EQ2 Hacks

[Acid1789]

Hi everyone,

Im considering a couple of projects for eq2, but not sure if either is worth my time.

The first is a showeq type application. A map display with entity information etc.

The second would be a clone of the eq2 client. Lower technical requirements than the eq2 client, less memory/cpu overhead as well. It would also have some bot functionality built directly into the client. And maybe some showeq type features.

If I write either or both of these, I would probably release them using a subscription based model. I would need to do this to support servers for some of the features I would like to implement. However, I might release a one time payment or possibly even free version without any of the dynamic support.

What do you guys think?

Acid1789

[m0rbol]

Hi acid,

I think that would be a very cool program indeed, although would likely take a considerable amount of time to code (at least doing so solo).

The main problem I could see with a subscription based model, especially if you live in the US, is that you are facing a possible lawsuit from SOE. Sony doesn't like people undermining their cash cows - especially if they are profiting from it. Although, I will say I have seen the subscription thing work for Lineage 2. The bot, Lin2Rich, appeared to be profitable for the author (Paul Chen) who lives in China, where US lawyars couldn't pursue him easily.

Besides, we would all like you that much more if you released it free!

-m

[Acid1789]

I actually discussed this with my attorney before posting anything about it (mostly about what ideas not to mention). He said that I wouldnt be infringing on sony's territory at all. The client app would only help their sales since you still would have to have an eq2 account. The showeq type application would probably piss them off and the only thing the could really successfully sue me for is loss of revenue. If they could prove that my application was interfering with their revenue stream. Of course Im also making the assumption that Im not using any tradmarked/copyrighted material.

As to the free approach, like you said there is a considerable amount of time involved in either project. Not much incentive to make it free

Acid1789

[Tor K'tal]

I see the point of a lot of effort being required to do it solo. It almost seems like too much for one person to do (as far as the slimmed down client). But with people already paying to play EQ/EQ2/SOE stuff, why would they want to pay more?

What is the potential of SOE stealling your stuff and releasing their own version of it, then even if you were charging they could cut you out (alla EQPlayNice... fact is that feature should have been incorperated into EQ many years earlier along with windowing).

Not saying it's a bad idea, just trying to suggest some more things to think about.

~ TK

[Alethal]

Also you might not be the only one the "SEQ" clone market. With all the work that has already been done on SEQ, it would be a pity to write something from scratch.

It's likely possible to create a SEQ2 without all the work that was made with SEQ by taking some of the former code. Since SEQ is GPL'd, SEQ2 will have to be GPL'd too. I know it's theorically possible to *sell* GPL'd code but I don't see how you could run anything like that in this case. Better count on donations if you want to keep up with the website fees.

As for the BOT, I doubt anyone will take the time to write an open-source version of this.

[a-1]

Acid1789 thanks for taking the time to code, research, share what you've learned and ask for feedback!

In my opinion most of the models used for creation/distribution of such programs are broken and unsafe for the users. There is much room for growth and profit here. The developer(s) have room to profit for their work and the users have room to profit from increased safety/usefullness.

The best model for safety/usefullness was the early version of SEQ. I LOVED SEQ, too bad EQ1 is a shithole of a game. It wasn't rampant enough that Sony cared..it didn't wreck game balance because the few who used it cared more about the use than trying to exploit their way to riches. Unfortunately this didn't last, partially IMO from the coders not being compensated fairly. If you had the skillset enough to set it up then you probably had the personality type that didn't want to pay for it. They kinda go hand-in-hand. It may not be a main motivation, but ya need money to live and no one likes working for free, you start feeling unappreciated.

MySEQ...EQII beta and production have been out a long time. First they had someone run off with their donations, now they accept them but haven't produced a thing. They say they will create and support for many things, EQII and WoW being on the list, but college and other priorities cause months to dissapear with zero to show. Their distribution model will have people getting banned for usage eventually anyhow.

