PDA

View Full Version : The %n Exploit's Effect on Illegal CS-S Copies


Pages : [1] 2

jAkUp
10-21-04, 05:14 PM
Recently Valve just updated so that any legit users (paid copies) won't get the exploit, however, people with Warezed copy's are still vulnerable.

Cracked version doesn't have %n name fix update. So change name to %n and type kill in console - all hacked players now timeout - you see them hanging in the air!!

Maybe that will teach all the warezer's :lol2:

DivotMaker
10-21-04, 05:15 PM
Good for VALVE...screw the pirates...

theultimo
10-21-04, 05:23 PM
YAY! finally a cheat to use on the people who should buy it! :)

Ninjaman09
10-21-04, 06:09 PM
Damn!! That is AWESOME! Where'd you read that?

Kavvv
10-21-04, 10:51 PM
Recently Valve just updated so that any legit users (paid copies) won't get the exploit, however, people with Warezed copy's are still vulnerable.



Maybe that will teach all the warezer's :lol2:

lol like thats gonna stop em
there is alrdy a new patch to allow pirates to play on steam
WHat makes u think there wont be one fixing that bug?

XP_GUN
10-21-04, 11:13 PM
Thats great. :ORDER:

Holy Smoke
10-21-04, 11:18 PM
If implemented correctly, including secret exploits would be one hell of a piracy-prevention method.

GlowStick
10-22-04, 01:45 AM
Have no fear, a Warez patch has is out to fix the little problme : )

majortom
10-22-04, 06:30 AM
Good for VALVE...screw the pirates...

arrrrggg, shiver me timbers... erm, i mean, yeah, screw them.

nVidi0t
10-25-04, 05:25 AM
Too bad it will be bypassed in a matter of days..

Ninjaman09
10-25-04, 08:15 AM
Plus if you do this on servers, you get kicked for supposedly attempting to crash the server before you can explain yourself. Heh.

Gaco
10-25-04, 02:27 PM
I never experienced that :D

I have been playing in a couple of days now with the name "%n Gaco" and everytime I join a server, 70% of the people have timeouts and leaves after a minutte... Its sad that so few people actually purchased this game, but It's pretty damn fun just to "clean" the all the servers of warez players. I call upon all other legal CSS players in here to do that same ;)

Phoking
10-25-04, 08:51 PM
I never experienced that :D

I have been playing in a couple of days now with the name "%n Gaco" and everytime I join a server, 70% of the people have timeouts and leaves after a minutte... Its sad that so few people actually purchased this game, but It's pretty damn fun just to "clean" the all the servers of warez players. I call upon all other legal CSS players in here to do that same ;)

Just exactly how r these hacked versons gettin on the servers? Don't they need to have valid cd keys to connect to servers? And if they did have valid cd keys, why don't they just download the legal version off of steam..

six_storm
10-25-04, 09:44 PM
I was playing earlier today (waiting for GTA:SA) and I tried the "kill" command. A 10 vs 10 game easily became a 1 vs 1 in a matter of a minute. Stupid warez peeps.

Edge
10-26-04, 01:56 AM
Question: why would you crash out people when it means you'll have less people to play with and servers will be less populated? I mean really, if this exploit is still causing 90% of the people to crash on a server...isn't that not much better than what it did before? Granted, they're using the pirated version of it, but this still seems to be doing more harm than good. Plus from the sound of it quite a few legal owners are using the cracked version since without Steam running it gives you around 20% better performance (going from what people said on the forums, though most of them have probably gone back to the regular version of it by now to avoid the crashes, even if it does mean worse performance for them). Personally, I don't have enough interest in CS:S to neither pirate it nor buy a Steam package (I'll probably try it when I've beaten Half-life 2), but if I was on a 20 person server and someone crashed out 18 of the people, I'd be pretty damn annoyed regardless of whether or not the other people were pirates or not.

