look for recent cases citing any of these:
Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna
Brewer v. Mo. Title Loans
Smith v. Nobiletti Builders, Inc
Figueroa v. THI of N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca LLC
Glob. Client Sols., LLC v. Ossello
Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Dev. Co


That's ONE side, state courts treating class action clauses in many different ways. There are at least 5 often used major workarounds that effectively still end up triggering class action or equivalent. For example sometimes they just find that a choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement incorporates state law contrary to the FAA. They may use qui tam or a district known to be soft on unconscionability arguments. So many cases which do not go as expected

Then there's how the FTC fits into the FAA: sort of complimentary, sort of unrelated, sort of conflicting. Not well planned. If the FTC gets interested in a situation it gets very complicated. If a company is even edging on maybe violating some FTC rules, lower courts can use it in all kinds of ways. We would have to have a very long conversation to explain why the FTC cares about the client/server product/subscription model and digital assets. It is out there, if you want to find it you can find it.

---

And there's the proof of your gas lighting

Not one case is about a videogame company perma banning.

You're using online services that offer a physical products versus an online service that offers digital media of which you rent a licence to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JanVanding

And there's the proof of your gas lighting

Not one case is about a videogame company perma banning.

You're using online services that offer a physical products versus an online service that offers digital media of which you rent a licence to play.

---

The new cases are not landmark cases like these. It is normal to search by citation when you're looking for motions that ended up being settled. I could go on and on but you know what believe what you want I dont care anymore. All this talk about legality is not for SE but only forum members that are acting in bad faith. Not going to indulge you.

I left my feedback. Risks exists always for companies. The risks are not even the main reason that solutions are needed. I am totally sure that Yoshii P already cares, without risk of legal problems, to be good to the players. In my mind that includes drawing a clear line so I don't have to worry when using Discord or if I use mods that others are using for convenience. Right now good players are penalized by the lack of clarity.

So go ahead and take my thoughts out of context; try and make the focus on legalities when I'm just offering my opinion as a programmer that thought hey I care about the pressures the team might be facing. Even if I'm wrong about case law, which I'm not, there's nothing wrong with me voicing my opinion. It is yall gaslighting by trying to manufacture this character assault but as a believer in speech I will just remove my self from the situation. Though I am also somewhat petty and its hard not to respond when people throw around wrong assumptions as fact in the face of opinions they don't like. Ugh. So dang rude tho.

I will check occasionally if anyone has engaged with me in an honest good faith way. Or even just yelled at me about the best solutions instead of trying to pretend they know anything about legal issues. Until then, good day to you all and thanks to those who provided honest feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

An MMO is ...
This is a key area in which Square Enix are failing the entire player base. Cheating is real and in PvP will just kill the game mode really fast if they remain hands off. However, there's also users that are so reliant on appearance mods or QoL UI plug-ins that they're threatening to quit if they no longer work.

They've backed themselves between a rock and a hard place while also ignoring the macOS and PlayStation player base which doesn't have ANY of these tools, QoL or just outright cheats/hacks. It needs addressing and all portions of the player base will probably have to concede on something.

---

Well we disagree some on interpretation of things and I'd contend that the FTC issue briefly mentioned is where things do get into the MMO model (well only when both client and sub are paid and paid digital assets exist) but as mentioned above, I am completely out of steam to explore that any further and I am not a lawyer certainly not one to get that far into the weeds. I had to have it explained to me and it took a long long time. That's all I have the energy left to say on that.

But you provide very straightforward feedback, appreciated. I guess I don't like the combat plugins myself but you do bring up great points. Those players do exist and some of them probably don't even think they're doing anything wrong. If clear lines were drawn, then at least all players could be on an even playing field. If an addon does something that changes the difficulty EVERYONE has the option to use it, not just cheaters. So yea I think you have a very well balanced position there with some good insights. The potential of getting them on consoles is a whole can of worms, but cross-platform could be done with a well made SDK. It certainly can't be done with the current situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loonies

I hope that third party programs are never allowed in FF14. Just see WoW, many players there can't even play anymore without third party programs. And in FF14 some players tell that the game play is to easy without realizing that they have a dozen third party cheat programs running already.

