Ubisoft pleads with players to stop cheating in Assassin's Creed Odyssey

Title Ubisoft pleads with players to stop cheating in Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Author Nick Diamon
Posted in News
When July 12, 2019

Ubisoft wants you all of you filthy cheaters to knock it off. You're using the recently released Story Creator for Assassin's Creed Odyssey to circumvent the character leveling system they made to entertain you, and it's just got to cease..

Read the full article

“Sanctioning” people, in a single-player only game, for creating farming missions. And they really think their entire player base won’t immediately see through the transparent interests at stake here, helpfully illustrated by the title image of your article? More likely, I suppose, they don’t care.

Still waiting for someone with resources to finally challenge the flimsy legal agreements these games claim to stand on.

And players are getting what they wanted.

Discord already nukes singleplayer-cheat centered channels, and forums and sites deciated to it are getting c&d’ed.

Reading threads on Steam etc where people hope “The next game has even more invasive anti-cheat” because they had a bad experience in a MP, and they do not care nor want to distinguish between MP/SP.

End Result:

Buy “sanctioned” cheats from sites like cheathappens, or buy “booster packs” ingame. Basically cheating got monetized and now they are cracking down on sites, discussions and tools that let people “bypass” this monetization. And most players do not care to give a damn about it - beacuse of that speedhacker back in 1982 that killed them in Asteroids.

To be fair, it’s not just people pissed about multiplayer cheating and failing to draw a line between that and singleplayer. There are a surprising number of people who are way too invested in the integrity of other people’s singleplayer experience.

Wow. I’ve never been a DLC person but are they actually selling xp boosts for single player games now? That is…jaw-dropping.

No sale.

Oh yea, that too. “If I play the game this way, so should everyone else” - Gaming Salafism.

As long as it doesn’t give them a competitive game advantage I have no problem with people cheating online either.

Oh well. Just have to enjoy cheat-engine and windbg as long as it is available. I’m sure windows 10s “trueplay®” will enforce "pay to boost"™ at some point also.

Think EA started with that years ago with the Need For Speed unlocks you could purchase to speed up unlocking stuff ingame, but maybe it began with Battlefield 4 - which was arguably to skip a MP Grind… but I suppose they figured progression style gameplay “skipping” might sell just as well in singleplayer games.

That is why games like Ghost Recon Bolivia came with forced EAC (“easy anti cheat”) that also attempted to prevent you from cheating when playing solo mode, so they can sell you shit.

You cheated not only the game, but yourself. You didn’t grow. You didn’t improve. You took a shortcut and gained nothing. You experienced a hollow victory. Nothing was risked and nothing was gained. It’s sad that you don’t know the difference.


Oh you sweet summer child, that’s been going on for at least a decade now with the likes of EA and Ubi. I wouldn’t really call it “DLC” though. I mean, it’s not “content” in any sense.

Also, @AntediluvianArk wins the thread.

Not the only ones to do it- even Capcom did it with Street Fighter 5 and folks using a mod to unlock colors for their character.

“Also, please note Ubisoft-brand shortcuts are exempt from this, and can still be purchased at low low prices”

So, could someone just make a “cheat pack” for themselves to farm XP using Story Mode, and not publish it for anyone else? Or is that not how Story Mode works?

That this sort of thing has been going on for a good long while, and continues to ought to tell you that those legal agreements may not be so flimsy.

Not really - more so that no one has had the wherewithal and resources to really bother taking a EULA to court. And there’s also the delineation here, of the two different types of EULAs - ones you have to affirmatively accept by hitting a button or whatever, and passive ones that are just purported to apply by sheer fact of you continuing to use the software. The latter are far more legally dubious - though again, they’ve only ever really been analyzed in legal theory.

But in the case of “cracking down” on XP farming levels? It’s not like the average person would ever bother exploring their legal options over that, so companies like Ubisoft can just assert their alleged rights, and do what they want.

So you’re saying that UBI and EA, which are now pretty cash-healthy enterprises, haven’t been taken to court in a serious, industry-changing set of lawsuits because in the past decade no one has had the financial wherewithal or real desire to represent consumers in a multi-billion dollar industry (one that now dwarfs movies and television and music) against licensed for use practices?

You have a very sweet and optimistic view of legal profession.

I mean…what I’m reading here is that we have an industry that makes a HUGE footprint in the genral consumer marketplace with corporate entities that engage in billions of dollars of cash flow-through, engaging in what we are describing here as practices that are directly adversarial to consumers in the strictest legal sense, and justifying said practices behind legal language and contractual documentation that is flimsy.

And lawyers in the world – none of whom are gamers or familiar with the gaming industry – are willing to take on such an obvious slam dunk win?

Again: it may not be the easy win on “flimsy” language that you’re supposing it is.

I appreciate your polite condescension about how sweet I am, as you extrapolate more and more from my (perhaps careless) use of the word “flimsy”.

I know Tales of Vesperia, a single player game, had xp boasts available to buy on the 360 in 2008.

I would think very few “gamers” would be interested in pooling their resources to run a class action lawsuit against the big publishers to assert their consumer rights, and the consumer right organizations seem equally dis-interested in upholding consumer rights in the digital sphere - probably because gaming is seen as stupid/a joke.

I suppose gamers have even fewer rights/recourse than airline passengers, which are equally fucked whenever an airline decides to scrub a flight.

Maybe we can get that Minecraft shithead to fund a lawsuit.

Also MK11 and it’s always online shtick. Only default costumes if offline apparently.

(I was quoting your use of the word.)