CHEATING
Introduction
Cheating in video games has existed largely as long as games themselves have been around, and has proved to be a dynamic and controversial practice. Yet the history of the game industry demonstrates that some forms of cheating have been actively encouraged by game developers, while others have been vigorously curtailed. Players themselves have conflicted feelings about cheating, and the practice itself is notoriously difficult to define and identify. While some events, practices, and attitudes are clearly defined as cheating by a majority of players and developers, others are in flux, and new ways to cheat and beliefs about cheating are constantly evolving. This essay reviews some of the history of cheating practices and definitions of cheating, and also discusses how new game platforms and player demographics are starting to redefine what is cheating and what it means in larger video game culture.
Origins of Cheating: Developer Practices, Player Discoveries
One of the earliest instances of cheating in the video game industry occurred when a game developer decided his company’s crediting practices were unfair to those who actually made the games. Warren Robinett worked for Atari, a company that did not believe in letting developers take credit for their work by associating their names with the games they created. To retaliate, in 1979 Robinett cheated by hiding his name in the game he was coding—Adventure—and making it only viewable if the player found a pixel-sized key in the game, picked it up, and brought it to a particular room. If the player did so, Robinett’s name appeared in strobing colored letters. Robinett revealed his actions to no one at the company, and the game shipped with the “Easter egg” intact. Dedicated players soon enough found the secret and his cheat was revealed, creating the expectation for such elements in future games. Ironically begun as a hack and a protest against game industry practices, the addition of such secret elements ultimately became a normalized part of games, and led to additional commercialized elements of the industry that were built around helping players identify and find such elements (Consalvo, 2007).
Another way that developers helped contribute to the culture of cheating in video games was through the addition of “cheat codes” in games. Such codes are a normal part of game development, as they allow developers to skip around a game’s levels, delete monsters or items, add certain elements, and so on. Sometimes those codes are deleted or disabled before a game is publicly released, but more often they remain intact, particularly in single-player games where they won’t upset the balance of play between multiple players. In those instances codes can add further life and interest to a game, as players work to figure them out, search for them online, or purchase them in magazines or elsewhere (Consalvo, 2007).
Over the years, cheating in games has become more complex, as players discover loopholes in code, exploit the weaknesses of platforms, and engage in social engineering. What follows is a brief review of the major forms of cheating that players encounter in contemporary video games: FAQs and walkthroughs, cheat codes, hacks and exploits, and social engineering.
One of the most common forms of cheating in video game play is the use of strategy guides and walkthroughs or FAQs. Such elements have a long history in the video game industry, particularly as games evolved to become longer and more complex. Yet even early games such as Pac-Man (Namco, 1980) had guides written about them, usually offering a bit of strategy and then a succession of screen maps detailing the correct maze patterns to use in order to clear successive screens in the game. Similar guides for games such as Donkey Kong (Nintendo, 1981) and Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo, 1985) were likewise light on description or narration, instead offering the player maps of game worlds to memorize in order to plan the best route to victory. As games became more complex, and particularly as they entered the home via consoles, a different approach emerged for such guides. For example, early guides for games such as The 7th Guest (Trilobyte, 1993) and Myst (Cyan, 1993) offered players solutions to the puzzles the game employed, but delivered them via narratives that encouraged the player to see themselves as a character in the game world. Written as diaries or journals of the protagonist in the game, such titles also employed subtle cues and clues to guide the reader toward solutions rather than simply presenting them. Yet such guides also provided more utilitarian help in the backs of the books—there presenting the answers or solutions, without pretext to an alternate fiction or world (Consalvo, 2007).