Tault.com, XUnleashed, yadda yadda yadda. Pay subscriptions are great, especially when you have a sharing community that you aren't selective about. How long do these users really think it will be until SOE bans them? As a dev all I need is a subscription to these to keep track of and fix shit that can break my game. If it on this site and can break the game I know it is too widespread already and needs addressed. As far as I am concerned these sites exist solely to weed the script kiddies and people wanting to get into hacking from the rest of the pool AND line the pockets of people not really coding. They code, but not *really*.

There is a market to be had by an appreciative audience then. Hell, keep the pool small and selective and charge $100/copy for all I care for instance. I would gladly pay it. I want something that I don't have to worry about being a big enough splash that SOE will allocate labor to trace/fix it. I want something that the devs will support...I don't WANT to support it because then I would have the code. If I had the code then others that would have the code could post it and I would have to worry about it getting out (like the FH boards had happen).

Nope, charging for it is fine, you deserve it for the effort. Wanna make a 1-off and just support the release for a short time? Sure! Wanna make it a subscription service? Great! I submit that you can be compensated by the same ammount by being selective rather than widespread and just charge more. You help yourself by thereby limiting the ammount of support needed and help the user by it not being as widespread. I still think making it hard to implement is a great way of limiting the sharing, but that requires willingness to support as well.

As far as legality issues, I have researched a proverbial ass-load (hrm, I hope that isn't Freudian) of material on everything from Online (MMORPG) Economies to Sociology studies to Online Gaming Precidents both here and in Korea. This doesn't make me an expert but at least educated...anyway...the only thing I am aware of that would get you in possible legal hassle is making a Item/cash duper. From a simple labor/cash standpoint SOE will take on the several item/cash duping/producing sweatshops before bothering you. Also the auction sites. They will simply always have a bigger impact on the game balance/economy than you will. Other than that you are providing visual or gameplay resources that aren't made for only one (malicious) purpose.

Either way, as a user, if I could believe your app(s) were safe to use (well within reason), I would buy it and love it. Can you tell I'm longwinded? :)

[m0rbol]

As to the free approach, like you said there is a considerable amount of time involved in either project. Not much incentive to make it free

Acid1789

Sure, there isn't much incentive to release it for free if your the only one doing work on it and everyone else is getting the "fruit of your labor." However, that would be the point of releaseing it OS in the first place, getting support from other developers. Reminds me of a quote I heard in my engineering class lecture, "The lone genius is always beat out by the organized chaos of a team." Where in this case, the team would be the developers over at sony who have plenty of resources to thwart against you and change encryption schemes 30 times a day if they please.


Let me ask you something, Acid, how long did it take to reverse engineer the protocol up to what you have now and write the code that was posted in your other thread? I imagine it wasn't an easy task by any means. Seems like an awful lot of code to work on by yourself. Even if you do not release any part of it open source, I'd suggest you have a team of private developers && || reverse engineers. I imagine there are people in these forums along with other related ones (although probably not tault they are a bunch of whining kiddies :P) who'd be willing to join your team.

Oh and as far as the bot code goes, I do *not* recommend you release that code. There are already plenty of 3rd-world country farmers ruining other mmo's as we speak, they don't need a helping hand into this one.

[Freakyuno]

Where in this case, the team would be the developers over at sony who have plenty of resources to thwart against you and change encryption schemes 30 times a day if they please.

Having to wade through epic proportions of speculation in this thread, makes this quote that much more refreshing.

At least 1 person see's it for what it is. You want to charge for something that ultimatly you have no control over.

If you want a good business model, give away your product in the spirit of all that is Linux, sell your support.

[Acid1789]

Having to wade through epic proportions of speculation in this thread, makes this quote that much more refreshing.

At least 1 person see's it for what it is. You want to charge for something that ultimatly you have no control over.

If you want a good business model, give away your product in the spirit of all that is Linux, sell your support.