---

So I keep asking folks this, but I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think that should include tools such as Discord? (which runs in parallel offering voice chat and information)
Do you think that should include tools such as Gshade? (which just enhances graphics)
Do you think that should include tools such as something that gives sorting options to inventory?

Are you really saying that ALL such tools are bad and no line can be drawn? Or could it be that you don't count some of the above as offending tools? Whatever you think no shade toward you for it, I just am trying to understand

I think the line should be content ok, competitive edge bad -- and I brought up free speech, perhaps foolishly, thinking well tools like Discord do give a competitive edge but its hard to describe why it is different than other tools in ToS terms. So I thought, well if the boundary has that leeway it kind of says, OK communication is defensible as long as you aren't circumventing anything (like someone blocking you in game / harassments)

To me it seems a bit harsh to say NO tools but it would be fair at least. And that is pretty clear. I feel like a lot of people would be sad tho, if enforcement kicked up and it is still at the NO tools level, and of course I would never get to make my dream plugins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

There is no productive conversation to come from this thread. You are debating something that isn't up for debate.

---

As long as the team cares about feedback, everything is up for debate.
Really there's nothing ever that's not up for debate anywhere. Perhaps I could lose a debate, but that's fine I already accomplished giving them my feedback whether they take it or not.

There's no point listening to a forum for feedback if they wanted everything set in stone
However the team appears, to me, as having such moral character that I believe they do care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

I can not fathom a world where a profitable business would invite more work to itself policing mods/add ons for no profit. The ToS as it is coupled with the dev’s rather hands-off stance regarding many mods is honestly as ideal as it gets.

---

Absolutely, in my initial 2 posts I am suggesting that these actions could save money by
1. Reducing the requirements of enforcement
2. Reducing the volume of valid bad-behavior reporting by the userbase
3. Turn addons from something detracting from development to something that works to stay in line with the FFXIV team's wishes
4. A stretch, but potentially alleviating the need for the dev team to make certain improvements themselves. They could put out a wishlist for example

Idk if that's enough, but it was my thinking. You're right if its not enough to matter toward profitability then probably aint gonna happen lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

No. Only terms the court holds valid are valid. For any agreement, but as I pointed out the standard is far stricter for the type of software SE has. There is no point trying to convince anyone -- we are the judge of future attempts to take them to trial. Your argument that "oh it IS legally binding" doesn't matter. A lawyer convincing a judge that they should at least go to trial is all that matters. Not winning or losing, not what the ToS say not any of that.

---

I swore I'd never post on the FF14 forums, but discount store legal advice is one of my favourite things so I've been sucked in.

Now about 90% of what you've posted is nonsense or misrepresented at best. But lets say that you hire a law wizard who convinces a judge that it's illegal to ban you [which you won't].

But say you did, now it's time to discuss damages.

A judge isn't going to force SQEN to unban your account and provide you service, so you're going to need to think about the dollar value of the damage you've suffered.

You could argue that you bought software that's now worthless. Ok, that's $100 or so?

You might want your subscription fees back as well, but you paid for specific services and received those services so you will never convince a judge that the 'services you received' (an entertainment product) were retroactively damaged by the banning.

You might even argue that the character is yours as well, so congrats. A few weeks after the court case is finalised, you'll get a CD with your character data on it.

Enjoy your $100.

PS: If you do want to argue this, find me a case where a judge has put a perpetual 'specified performance' order in place against a company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qacona

I swore I'd never post on the FF14 forums, but discount store legal advice is one of my favourite things so I've been sucked in.

Now about 90% of what you've posted is nonsense or misrepresented at best. But lets say that you hire a law wizard who convinces a judge that it's illegal to ban you [which you won't].

But say you did, now it's time to discuss damages.

A judge isn't going to force SQEN to unban your account and provide you service, so you're going to need to think about the dollar value of the damage you've suffered.

You could argue that you bought software that's now worthless. Ok, that's $100 or so?