Over time most strategy guides dropped such fictional narratives, instead focusing on the details of how to help players solve puzzles, beat bosses in battle, and find hidden treasures and eggs in games. Guides became vitally important with genres such as the role-playing game, known for including many hidden elements as part of the gameplay. Companies such as Square in particular worked to make the purchase of guides a nearnecessity, particularly if players were intent on finding all of the secrets and items in a particular game. While full color print guides do still exist, far more commonly used now are the less graphically lush—but free—versions of walkthroughs found on sites such as www.gamefaqs.com. Created by players themselves and rated by others for their accuracy and completeness, the FAQs are designed for easy access to specific levels or areas, and purport to offer players the most direct routes or strategies for successful gameplay. Creators must spend significant amounts of time creating their documents, which often go through multiple versions and can be perpetually updated if new information is found relative to the game and its gameplay. FAQs tend to be complete walkthroughs of a particular game, although some focus more specifically on one game element, such as a game’s bosses, particular mini-games, certain hidden quests, or the collection of particular items, among others. FAQs continue to play a vital role in video game culture, as they respond to the needs of players who will all, inevitably, need help at some point while playing a game (Consalvo, 2007).
As mentioned above, cheat codes have long played a role in the history of cheating in video games. Most codes start as developer aids for testing games, and remain hidden in the games after they are released to the public. Codes can be both functional and playful, helping players along in the game as well as adding fun, unnecessary items. For example, some codes will make the player character invincible or will remove all enemies from a level; others will grant access to all items in the game immediately, or add items not normally in the game—such as a bicycle to ride in Crazy Taxi (Hitmaker, 1999) rather than a traditional car. Codes can allow a player to move past an obstacle that is too difficult, they can allow players to instantly have access to everything in the game, or they can add new life to the game by adding new elements. The most famous cheat code was Konami’s “up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A,” which was used in several of its games. Cheat codes have become an expected part of single-player games, but are largely removed or disabled from multiplayer games, as they would give those with the codes an unfair advantage.
Moving along the scale of technological sophistication are hacks and exploits. In this category players create small programs or alter the code of a game in order to gain advantage, or they examine games closely to find weaknesses in the code or its network processes, if the game is online with a client/server architecture. Some of the most famous hacks involve online multiplayer shooter games, where players figure out how to alter the game’s code in order to see through walls (wall hacks), aim guns automatically and more quickly than they could on their own (aimbots), or remap the textures of their opponents to make them easier to identify or remap their own textures to make themselves invisible. Such cheats usually involve intercepting information about the game that moves back and forth between the player’s computer and the game’s central server. In response, companies have employed numerous tactics. In addition to monitoring game servers and player forums to find active instances of cheating, many companies now employ additional software such as Even Balance’s PunkBuster program (www.evenbalance.com/) that the player must install on their computer in order to play the game on public servers. The software constantly monitors the game for alterations, and if detected, the offending player can be kicked out of the game, suspended from play for a certain period of time, or even banned permanently from play.
A somewhat more contested use of technological changes is the category of exploits. In these cases, players are not actively changing the code of a game, but are instead trying to find weaknesses in the game itself in order to gain advantage. One of the most famous examples of an exploit is rocket jumping. In various first-person shooter games from DOOM (id software, 1993) through Halo: Combat Evolved (Bungie, 2001), players discovered that they could fire a rocket or grenade launcher at the ground and propel themselves higher than they could by jumping normally. That trick led them to access areas of the game not normally accessible to players. The practice has become so entrenched that it is now considered a normal part of gameplay, but players do often contest the legitimate use of exploits and debates occur about which exploits are acceptable and which are not. Likewise, game developers can take a more-or-less tolerant approach to player uses of exploits, sometimes allowing their use, and other times punishing players and/or removing glitched code from the game.
A final area of cheating comes not from exploitation of games’ technology, but from players’ exploitation of one another for their own gain. Players can collude with one another to bilk others out of in-game currency or items; they can trick others into giving them their passwords; and they can deceive others into giving them items or cash, under false pretenses (Fields & Kafai, 2009). Some games are quite strict in what players can do in relation to other players, while certain games take an anything-goes approach. The best example of the latter is EVE Online (CCP Games, 2003), which allows player collusion, confederacies, espionage, and more, all in the name of legitimate gameplay.
Why Do They Do It?
Most players prefer not to cheat in video games, and many will go to great lengths not to do so. Yet almost every player at some point in their game-playing history has cheated and will do so again in the future. The reasons for doing so vary by player and by situation, and most players have certain limits on what they will or will not do. All players see cheating as gaining some sort of unfair advantage in a game, so why would they take part in that advantage?
