"derivative products, are the property of the United States Army. When you tamper with the game, not only are you breaking the EULA you’re misusing Army property – and, worse, you’re misusing US Army computer programs and equipment. "
ROFLMAO!! Whoever wrote that stuff needs to get a life, I mean seriously. Some points I would like to make
1. Reguarding the EULA. NOBODY reads these things. If you disagree with them, you aren't supposed to install and play the product. Therefore the cheat creators are not doing anything wrong because they did not agree to the EULA. If someone is actively using a cheat they created for their own use, then yes they are not meeting the terms of the EULA. In such a case the person is no longer entitled to use the software, but then if they disagreed with the EULA in the first place they were not entitled to be using it anyway.
2/ Nobody has ever agreed with everything in a EULA, and because of this nobody should be using any software. That is because all EULA's remove responsibility for any damage or losses which the software may cause to a users system. I seriously doubt that anyone is in agreement with this, because to find out whether a software is going to have such effect requires agreeing to the terms of the EULA. Perhaps the worst example of this happening in the real world was the Sony Demo Disc which wiped peoples memory cards, although Sony did give those users free games as compensation - although if you have ever tried to unlock everything in a game such as the WWE games there is NO compensation.
3. In my country I believe you have to be 18 or over to be bound by the terms of a contract, and that is what the EULA is, it's a CONTRACT it is not WORD OF LAW except in such cases where the terms are reflective of copyright laws of the end users country of residence. Therefore any persons under the age of 18 can modify or disassemble code for the purposes of cheat creation as such persons are not bound by the terms of the EULA contract.
4. If misuse of US Army equipment is a bad thing , then someone needs to tell that to every president post 1975 (my birth year). I have seen the movie Black Hawk Down, and I noticed that the guys in the air are relaying information to the guys on the ground. I fail to see the distinction between that and something such as a wallhack which can provide valuable tactical data.
Okay, now from a competitive point of view I do not appreciate persons using cheats in online multiplayer games. I just disagree with the notion that cheating somehow violates the law or the EULA.
If all First Person Shooters included a built in wallhack that was available to all players it would even the playfield dramatically. That's the solution I would like to see, although my first preference will always be for anti-cheat software that actually WORKS.
The big problem with current software is that they detect known cheat softwares. I believe that Cheating Deaths solution was to remove things that make cheating possible, like for example drawing players behind you that you do not have line of sight to. That's a great way of doing it, but the problem with that method is that if ANY part of the opposing player was exposed you would be able to see past whatever object they were behind.
The only fool proof system is that which involves monitoring by humans. One such example would be a voting system whereby everytime a player thought that another had BS'ed them a vote would be cast. If enough votes were cast by all players then the suspected player would be given a temporary ban. If over time a player accumulates enough of these temp bans, a permanent ban would be enforced.
But perhaps the major stumbling block in cheat prevention is the use of CD-KEY's. CD-KEY's ensure that only one person with that key can play at that time. They can also be used for banning. The problem with using CD-KEY's is that software can be repurchased and mayhem will ensue.
The only foolproof way of determining who the player is, besides sending a forensic sample over the net, would be to combine hardware identification along with a digital fingerprint of the users windows and software installation. Using this method a user would have to seriously alter their installed software configuration and replace hardware items to fool the system, a solution too costly and inconvenient to justify the cheating.