Talk:PunkBuster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Spyware

I was just reading wikipedia's article on spyware, along with the wiktionary definations of it, and punkbuster seems to have a lot of similarities to spyware. I think something should be added about this, if I do add something about this and site sources, don't remove it. --Dryir Lent 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with access rights

What's with the bug/problem of the access rights? Since 2005-03, PB requires (for some games at least) to run the games as admin. This opens the door wide to all kinds of attacks on the players computer, as well as making it impossible to maintain a safe computer setup.

The older workaround was giving these rights to the player:

  • Debug Programs
  • Load and unload device drivers
  • Manage auditing and security log
  • Modify Firmware environment values
  • Profile Single Process

but this workaround doesnt work anymore.


Shouldn't this shortcoming / problem be mentioned here?

You can just start the game with the correct rights, no need to login as admin. If you don't trust the game, don't play it. Everything else can be found on the PB website. wikipedia is no support-website. --84.58.148.46 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Punkbuster is highly unpopular in the gaming community - shouldn't this be addressed? Punkbuster has many faults, the in game autoupdate feature seems to work for very few players, the out of game auto update feature is worse, and the manual updates often fail, too. Quite often the ONLY solution is uninstalling, reinstalling, and hoping. I've known players to be unable to join most servers due to Punkbuster's faults.

I agree, I think that how unpopular PB is should be discussed in the article. SystemOverload

I believe that there should be a section describing how Punkbuster operates. It is always resident, even after you uninstall the program that installed Punkbuster. There is no option even to disable Punkbuster, or no option to remove it from the startup list. Even if you use Task Manager to remove it, it pops up again. I'm disturbed by this behavior, which is similar to malware. Whatever happened to consent? Second, there should be more references to how the community reacts to Punkbuster, whether gamers actually like it or not. Finally, there should be a section on the principles involved here: Does a software company have the right to use your computer as it sees fit to protect its product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskabobbins (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article is in dire need of sources. --Sydius 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the paragraph around that calls cheat writers "skilled players". First, that in itself is blatantly biased. Secondly, I would dispute that there are "companies" that have released "cheat kits". Cheaters getting together and starting an organization where they pass out code or cheats isn't a real company imo. Even if they sell their collection of code, that really doesn't sound like a company. Can we get some sources for that, and/or what the definition of a "company" is in this context? Also, saying that private cheats cannot be detected.... sheer rubbish. I've gone ahead and mutilated the paragraph to be more NPOV. I know I didn't add sources, but at least this is a start.... 64.231.183.199 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to hacks?

I see this article links to the MSX website under the guise of providing "evidence" that PB is flawed. Isn't this simply giving wannabe cheaters what they want? I notice, for example, an article on armed robbery doesn't link to a website that gives tips on being successful. Why should an article on (anti)cheating be different? Granted, it's stupid easy to find hacks, but I don't believe Wikipedia should hand them out on a silver platter. At the risk of starting an edit war, I am removing reference to MSX. Other reasons to remove *this specific reference* include its bias towards MSX and its programmers, as well as the fact that no anti-cheat system is 100% accurate, thus focusing on PB's difficult with stopping MSX is pointless, and criticism should be directed at all PB's other flaws (not that hard to find;)). 24.68.65.244 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don`t agree, at the end it`s just information. many games have sections when they discuss the problems on it, like in graphics, physics engine, accurancy of the information etc. also wikipedia is not censored from bad stuff, and as with porn, the info should stay there--ometzit<col> 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wannabe players

However, some companies have produced cheat kits for wannabe players to be used against PunkBuster

This should probably be rephrased. Debolaz 02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial software

As Evenbalance's PB software is controversial and unpopular with people who hack games I think this article should be approval locked G0ggy 10:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed discussions that were mainly complaints about the workings of the Punkbuster software and not about the article. If this becomes an issue again, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to request protection.--Sus scrofa 14:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DO NOT REMOVE THE TRUTH

Exactly how dare you silly little manipulated peons remove the truth about punkbuster? Hmm?

Just CHECK www.warrock.net forums! Click community, forums, and go to the punkbuster sub-forum. TONS of complaints about unjustly banned people, most of whom have PAID for the game one way or another. People have a right to know this crap is harmful, so DO NOT REMOVE THIS FOR BLOODY HELL'S SAKES:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.54.211 (talk • contribs)

First, please do not use personal attacks when debating. Secondly, the deleted text consisted of long discussions about the PunkBuster software, with no apparent attention of adding anything to the article or sourcing the claims with reliable sources. Forums are not considered reliable sources as forum members are anonymous and they have no accountability (blogs aren't allowed as sources either, so..). Talk pages are not a forums to air miscellaneous grievances, their purpose is to discuss article content. Any flaws in PunkBuster must be reliably sourced, for example from a gaming magazine or somesuch. --Sus scrofa 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Must", my ass. There is no "must". Those forums properly illustrate that games who PAID MONEy to play a game CANNOT play because that crap just throws them off. It gives no reasons, it gives no ban lifts, and you only get an automated "THe ban is right, you lsoe" message after 1-5 days. If you got suckered out of your money that way, wouldn't you feel bad?
You can sue punkbuster you know. They have no right to limit what games you can and cannot play, even if they catch you cheating on one game. You bought the other game, you spent money on it and have claimed intellectual property rights over it when exchanging money for it. Short version : YOu bought it, it's yours, and prematurely, they cannot force you off the game. THEY CANNOT. Laws prohibit that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.54.211 (talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter what I feel about it, unfortunately everyone must cite sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources when adding information to wikipedia articles. Please do not continue talking about PunkBuster unless it concerns the article directly. --Sus scrofa 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Punkbuster never forces you off the game. You don't have to use it, its a choice. You can always just play on servers that don't run PB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn123645 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PB is kicking me from BF2142 for unknown reason so DON'T tell me it's working... I do wan't to play it so why CAN'T I!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.64.195 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeda is not really the best place to get technical support. I would reccommend either going to a community website (such as PBBans.com or Punksbusted.com) or opening a support ticket with Even Balance (www.evenbalance.com).Nn123645 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness section

Something about PB's effectiveness should probably be added. America's Army, for example, uses PB, but it's hacked to hell and back. Jtrainor 02:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism should be added

not everyone likes this garbage, resource-hogging, mediocre software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunkhead2 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's optional. Just don't install it if you dont like it. It's simple. --88.68.182.138 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the anti-punkbuster movement

...should be given some coverage. Yes, the admins and players who intentionally and voluntarily avoid the use of punkbuster because they deem it more evil than cheaters.

Not everyone who is anti-punkbuster is pro-cheat. PB - especially now with its always-running processes - is along the lines of something like Norton Anti Virus as far as being nuisance-ware. Most performance-oriented gamers want nothing to do with programs like this hogging cpu cycles, accessing disk drives, sending screenshots, etc. while our favorite game is running.

How could an anti-cheat system work without accessing processes and memory? The only thing I can think of is for the server to keep track of all game state information and push it to users continuously, which is impossible given bandwidth limitations. Besides, punkbuster's footprint is pretty minimal. Most gaming rigs have excess memory and CPU cycles when playing; the GPU is the bottleneck, which is unaffected by pb. It's not perfect, but it does its job: preventing cheating, which is surely the greater evil. And I know that WP's not a forum, I'm just saying. --Hemisemidemiquaver 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading Sus scrofa's comments above, it looks like the onus is on we anti-pbers to provide valid sources for our information. So, in other words, if you are here to rant about PB, you are probably here a bit too soon. But if you have links to sites discussing "the movement", please share! IDontKnowHowToWorkThis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.217.217 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)