Gaco
10-26-04, 12:54 PM
Its only in the worse-case scenarios that 90% of the people are kicked. Mostly, its about 50-60% average, but the server soon becomes at least 75% full of (legal) players again. I have no problem in crashing pirates, they simply don't deserve to play that game, and while this may sound a little silly, I find the legal players to be generally more mature and less aggressive in terms of behavior ;)

mezkal
10-26-04, 01:35 PM
Question: why would you crash out people when it means you'll have less people to play with and servers will be less populated? I mean really, if this exploit is still causing 90% of the people to crash on a server...isn't that not much better than what it did before? Granted, they're using the pirated version of it, but this still seems to be doing more harm than good. Plus from the sound of it quite a few legal owners are using the cracked version since without Steam running it gives you around 20% better performance (going from what people said on the forums, though most of them have probably gone back to the regular version of it by now to avoid the crashes, even if it does mean worse performance for them). Personally, I don't have enough interest in CS:S to neither pirate it nor buy a Steam package (I'll probably try it when I've beaten Half-life 2), but if I was on a 20 person server and someone crashed out 18 of the people, I'd be pretty damn annoyed regardless of whether or not the other people were pirates or not.

All of which goes to prove that you are using a Cracked version or are really unaware of what is going on in game, as what you describe is exactly the OPPOSITE to how REGISTERED players react. I have played for almost 2 weeks straight, every day at least 5-10 hours (I get INTO games intensely at the start) and every registered player has laughed along with me and changed thier names to %n derivatives to...so far my latest name is "%n 0 Half Life 2 is NOT out yet". Maybe the posters who use the cracked version are talking about smaller overhead with "SteamEngine" (crackers tool that emulates steam client access and parses steam xml) vs the retail Steam client. That however, would only be true in cases where the client machine is underpowered (CPU, RAM, HDD over paging etc.. not VGA) and thus all of the steam disk, RAM and CPU overhead could be overcome. That said I wouldn't touch it online as you never know what "else" nefarious persons who were along in the process or the hackers themselves put in (not that I accuse the hackers of anything else other than what they plainly have admitted in various supplied NFOs. I'd imagine that at least a portion of the Warezed Client machines will have already been probed and attacked. It is always the way with warez and noobs. Now I know you are an experienced PC user EDGE (cool name btw, my fave gaming ney PUBLICATION of ALL TIME) so I'm not directing the noob epitath to you just in general.

Personally I feel that those who haven't payed shouldn't play. This isn't a SP situation we are talking about. It is one where various HOSTING and TRANSMISSION costs are involved. You'll note that servers (and game data) are hosted and/or mirrored by local ISPs in your area (hence the "CONTENT BY..." banner while some servers load or games update. People who use the pirated version are robbing some of these ISP's of thier income as they serve theives while potentially making thier paying customers wait.

Until Valve finds a more permanent and effective solution, I'm %n ing all the way. Stuff the pirates.

wickfut
10-26-04, 01:58 PM
I find it really funny how alot of the legit version owners are looking down on the pirated version owners.
the argument being "the software companies are losing money from the sale of the game" - when in effect alot of these people are overclocking the hardware they are running it on, basically doing the same to the hardware companies.

If i have a pirated copy of a game then i am reducing the revenue to the software developer by how much ? (say 25 - 30 online shop price , developer actually loses about 5-10?) - if you have a GT and overclock it to 400/1100 then you are reducing nvidia's revenue by far more. (GT average uk price is 300 , Ultra avarage uk price 400 , nvidia/oem lose about 60?)

so before you get your "internet police squad" hat on and start calling on people, think about your own little "legal" piracy that you do each day you turn on the pc.

Ninjaman09
10-26-04, 02:40 PM
- when in effect alot of these people are overclocking the hardware they are running it on, basically doing the same to the hardware companies.
You sure you want to make that argument? It's so fallacious we could tear it to pieces in one or two posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you take it back. :retard:

If i have a pirated copy of a game then i am reducing the revenue to the software developer by how much ? (say 25 - 30 online shop price , developer actually loses about 5-10?) - if you have a GT and overclock it to 400/1100 then you are reducing nvidia's revenue by far more.
Ignoring the ridiculously stupid comment about the overclocked GT, it isn't just one person pirating the game. It's thousands. Let's assume a conservative estimate and say 5000 people are playing a pirated copy of CS:S (and I do mean conservative, look at the seed/dl numbers on suprnova). At $50 dollars MINIMUM, that's $250,000 in lost revenue. Don't think that's a lot of money, do you?