You might want your subscription fees back as well, but you paid for specific services and received those services so you will never convince a judge that the 'services you received' (an entertainment product) were retroactively damaged by the banning.

You might even argue that the character is yours as well, so congrats. A few weeks after the court case is finalised, you'll get a CD with your character data on it.

Enjoy your $100.

PS: If you do want to argue this, find me a case where a judge has put a perpetual 'specified performance' order in place against a company.

---

refer to above. already addressed multiple times that courts have already allowed actions that disagree with your synopsis. already addressed that sub fees have counted in arbitration to avoid action courts were threatening to allow, despite clauses. the reasons i gave then are still my same reasons for disagreeing with your take. none of those arguments rely on a specified performance order as that is a different line of attack entirely. there's nothing left to cover and the conversations about law have not been relevant to the addon problem this thread is about.

as mentioned repeatedly, since you did not actually review the history of this as you claimed, i've already repeated everything i can repeat faithfully that i've been told by our company's legal folks. if i try to go further i would not be able to do so honestly so there's nothing else i can really say. only saying this much since you were not bringing a character attack or insults, or not very insulting anyway

i understand you think im wrong. ok. no problem. in my line of reasoning subs matter, in yours they dont. however do note that offending addon developers purchase hundreds of copies. in either case, the addon problem is the problem not an imaginary legal case

if i could delete every reference to law in my original post without making the entire thread senseless i would because it has been ridiculously derailing all conversation and my reasoning would not change except to move it to user relations liability instead. SE already is conscious of consumer rights beyond what is required of them, so it really doesn't matter that much. Businesses don't want to ban customers without a good reason anyway. Whatever you think motivates that, whether in part liability or not, same difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

So I keep asking folks this, but I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think that should include tools such as Discord? (which runs in parallel offering voice chat and information)
Do you think that should include tools such as Gshade? (which just enhances graphics)
Do you think that should include tools such as something that gives sorting options to inventory?

Are you really saying that ALL such tools are bad and no line can be drawn? Or could it be that you don't count some of the above as offending tools? Whatever you think no shade toward you for it, I just am trying to understand

I think the line should be content ok, competitive edge bad -- and I brought up free speech, perhaps foolishly, thinking well tools like Discord do give a competitive edge but its hard to describe why it is different than other tools in ToS terms. So I thought, well if the boundary has that leeway it kind of says, OK communication is defensible as long as you aren't circumventing anything (like someone blocking you in game / harassments)

To me it seems a bit harsh to say NO tools but it would be fair at least. And that is pretty clear. I feel like a lot of people would be sad tho, if enforcement kicked up and it is still at the NO tools level, and of course I would never get to make my dream plugins.

---

The thing here is, you're lumping together things that are not the same.

Discord specifically is no different than having your pals on Skype, or Line or any other communications tool. It can be run completely independent of the game and does not interface with the software. It's like saying having physical printouts of the game map with treasure chest locations marked is bannable. Or that playing with two screens on your computer is bannable. It's nonsense.

The line is already there: They do not want you using (tools, apps, whatever) that directly interface with the game, or alter the game files. The most grey-zone thing out there would be texture swapping, model editing or perhaps the bard auto-music player. These WOULD be bannable if caught, but since it doesn't cause any actual mechanical cheating advantage to "win", the Devs don't care. Like I said earlier, speed limit or seat belt laws. It's not about whether it gives a competitive edge.

If you want to make an app that enhances inventory management, or one that auto-rolls loot, or one that auto-throws away "junk", I can't imagine it would be a problem until it's automating your actions or allowing you to do something you shouldn't be able to do (like giving items to GC for seals, or automatically doing Leves, or highlight players hidden behind walls etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

The thing here is, you're lumping together things that are not the same.

Discord specifically is no different than having your pals on Skype, or Line or any other communications tool. It can be run completely independent of the game and does not interface with the software. It's like saying having physical printouts of the game map with treasure chest locations marked is bannable. Or that playing with two screens on your computer is bannable. It's nonsense.

