Why Is Boosting Not Considering Cheating?

Because technically it isn't cheating. They are doing nothing that isn't isn't available through normal play.

Don't get me wrong, I hate boosters. They ruined the online in Resident Evil 5, where it became impossible to find a game where people wanted to play properly, but again technically they were doing nothing wrong.

Of course the great problem is that online games do get ruined by boosters. They claim they boost because the online is dying, but quite often it is dying because people are boosting.

It's not actionable because MS knows that they make money off these kind of people. Boosters "play" games most other people wouldn't touch. Sure not all of the buy games new but plenty do, and MS notices. That's also why every new DLC comes with new achievements, it makes the boosters and completionists feel like the HAVE to go for it.

It is cheating but most people around here will defend it because they either do it themselves or they're friends with people who do. There's no good excuse for why it's acceptable.

Interesting thoughts.

I guess I just want to learn more about this 'technicality' mindset.

I mean, I understand fully if they (as in Xbox) find it difficult to prove that people are boosting, but to write it off completely as some acceptable action when most people deem it unacceptable is odd. It's wrong if leaderboards are to actually mean something, otherwise, then just do whatever. Game On.

But the legitimacy is lost.


What is the clear definition of 'cheating'? If you unknowingly report people for boosting, then your report rating goes down, and XBox in turn takes your outcries less seriously. I would imagine a lot of genuine complaints are made exactly in that fashion.

Can you give me some examples of the boosters that bug you? A lot of boosting sessions don't affect anyone, so making those bannable seems a bit harsh to me.

[quote user="voteDC"]

Because technically it isn't cheating. They are doing nothing that isn't isn't available through normal play.

Don't get me wrong, I hate boosters. They ruined the online in Resident Evil 5, where it because impossible to find a game where people wanted to play properly, but again technically they were doing nothing wrong.

Of course the great problem is that online games do get ruined by boosters. They claim they boost because the online is dying, but quite often it is dying because people are boosting.

[/quote]

To be honest, I had more problems with quitters. Nothing is as frustrating as playing a 10 minute game (even giving my opponent some kills so he thinks he still has a chance) and seeing the opponent quit out right at the end. Those are the ones who really ruined the multiplayer for me in that game and many others.

It's not about boosters bothering people directly, it's the principal of cheating that is wrong. Boosters are not earning the stuff they boost for. For example, getting the god like achievement in Shadowrun by joining a private game and having everyone just stand there while you kill them is cheating. But that's just achievements, boosting on leaderboards should be bannable and enforced harshly.

I don't have a problem with boosters. You'd probably call me a  booster because I tell people up front. "Need x achievement? Sure! I won't make it easy for you, but I don't mind getting killed a few times." I specifically built a super short MC:LA track just so people could get through the required online races. The people that annoy me are the ones who hack in scores or extra equipment that gives them 'outside of game parameters' abilities and scoring.

Boosting is not tampering with the system or causing trouble with other players, its not cheating therefore you can't get banned for it.

Imagine if you wanted to boost some achievements for some older games, do you think it would be fair to ban you for that?

[quote user="Nameloi"]

Imagine if you wanted to boost some achievements for some older games, do you think it would be fair to ban you for that?

[/quote]There is a difference between boosting in a game where the online is dead and boosting in an active online community just because you can't be bothered to put the time in to get them through regular play.

[quote user="voteDC"]

Of course the great problem is that online games do get ruined by boosters. They claim they boost because the online is dying, but quite often it is dying because people are boosting.

[/quote]

Please, no game online dies because people are boosting it, it dies because it's multiplayer community is DEAD ON ARRIVAL. See Aliens vs. Predator, Dark Sector, Transformers War For Cybertron, FEAR 2.......many MPs simply aren't worth the time or the effort(FEAR 2, looking in your direction), so it's literally a countdown to getting MP achievements before the community drops off completely. Transformers WFC being perfect example. At it's peak, 2 weeks after release, there was 5000 average players. The following week it was 4000, the week after 3000, the week after 2000. I popped in WFC last Friday night and it had 193 players.

Boosting for achievements shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, most achievement boosters simply want to be done with the game and they'll move on. If they boost for leaderboards, it's pathetic, and if the developer wants to step in a do something about it(or continually do nothing, as in all leaderboards), that's up to them. But they're leaderboards in an online videogame. Trivial nonsense. Not worth caring about.

Right, I guess I play different sorts of games then. Leaderboards I usually pay attention to often aren't boostable, just cheatable and hackable. But I can see how boosters would be annoying in that situation. But to ban someone for it...it's got to be clearly stated somewhere what is and isn't acceptable. What Bungie did was a good way to keep boosting to a minimum iirc.

[quote user="Nameloi"]

Boosting is not tampering with the system or causing trouble with other players, its not cheating therefore you can't get banned for it.

Imagine if you wanted to boost some achievements for some older games, do you think it would be fair to ban you for that?

[/quote]

True, or arcade games. A lot of arcade multiplayer modes die out mere weeks after their release.