Trying to defend software piracy is retarded. If you do it, that's your deal - but trying to legitimize it is just plain dumb.

vampireuk
10-26-04, 03:00 PM
He is a scouser, they nick everything

Edge
10-26-04, 03:06 PM
Well as I've said I haven't bothered trying CS:S at all (I considered pirating it...but then I realised that I don't even like CS that much and that I'd be able to play it legally in under a month anyway), so I'm not entirely sure how the whole "scene" is for the game. But I'm just pointing out that crashing players out of servers, even those who get the game illigitimately, still affect the server as a whole. I know if I was playing Natural Selection and someone came on and crashed out half my team (especially the commander), I would sure as hell be more angry at the person who crashed them than the people who play the game without paying, even though I bought the game and they didn't. In the case of CS:S, what's even worse is when people who don't buy the Steam packages but are still buying HL2 when it's released (or especially those who have it preordered), since they'll have put as much money into the game as you but either can't or don't want to have to mess with downloading 2+ gigs (bandwidth limits, dial-up users, etc.). I think if anything Valve/Vivendi should've made CS:S a preorder bonus to those that put $10 down on HL2 in retail (hey, Vampire gives you a shirt, why can't HL2 give you CS:S?). I mean really, the game's ONLY multiplayer is a port of a 5 year old HL1 mod, they could at LEAST make it availible to everyone who's puchasing the game at the same time rather than release it early to those who have the bandwidth to download it.

As far as Wicknut's point about overclocking videocards also costing companies money, I *kinda* understand what he's saying, though he didn't say it very well and it's an entirely different scenario. But, how many people bought 9500 cards and flashed them to 9700 specs, when they otherwise would've gotten a 9700 card at twice the price but didn't because they could use a hack on the cheaper card? Especially when those mid-range cards are being sold at-or-below cost, which in the end means people who would normally be giving money to the company are effectively taking it away from them (since without those soft-mods not nearly as many of the low-end cards would be sold). However, in the case of hardware it's usually the company's own fault for being inefficient, why let those extra 4 pipes go to waste when they're on the card anyway? I certainly don't lose any sleep from overclocking or soft-modding my videocard, and I doubt anyone else does either.

wickfut
10-26-04, 03:16 PM
so what you are saying is that buying a 300 graphics card and forcing it to run at the same spec as a 400 graphics card isnt taking money away from the graphics card companies?

how many people out there do you think would have purchased an X800XT if the vivo 800pro couldnt be flashed? same for the GT , if people couldnt overclock to ultra levels im sure alot more ultras would have been sold.

You sure you want to make that argument? It's so fallacious we could tear it to pieces in one or two posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you take it back.

go for it then ? you have 1 post left :)

Ignoring the ridiculously stupid comment about the overclocked GT, it isn't just one person pirating the game. It's thousands. Let's assume a conservative estimate and say 5000 people are playing a pirated copy of CS:S (and I do mean conservative, look at the seed/dl numbers on suprnova). At $50 dollars MINIMUM, that's $250,000 in lost revenue. Don't think that's a lot of money, do you?

yeah it is a lot of money - but then when you take away the shop fee's , the artwork royalties , distribution fee's , packaging fee's etc etc the actual creator of the software does not get close to $250 000

now look at it another way - you have 1000 GTs purchased , 250 get overclocked to ultra speeds , thats 25 000 loss , what makes one loss ok while another loss not ok?

im not defending software piracy at all ,im laughing at the attitude that its ok to take money away from one company but not ok to take money away from another company

He is a scouser, they nick everything

yeah yeah ;)

Gaco
10-26-04, 03:32 PM
I find it really funny how alot of the legit version owners are looking down on the pirated version owners.
the argument being "the software companies are losing money from the sale of the game" - when in effect alot of these people are overclocking the hardware they are running it on, basically doing the same to the hardware companies.