The line is already there: They do not want you using (tools, apps, whatever) that directly interface with the game, or alter the game files. The most grey-zone thing out there would be texture swapping, model editing or perhaps the bard auto-music player. These WOULD be bannable if caught, but since it doesn't cause any actual mechanical cheating advantage to "win", the Devs don't care. Like I said earlier, speed limit or seat belt laws. It's not about whether it gives a competitive edge.

---

Thanks for clarifying that. Was not trying to lump these things together, they are specifically different. Simply to see where you personally set the line. Really what you're saying seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Only thing I'd counter is Discord DOES break the current ToS as a 3rd party tool, though true I don't believe that is the intent of the rule at all. However Discord does interface with the game process to provide overlays and show status especially. Currently that is bannable, but they look the other way as you point out for many types of mods.

Assuming they did not increase enforcement in the near future, leaving things alone would be workable. Though not my ideal, for many that might be good enough. If they actually take the full no-3rd party tools stance due to the recent cheating, well then they may have to be "fair" and just throw out all 3rd party tool use

I don't think it has any real risk of being slammed by them, but then IMO the ToS should be softened to reflect the reality. The idea of switching to in game penalties is another way of giving clarity to the line without actually saying it out loud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

If you want to make an app that enhances inventory management, or one that auto-rolls loot, or one that auto-throws away "junk", I can't imagine it would be a problem until it's automating your actions or allowing you to do something you shouldn't be able to do (like giving items to GC for seals, or automatically doing Leves, or highlight players hidden behind walls etc).

---

This is a good place to draw the line imo. Automation is at least one very clear category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

Only thing I'd counter is Discord DOES break the current ToS as a 3rd party tool, though true I don't believe that is the intent of the rule at all. However Discord does interface with the game process to provide overlays and show status especially. Currently that is bannable, but they look the other way as you point out for many types of mods.

---

Using Discord as an example of third-party tools is just as disingenuous as that time Yoshi-P used Excel or a Calculator as an example of a third-party tool. These are completely egregious examples and don't reflect the reality of the situation.

At the end of the day, there's a massive problem with Square Enix's hands-off stance that they've held and the player base has largely self-moderated so the developers stay off of their backs. There's easily more than double the amount of players there were even a year ago and this laid back approach just isn't scalable anymore.

MMOs and other online games in general have to combat the fact some players will do anything to gain a competitive advantage while ignoring the consequences for the rest of the player base. Even some of the QoL UI plugins are a tad questionable in this regard, especially those for market board functions.

Unfortunately Square Enix, specifically Yoshi-P as the face of FFXIV, has a problem with wanting to tackle big decisions that confront the player base. The consequences of this problem will only get worse the longer they allow players to freely go at it with third-party tools.

You can ask for an official modding/plugin framework but if you look at what other MMOs and online games allow, at the very best we'll get a UI framework like World of Warcraft. You're not going to get an official version of XIVAlex or NoClippy. You're not going to get an official version of appearance modifications because they don't like lewd mods and they also sell cosmetics on the optional item store. At the very best we'd get some of the QoL UI plugins alongside ACT and Cactbot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

Using Discord as an example of third-party tools is just as disingenuous ...

---

I mean, from the start when I brought up Discord I said almost as much myself. It is not likely to be banned but is bannable definitionally by the ToS. If you agree then that pretty much proves my point that the ToS needs clarity. It penalizes players who play by the book to have such vague qualities defined as bannable -- and in part that's why I say in-game consequences would alleviate many player concerns.

However while there is something ridiculous about it, it isn't right to call that disingenuous. There are very valid criticisms of Discord use. Some don't have access to or are not allowed to voice chat, it's not par of the game, it can easily make or break difficult content. Huge competitive advantage in Frontline and raiding -- plus it allows people to circumvent FC size limits, orchestrate disruptive behavior, harass gamers off-platform, modifies the execution of the game and a host of other problematic things it enables. We just think it is "normal" and therefor "ok" but that doesn't actually follow

Now that said; there has been talk that SE may change that stance because of cheating in CC. IF THEY DO, THEN.. it would probably have to apply to Discord too. To be fair it certainly would have to apply to ALL 3rd party tools and there have been notices suggesting that COULD happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

At the end of the day, there's a massive problem with Square Enix's hands-off stance that they've held and the player base has largely self-moderated ...