First of all, I wouldnt be charging for something that i didnt have control over. I would be charging to ensure that I did have control. My approaches are not dependant on unstable flaws in sony's code. They do however require maintainance to keep up with sony changes. By charging for my software, I can either afford to support it myself, or I can hire people to do the work.

As for your remark about linux being a good business model, you need to go to business school. Free does not make money. And I could care less about the spirit of linux, I most likely wouldnt even support linux (unless a large number of customers wanted a linux version).

Acid1789

[int 21h]

It seems for the most part a SEQ2 wouldn't really even provide that much of an advantage. Take for instance, question mark spawns, like resource node spawns, they're based upon LOS, but their activate radius is very very small, i.e. someone, either you or someone else has to walk near them before they even come up.

But even dismissing the usability aspect of it, if you think this is legal, or that you have any legal foot to stand on, you're completely mistaken.

First, the encryption of the Sony packets: Under the DMCA, it is illegal to reverse engineer (which you have already done to obtain the RC4 key) any encryption on a digital device.

Secondly, under the EULA for EQ2, Sony specifically prohibits the interfacing behavior you're concocting. In Blizzard vs. BnetD, it was found that EULAs are binding enough to waive FairUse rights in a product.

Finally, this is an entirely different studio than the EQ1 guys, so any assumptions in the past of what was koshure based on SEQ are out the window. They aren't going to stand idly by and let you do this, especially once you try to develop a business model around it.

I'm all for exploring things and tinkering (as evidenced by my interest in the packet sniffer), but I'm certainly not in favor of what you're suggesting, and I hardly think SOE will be either.

Also, your comments about business school are humorous at best. Check out IBM's business model, they give out free software, and they rake in billions in consulting solutions that utilize that free software.

[Spaz]

This thread is funny.

int 21h is pretty much right on.

I'm thinking your attorney doesn't work with intellectual property much. There are many law firms that do and they're not hard to find.

One area you might make money from: Go forward with your project and when SOE sues you and shuts you down, turn around and sue your attorney for malpractice/malfeasance.

[a-1]

int 21h and Spaz are way off base. There have been both International and now national precidents set ruling for the end user in gaming suits. Sony was afraid of this and that is WHY they didn't persue it in EQ1. Both of you are speaking from assumption. Please point out the last time a suit was in the developers favor in an MMORPG. They freakin settle at the drop of a hat. The first time Sony tried scared the shit out of them. You can NOT sign away any of your rights just because a EULA is written really scary.

Almost every suit brought by an MMORPG to court has LOST. From NCSOFT suing that Korean kid in their game RED MOON, then getting countersued and LOSING badly, to VERANT/SONY suing Playerauctions (suit lasted over a year) and LOSING...they just don't have the rights they try to convince you. They state they do and get proved wrong again and again. What they do have control over is banning you. Making a program that mods their game is no more illegal than someone making a plugin mod for Counterstrike or something.

YOU AREN'T DOING ANYTHING TO THEIR SERVERS. Nor are you spying on the traffic they are sending to a different user. So no law broken. As far as the courts have said so far, if they send it to you as a SERVICE then they are setting themselves up for it for, you see, THEY CONTROL the model they use, not us. They don't like the rules they set in game, they can code arround them or change them. All of this is up to them...but they are all self imposed.

Now go ahead, argue that you are smarter, argue that you "know the law", but until I see a precident, forget ever convincing me. I play by the rules of reality, not conjecture.

And Mr. Linux model lover, I love the development advancement that model provides. What it does not provide is a stable product without someone doing a lot of management. It also doesn't provide security for the users. Open source means copied and modded everywhere, which in turn means EVERYONE has/uses it and Sony guards against if faster/at all...why? Because SO many users having it disturbs game balance.

[a-1]

Also, not that this thread should be derailed to this but since it has been incorrectly applied...Blizzard v. BNETD does NOT apply to this situation for many arguable reasons.