If i have a pirated copy of a game then i am reducing the revenue to the software developer by how much ? (say 25 - 30 online shop price , developer actually loses about 5-10?) - if you have a GT and overclock it to 400/1100 then you are reducing nvidia's revenue by far more. (GT average uk price is 300 , Ultra avarage uk price 400 , nvidia/oem lose about 60?)

so before you get your "internet police squad" hat on and start calling on people, think about your own little "legal" piracy that you do each day you turn on the pc.


Lol, that OC argument gotta be the worst and most laughable in recent history! People are making their purchased hardware running faster, at their own risk. Let's give some examples of what this mentality means: If some private person made a custom driver, that gives +30% more performance than Nvidia's official ForceWare driver, it would be unfair to the company to download and use those drivers.
If I go out and bye a new MX510 mouse, then finds out that if I open it and tweak it a little, it can perform much better, but it would be unfair to Logitech.
I go out and buy a new Farrai ("dream on, Gaco", yeah I know ;)), and finds a way to tweak the engine so that its more efficient, uses less gas and drives faster, that would be unfair to Farrai.
I could go on giving expamples that demonstrate this total bull**** thinking, but I think you've got the point. A customer has every right to custom build/design/tweak/totally destroy his purchase products "even" if it means that he won't buy the poor company's next line of product.

OC is NOT illegal, not by laws and not by morale. Nvidia has never said, that they don't wanted people to OC, and if what right do they have do to so? If I have already paid for their product, why shouldn't I be able to do what the hell I want with it?
But downloading and playing games that I haven't paid for, now THAT harms the company/developer, especially with steam (read what mezkal said).

And if Nvidia didn't want people to buy 6800GT's and OC them to ultra clock speeds, they could just have made the Ultra so much faster than the GT, that it actually would make sense to buy it. In any case, why does Nvidia allow companies like BFG Tech to sell their cards OC'ed by default, and only selling them slightly more expensive? That alone makes your argument pretty invalid...

Witfuk, either you are joking and I failed to detect your sense of humor (:retard: :) in this case, or you simply didn't think logically before posting :rolleyes: :p

Edge
10-26-04, 03:44 PM
I don't think he ever implied that making hardware you already own faster is hurting sales. I think he was saying that purchasing hardware based on the fact that you can modify it to make it perform like a higher-priced piece of equipment is affecting sales of the more expensive component.

Ninjaman09
10-26-04, 03:57 PM
No, Edge, he likened overclocking to theft. That's what he meant:
I find it really funny how alot of the legit version owners are looking down on the pirated version owners.
the argument being "the software companies are losing money from the sale of the game" - when in effect alot of these people are overclocking the hardware they are running it on, basically doing the same to the hardware companies.

wickfut, I would reply but Gaco summed up my feelings on this pretty well. Overclocking is not illegal, like stealing is. It voids warrantees and can damage your parts, but you still paid for your hardware. What you do with it is up to you. Saying that people will not buy X800 XTs because they can get VIVOs is absolutely retarded - back that up with a single sales figure. I gaurantee you can't. You can't just make claims and assumptions that are completely made up. Well, you can, but you're a retard if you do.

yeah it is a lot of money - but then when you take away the shop fee's , the artwork royalties , distribution fee's , packaging fee's etc etc the actual creator of the software does not get close to $250 000
Wrong again. The only legal way to play Counter-Strike:Source as of this post is by buying Half-Life 2 through Steam. All of the money goes straight to Valve, and after paying for their servers and salaries, they still get a TON more than they would through their publisher, and even if it WAS through their publisher, $250,000 in revenue is still $250,000 in revenue, no matter the operating cost. It's basic economics. They have to cover their costs AND make money. So $250,000 in lost revenue is $250,000 more in costs they have to cover. They lose the money either way.

Got any other gems?