---

Everything you said from there onward; totally agree. I am just asking people what they think it should be ideally. Not much can be done to help them other than attempting to compile a reasonable view of what players WANT and then identifying, of that, what is viable as a solution. Doesn't mean SE will do anything about it, but if they ever did, then at least they'd know what the player base felt about addons and have a little headstart on brainstorming.

Many people lately have voiced a concern that they don't feel they can speak on here or even like anything about addons due to risking their account. My primary hope in voicing this was not that they do everything like I want, though that would be a great outcome lol. My goal is to convey the opinion and invite the opinion of others.

We all know the realities and difficulties of an addon system -- but not having one apparently has many problems too, and those problems also cost money. I believe releasing an SDK will cost less money, but ultimately that's not majorly important. Just knowing what players would LIKE to see lets SE decide if anything of our wishes are feasible for themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

Using Discord as an example of third-party tools is just as disingenuous as that time Yoshi-P used Excel or a Calculator as an example of a third-party tool. These are completely egregious examples and don't reflect the reality of the situation.

---

To be fair, Discord, Teamspeak & Co. have more impact on the gameplay than maaaaany other interface addons, even in WoW. You will always have a grey area on this.



Cheers

As a personnal experience, I really loved Crystalline Conflict and evolving through it, until i kept going from gold 4 to gold 1 and stumbling upon incredible amount of cheating starting when you get platinum players in the mix. Killing the drive and want for it, i was very hyped the first week, this many cheaters just really make it unfun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

However while there is something ridiculous about it, it isn't right to call that disingenuous. There are very valid criticisms of Discord use. Some don't have access to or are not allowed to voice chat, it's not par of the game, it can easily make or break difficult content. Huge competitive advantage in Frontline and raiding -- plus it allows people to circumvent FC size limits, orchestrate disruptive behavior, harass gamers off-platform, modifies the execution of the game and a host of other problematic things it enables. We just think it is "normal" and therefor "ok" but that doesn't actually follow

Now that said; there has been talk that SE may change that stance because of cheating in CC. IF THEY DO, THEN.. it would probably have to apply to Discord too. To be fair it certainly would have to apply to ALL 3rd party tools and there have been notices suggesting that COULD happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larirawiel

To be fair, Discord, Teamspeak & Co. have more impact on the gameplay than maaaaany other interface addons, even in WoW. You will always have a grey area on this.

---

Voice chat is a massive part of online game across MMOs and every other genre. While there are moderation issues with how some people choose to use these platforms, they're ultimately for the platform holders to deal with and not for Square Enix.

If Square Enix would crack down on using platforms like Discord in a third-party tools crackdown, when no other major MMO does, they can kiss so much of the player base goodbye. The high-end PvE and PvP community, that largely uses voice chat in any organised and consistent group/static, aren't just going to play without it. Not to mention they could just use Discord from another device like their phone and SE wouldn't even know.

Voice chat is not a grey area of the terms of service and it's absolutely the worst thing that Square Enix could choose to fight. I feel like some people are using the "Discord is a third party tool" argument as deflection because there's actual grey zone third-party tools like XIVAlex and NoClippy which can be used to cheat, in theory, even if most people only use it to make the game playable with higher ping/latency to the servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

Only thing I'd counter is Discord DOES break the current ToS as a 3rd party tool, though true I don't believe that is the intent of the rule at all. However Discord does interface with the game process to provide overlays and show status especially. Currently that is bannable, but they look the other way as you point out for many types of mods.

---

Ok... please show me the EXACT sections of the ToS you are refeering to that would make discord "a bannable 3rd party app" if you are refeering to the "prohibited action" lists of "behavior that affects game balance"

"- Modifying, analyzing, integrating, and/or reverse-engineering game software or data.
- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game."