The most common reason that players cheat in video games is because they are stuck. A certain level or puzzle may be too difficult, a boss may seem unbeatable, a game may have a glitch or difficulty spike, or a new genre or type of game is presenting a greater challenge than they had thought. How long players will persist in the face of such difficulties will vary, but all unsuccessful players eventually reach a point where they must decide whether to cheat and advance, or give up the game. Most of the time being stuck requires the player to ask a friend or family member for help and/or advice, consult an FAQ or strategy guide, or even use a cheat code to get past a troublesome spot in a game. Players often have varying answers for what they consider as acceptable “help” and what is not—for one player, help via a guide may be okay, while use of a code is not. For another, using a code is fine, but having another player complete a level for them would be cheating. Whatever the case, players might have to resort to various methods, but usually do so sparingly—they do not like to “cheat” in such ways, for one main reason. Using a code or looking up the answer to a puzzle in an FAQ deprives the player of the sense of accomplishment that comes from doing so on their own, without help. While the larger game challenge is still available to them, that smaller element has been lost. Players often talk of “cheating themselves” out of a surprise or achievement when they cheat in a game, and this is why. Though this type of cheat is mainly instrumental—helping a player get back into gameplay—it is still considered undesirable unless absolutely necessary (Consalvo, 2007).
A second reason that players cheat in games is to play God. Players sometimes wish to experience all a game has to offer, without going through all the in-game steps prescribed by the game’s developers. Often players will state that they wish to do this “after playing through the game once already” as a way to indicate they have earned this particular ability—although not all do so and wish to gain access to those elements immediately. Cheating here usually involves the use of codes to gain access to all items, all levels, or secret areas and goodies that game designers have put into the games. It is also mostly confined to single-player games, where such codes still work. Cheating in this instance is more ludic than instrumental—allowing players to “play” at the game in ways that are not a linear part of the gameplay. Most players acknowledge this isn’t the normal or expected way to play a game, but do voice their desires to play in this way, at least part of the time (Consalvo, 2007).
A third reason that players cheat is to “fast-forward” through content they view as uninteresting in some way. This type of cheating is akin to tiring of a mystery novel, but flipping to the last page to discover the answer to the mystery in order to attain some sort of closure. Players who engage in fast-forwarding will explain they are bored or tired of a game but want to know how it ends; they wish to complete a certain level or quest that feels too long, or there is some item that is taking too long (in their estimation) to attain. In these situations we see the designers’ frameworks for gameplay differ from the players’, who have a different set of expectations for the appropriate amount of time to invest in parts of a game, or a different engagement level with the game as a whole.
Players who engage in fast-forwarding take several routes to achieve their goals. One method for advancement is the use of saved games that are acquired from other players (or cheat codes like those discussed above). These let players skip forward to elements of the game they wish to experience and past the parts that do not satisfy them. Perhaps the most common way that players fast-forward through games, particularly in the world of massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs), is through the purchase of virtual currency. For example, in a game such as World of Warcraft (Blizzard, 2004), the game offers many quests that take multiple hours to complete, including raids for rare gear, the ability to purchase rare mounts, and the leveling of a character itself. Some players wish to move past such elements, not seeing the “journey” or time required as part of the fun of the game but instead it is an impediment to their enjoyment. So rather than invest dozens of hours to achieve such elements, they invest some cash to purchase the desired result. Traditionally such currency transactions have been illegal, although more and more MMOGs (and online games in general) have moved to a free-to-play model, which has incorporated the fast-forward system into the game’s legitimate economy. What this means for attitudes toward cheating will be discussed shortly.