I assume the precident you are referring to in that suit being won was the clause:

"The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement. Parties may waive their statutory rights under law in a contract."

The summary judgement also states "As it stands, the lower court's decision makes it unlawful in most cases to reverse engineer any commercial software program, thus making it impossible to create new programs that interoperate with older ones." and is still under appeal. However, we are talking a mod, not the whole program.

1st of all, this is over an emulator where they "stoled" the devs intellectual property and reformed the whole damn thing and marketed it for free. Not a mod interface or mod for the original software, but a whole emulator.

2nd, it was software that you had to sign their EULA to get the download the software, in that EULA was the reverse engineering clause that only applied BECAUSE they ripped the WHOLE GAME. It is a valid argument that you can reverse engineer parts needed of EQ2 without ever signing the EULA (even if it applied the same).


As for usablility then great, don't use it. Peronally I would find it handy. Tracking range bubble is 1000m I think in EQ2 which means it would show stuff that a range can track for pretty far away. Your bubble shows things WAY before your max LOS will show it onscreen. Tracking is not near the only use for such mods though.

[int 21h]

The second would be a clone of the eq2 client. Lower technical requirements than the eq2 client, less memory/cpu overhead as well. It would also have some bot functionality built directly into the client. And maybe some showeq type features.

Hrm, that sure sounds like an entire program to me. In fact, it even sounds like an 'emulator' of the interface that players currently use to connect to the Sony Servers.

This is exactly the same thing as the Blizzard vs. BnetD case, except reversed, now the development being pursued is the client instead of the server.

You have to start the client to listen to packets. You have to agree to the EULA to start the client. Maybe I am taking things too fast here for you...

Its foolhardy to think any US based enterprise attempting this sort of arrangement would have any legal footing to stand on. The DMCA clearly states that breaking any encryption is illegal, no matter if the encryption is a simple cipher (like CSS) or a strong encryption like RC4. There current legal environment in the US is very strongly favoring content owners.

But, hey, don't take my word for it, drop an email to the EFF and see what they say

[Acid1789]

Hrm, that sure sounds like an entire program to me. In fact, it even sounds like an 'emulator' of the interface that players currently use to connect to the Sony Servers.

This is exactly the same thing as the Blizzard vs. BnetD case, except reversed, now the development being pursued is the client instead of the server.

a-1 is right. It is not anything like the Blizzard vs BnetD case. BnetD is a server emulator, designed to take money away from Blizzard. A client clone (not emulator) would not hinder sony's revenue stream, infact it would most likely bolster it.

As for your remarks about reverse engineering being against the EULA, yes it is. Everything is against their EULA if you look at it close enough. Bottom line, they can ban you from their game for any reason they want. Thats not really the issue though. An EULA is not grounds for winning a lawsuit against a company selling tools or modifications to your program. They would need more than just an EULA to win a case against a client. It would be much easier for them to make development of the client much harder than it would be to beat it in court.

However it could be argued that a non sony client could be considered unauthorized access. In which case, anyone using it could possibly face prison time. That is a very grey area though, its not really much different from your laptop connecting to an open wireless network as you drive by. It remains to be seen what the courts actually do about accessing open networks. It could also be argued that eq2 servers are open to the public using the connection method the eq2 client uses. Basicly, if sony said that another client was accessing their servers illegally, it would be up to a judge to decide if there was a difference between the two clients and their access to the server.

Realisticly, If Sony sees it as a problem, the will approach me about it before filing suit. Either asking me to change things about it they dont like, or to stop its support/production completely. If I were to refuse this, then they would file suit.

A separate client that requires its users to still pay sony their subscription fee, I dont see them having a problem with. The things I do see them having a problem with are cheat like features or possible support issues on their end. This would be very similar to the linux client for UO. A separate unofficial 3rd party client.

So far, I am very pleased with this thread. There have been alot of good points made

Acid1789