You are grossely misinterpreting what "interacting with the game" means
interacting with the process to get its name and runtime(aka discord status) isnt "interacting with the game" its "interacting with the process" if interacting with the process itself is illegal then... litteraly any program ever would be banned as almost any programm interacts with the process list, and by extension FFXIV


The overlay is similar, it dosnt interact with the game, at MOST it interacts with the process directly(and at that point we need to REALLY talk definition of "interacting"), it interacts with OS level features and hooks into the DirectX/OpenGL calls




"the game" is not identical to "the process"


~~what is interesting tho, i saw a lot of people(not here) argue that ACT is "technicaly fine as long as its not used to insult people as it just reads the network logs and not anything in the game itself" however, by the definition of "prohibited actions" ACT 100% analyizes Game data(however it technically dosnt interact with the game or process itself)~~

They have not cared about people using Gshade etc to date, they wont going forward either. PvP cheaters need their bans and they should be putting time into reviewing the logs of matches to do so.

Bunch of pointless fear mongering for no reason. Cry if it actually happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VerdeLuck

They're already extremely lenient in the fact that they have stated they will not crack down on any client only mods as long as they have no impact on other players and don't offer any inherent advantage. It's already don't ask don't tell, you can mod your game all you want just don't use your mods to ruin someone else's experience or talk about them in-game. It's a pretty lenient and clear set of rules imo.

---

Uh...what?

Didn't Yoshi P come out in a thing and specifically stated to not use mods, they were against the ToS?
Where have they stated that they aren't going to crack down on client mods?

I've never heard anything like that. Just the Yoshi P. thing, because people were like, making porn with the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

The fact that now strikes decay over time just gives them even more leeway to abuse the system.

---

You do realize that if you are given a suspension, it literally takes 7 to 10 years of perfect behavior before your "points" are gone and you won't get a stiff punishment for any infraction?

Dunno what this three strikes thing is. AFAIK, you can get a warning, suspension, or a ban.

If you get a warning for something, then you have to be perfect and not break any rules for 3-5 years or more, before things are okay.
IF, on the other hand, you break another rule before then? You will likely get slapped with a 3 day or 10 days suspension no matter how minor it is.

If you get that suspension, like I said, the decay is 7 to 10 years, minimum.

The decay thing is nice...but be realistic. Most aren't going to pay any attention to it. Because it takes far too long to actually decay to where you aren't under threat once more. And one of the things they said when it was announced was that it was being put in place so that "people wouldn't feel as if they had nothing left to lose".

But with that amount of time, it doesn't quite work out that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valfreyja

Uh...what?

Didn't Yoshi P come out in a thing and specifically stated to not use mods, they were against the ToS?
Where have they stated that they aren't going to crack down on client mods?

I've never heard anything like that. Just the Yoshi P. thing, because people were like, making porn with the game.

---

That’s probably what they said, and yes it’s against ToS. But the thing is they would have to insert a detector into game file to scan players’ processes to prove & this is actually illegal in some country. They will not, and cannot do this without alienating some countries, period. This adds to another reason why this still has not happened yet.

Henceforth the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’-policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne

That’s probably what they said, and yes it’s against ToS. But the thing is they would have to insert a detector into game file to scan players’ processes to prove & this is actually illegal in some country. They will not, and cannot do this without alienating some countries, period. This adds to another reason why this still has not happened yet.

Henceforth the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’-policy.

---

Ah, I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

While there are moderation issues with how some people choose to use these platforms, they're ultimately for the platform holders to deal with and not for Square Enix.

---

While I would personally agree with what you're saying here, SE has made clear in their ToS (and clarification earlier in the week) they do think they can moderate things said and done on other platforms too. They're wading into territory they really shouldn't get involved in imo.

One of those things where I appreciate the intent, but I don't think they have any right to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

...Voice chat is not a grey area of the terms of service and it's absolutely the worst thing that Square Enix could choose to fight...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeraSkiratea

Ok... please show me the EXACT sections of the ToS you are refeering to that would make discord "a bannable 3rd party app" if you are refeering to the "prohibited action" lists of "behavior that affects game balance"...