Finally, players may cheat, particularly in multiplayer games, in order to get ahead by any means necessary, and by disregarding other players. For many players, the true definition of cheating must include other people—one cannot “cheat” a PlayStation, for example, or cheat oneself in any real way, except out of the challenge of doing it on your own. For such players, cheating is ironically a social act—it only comes into existence when other players are present. Cheating can then occur in a variety of ways, in both online and offline play. It may include peeking at your neighbor’s screen in split-screen play, or not fully explaining the rules of the game to a new player. In online play it can include hacks and exploits, and social engineering. This form of cheating is intended to move the cheater ahead by any means necessary, although some players do feel that you need to “earn the right” to cheat in such a way by being an expert in the game. This type of cheating is also distinguished from griefing or griefplay behaviors. Such activities are also present in multiplayer games and are designed to annoy or upset other players. While multiplayer cheating likely does also annoy and upset other players, griefing is centered mainly on the act of upsetting others—it is the reason to engage in griefing. While the griefer may indeed get ahead in the game, that is not the central intent, while for the cheater, advantage is the key. So while griefers and cheaters might look similar in some instances, their goals differ greatly (Blackburn et al., 2012).
Cheating 2.0
The rise of new platforms for gameplay and the greater variety of players that have emerged since the appearance of games on social network sites and as apps on mobile devices has led to interesting shifts in how players think about and approach cheating in video games. One of the key changes has been due to the shifting business models for games—for example, games on Facebook are free to play, and developers have created new ways to earn revenue from players. Rather than charge for subscriptions, most games feature advertising, but also (and more importantly) have integrated and legitimated the use of virtual currencies in their games. This has affected reasons for and opportunities to cheat in at least two ways.
The most central way that virtual currencies affect cheating is through the use of cheats as fast-forward devices. Previously games were constructed to force players to invest varying amounts of time in a game, in order to progress. Players not wishing to spend the appropriate amount of time could either stop playing, or perhaps cheat in some way to push past the barriers. In social network games and other free-to-play (F2P) games, the fast-forward has been institutionalized as a featured part of gameplay. Thus players can “grind” through farming crops in Farmville (Zynga, 2009), or levels in a F2P MMOG, or they can purchase in-game currency to shorten the time required for those processes. What was once an illegal activity is now one encouraged by developers, and built into the structure of the game itself. While players are not forced to purchase currency in order to advance, it can greatly lessen the tedium players feel about certain gameplay elements (Consalvo, 2010).
Another aspect of cheating affected by the influx and normalization of virtual currencies is the ludic cheat of playing God. Players who spend real money in social network and F2P games can also gain access to items, levels, and gameplay that “free” players cannot. Such artifacts can help players advance or may simply be decorative in nature. Either way, other players can see who has purchased those elements, usually defined as exclusive in some way. Players often spend relatively small amounts of real currency to purchase items, but are then given access to things other players are not. The ludic cheat is here reinterpreted as access to exclusives, only available this time via currency rather than code (Dumitrica, 2011).
What those changes mean is that for many players, the definition of cheating has shifted slightly. While cheating still connotes an unfair advantage, the methods of gaining that advantage have shifted. If everyone can purchase a fast-forward, it isn’t by definition unfair, particularly if the game’s developers have created it and marketed it as such to the players. Players take their cues for what they see as unfair from developers and how they reward and punish player actions. Thus, what players see as cheating or not is changing—at least in newer types of games. How definitions and types of cheating will continue to evolve as games themselves change are key aspects of game culture to be studied as games and players evolve.
References
Blackburn, Jeremy, Simha, Ramanuja, Kourtellis, Nicolas, Zuo, Xiang, Ripeanu, Matei, Skvoretz, John, & Iamnitchi, Adriana. (2012). Branded with a scarlet “C”: Cheaters in a gaming social network. Paper presented at the International World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France, April.
Consalvo, Mia. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Consalvo, Mia. (2010). Using your friends: Social mechanics in social games. Paper presented at the Foundations of Digital Games Annual Conference, Bordeaux, France, July.
Dumitrica, Delia. (2011). An exploration of cheating in a virtual game. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 3(1), 21–36.
Fields, Deborah & Kafai, Yasmin. (2009). “Stealing from Grandma” or generating cultural knowledge?: Contestations and effects of cheating in a tween virtual world. Games & Culture, 5(1), 64–87.