---

Yes indeed, I'm referring to prohibited activities

"Square Enix strictly prohibits the use of third-party programs or tools as these disrupt the balance of the game. "
Discord does this

- Modifying, analyzing, integrating, and/or reverse-engineering game software or data.
Discord does this, Discord bots do this

- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game.
Discord does this, Discord bots do this

That said, I mean, I'm not advocating for them to crack down on Discord. That would be crappy lol. I'm pointing out that the lack of clarity in the ToS is not a good thing because it jeopardizes reasonable use cases. Please keep in mind, the problematic scenario is triggered IF, AND ONLY IF, cheating forces them to crack down.

If they crack down, then you can be sure that people will complain about unequal enforcement on this addon and that, the end result will be NOTHING can be used. If we come to some kind of consensus with each other, that gives them an out where no one has to be the bad guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeraSkiratea

.. if interacting with the process itself is illegal then... litteraly any program ever would be banned as almost any programm interacts with the process list, and by extension FFXIV

---

weeeelll... not really the case. for instance a normal browser session does not generally interact with other processes. Word processors would not place overlays or poll FFXIV for data. Discord crosses that line in more ways than the big obvious one too.

Using it for team chat, most would never dream of fully utilizing the potential, but cheaters would if that's the last available platform for them to abuse. Not so hard to make a Discord plugin you see, some team software make it even easier

With Discord's overlay interacting with the framebuffer, you can absolutely make it backload displays of market data or change the rendering of textures

Any 3rd party program interacting with the game should be against the current ToS as written. I am all with you in the idea that this is sort of ridiculous and of course people need to be able to use Discord. It provides accessibility and a huge quality of life improvement right?

And so do many other tools from what I gather across the web. Soooo the ToS needs to be more clear, and IMO penalties should be in-game so that people have some flexibility to figure out where the line is without the ToS being 90 pages long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valfreyja

You do realize that if you are given a suspension, it literally takes 7 to 10 years of perfect behavior before your "points" are gone and you won't get a stiff punishment for any infraction?

Dunno what this three strikes thing is. AFAIK, you can get a warning, suspension, or a ban.

If you get a warning for something, then you have to be perfect and not break any rules for 3-5 years or more, before things are okay.
IF, on the other hand, you break another rule before then? You will likely get slapped with a 3 day or 10 days suspension no matter how minor it is.

If you get that suspension, like I said, the decay is 7 to 10 years, minimum.

The decay thing is nice...but be realistic. Most aren't going to pay any attention to it. Because it takes far too long to actually decay to where you aren't under threat once more. And one of the things they said when it was announced was that it was being put in place so that "people wouldn't feel as if they had nothing left to lose".

But with that amount of time, it doesn't quite work out that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne

That’s probably what they said, and yes it’s against ToS. But the thing is they would have to insert a detector into game file to scan players’ processes to prove & this is actually illegal in some country. They will not, and cannot do this without alienating some countries, period. This adds to another reason why this still has not happened yet.

Henceforth the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’-policy.

---

Hmmm well combined this is actually pretty comforting. That does sound awfully heavy handed but they have limited resources so makes sense. BUT if there is an internal policy that's more clear than the ToS it does solve some of the problems.. as long as the current cheating trend doesn't flip the apple cart, so to speak.

At least with limited warnings and suspensions, we can hope that the non-enforcement is like a soft go-ahead for things that they don't even issue warnings about. I have never heard of anyone getting a warning for Discord lol. Still, it would be NICE if they could at least say (in the ToS) that they'd rather you not use anything but x, y and z wont get the GMs after you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StealthPaladin

Using it for team chat, most would never dream of fully utilizing the potential, but cheaters would if that's the last available platform for them to abuse. Not so hard to make a Discord plugin you see, some team software make it even easier

With Discord's overlay interacting with the framebuffer, you can absolutely make it backload displays of market data or change the rendering of textures

Any 3rd party program interacting with the game should be against the current ToS as written. I am all with you in the idea that this is sort of ridiculous and of course people need to be able to use Discord. It provides accessibility and a huge quality of life improvement right?

And so do many other tools from what I gather across the web. Soooo the ToS needs to be more clear, and IMO penalties should be in-game so that people have some flexibility to figure out where the line is without the ToS being 90 pages long.

---

You're putting way too much effort into trying to argue about Discord being a bad third-party tool. Fighting voice chat is never going to happen and people aren't going to use the Discord overlay as a mechanism to inject cheats into the game. More importantly, people can just use Discord on their phones or PlayStation voice chat (something that console players can use while playing any game without restrictions because Sony allow that and I'm 99% certain publishers can't block it).

I'm starting to get the impression you have an invested interest in the actual grey zone third party tools and rather than admitting it, you're trying to workaround it with really poor diversion. The vast majority of people that complain about a ToS or anti-cheat are people breaking the rules in the ways that are actually meaningful to the game, not voice chat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

You're putting way too much effort into trying to argue about Discord being a bad third-party tool. Fighting voice chat is never going to happen and people aren't going to use the Discord overlay as a mechanism to inject cheats into the game. More importantly, people can just use Discord on their phones or PlayStation voice chat (something that console players can use while playing any game without restrictions because Sony allow that and I'm 99% certain publishers can't block it).

---

Discord isn't a bad third-party tool. Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

I'm starting to get the impression you have an invested interest in the actual grey zone third party tools and rather than admitting it, you're trying to workaround it with really poor diversion. The vast majority of people that complain about a ToS or anti-cheat are people breaking the rules in the ways that are actually meaningful to the game, not voice chat.

---

well anyone can think anything
see previous responses to such insinuations if you want one

Yoshi-P has given another statement on the use of third-party tools while playing Final Fantasy XIV. It's focused on PvE rather than PvP but also doesn't appear to be a change in the overall stance on implementing client-side anti-cheat software such as EAC.

https://eu.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...5122b8b8d6ec3b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johners

Yoshi-P has given another statement on the use of third-party tools while playing Final Fantasy XIV. It's focused on PvE rather than PvP but also doesn't appear to be a change in the overall stance on implementing client-side anti-cheat software such as EAC.

https://eu.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...5122b8b8d6ec3b

---

With this statement, it clarifies quite a bit even beyond what I had hoped. Especially:

Quote:

---

- Use of tools that allow players to more easily complete content.
- Modification of the UI to display additional information.* (more info further down the page)
- Use of packet spoofing tools.
- Any actions or public statements that promote use of third-party tools.

---

If the first three are primary samples of what they mean by "3rd party tools", then I think it is probably safe to say Discord does not count under normal usage. They are indeed taking the hardline stance I was concerned about but apparently chose to go ahead and clarify what counts as tools.

At least they say they will incorporate some of the top mods into the game UI proper.

No sanctioned SDK and no in-game judicial system haha.. but for now at least it makes things clearer and sounds like a technical line is going to be drawn in a future info drop. I'm guessing that will allow GShade and be about non-battle effecting vs mods that make the game unfair -- but until then, and maybe after, everything is off the board. Still, pretty sure Discord will be in the clear and not count as a 3rd party tool given the tone and focus their showing .. probably lol

All in all pretty helpful. Plus now we know they are at least considering some changes in the ToS since they said they will provide an update if such a change ever makes it to approval.

Appreciated SE

I would be entirely okay with them cracking down on things like Cactbot that automate call-outs, mark players for mechanics or otherwise remove a form of player input from an encounter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I would be entirely okay with them cracking down on things like Cactbot that automate call-outs, mark players for mechanics or otherwise remove a form of player input from an encounter.

---

agreed. full ban for using anything that automates gameplay... I mean, if you wanted to actually play, the people wouldnt be botting it would they?

as for ToS changes, I would not expect them to fully allow mods that automate gameplay, or state specifically what mods are allowed as Yoshi stated in his letter. if anything, they may state areas that allow for disabled to use something OR, change accessibility.