Talk:PunkBuster

GUID
From a support ticket I opened on http://www.evenbalance.com/. Might be able to cite this somehow for the part about what the GUID is based on: 12/30/2008 19:56:51 - Adam Dunahoe - No, your GUID is based from your CDKey, it is not related to your computer. --Kibblesnbits (talk)

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)

I just read, and for my opinion as i accidentaly found software that i have never agreed to or normaly informed about that is scanning my memory, Punk Buster is a virus rather than a LEGAL software. It acts like spyware and installs like virus. This wikipedia article doesn't say anything about the fact that it's doing "wierd" stuff, or things that is not ment to be in non-virus/trojan/spy software. RSXLV (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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: but this workaround doesnt work anymore.
 * Debug Programs
 * Load and unload device drivers
 * Manage auditing and security log
 * Modify Firmware environment values
 * Profile Single Process

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)

FYI : I deleted, closed, and removed it finally with regedit, not hard to find how. But if you still have any of games, IDK about results, anti-virus should detect ths kind of software. RSXLV (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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&lt;col&gt; 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * Let's be clear, it's unpopular with people who don't hack games too. Personally, I think giving a random internet admin the ability to screenshot your computer and get MD5 hashes of your files is very invasive. Their privacy policy is a joke. Why isn't there a controversies section? PR Whitewash? 86.188.68.55 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2016 (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, Requests for page protection is the place to request protection.--Sus scrofa 14:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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 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 "GGC Stream", PBBans.com or Punksbusted.com) or opening a support ticket with Even Balance (www.evenbalance.com).Nn123645 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could get a video proving i'm not hacking and still getting kicked, I could also provide you with a video showing how ineffective it is agaisnt actual hacks. It's pretty much the same as Norton Antivirus. --77.222.173.83 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

You are so right and some so wrong. When pbbans.com goes down or tells you to file a ticket at evenbalance.com how are you to get an appeal? I recently went through this process and it left me having no way to appeal. PBBANS.com is who banned me, after playing the battlefield games for 4 yeas, this is the only ban I have had. So I found it at pbbans.com and was trying to appeal, the site said I had to go to even balance and appeal. Evenbalance.com said I had to appeal at pbbans.com. Now what am I to do? I'm left with a game I can only play on CERTAIN servers. Because neither site will do the appeal process.

They do ban people who are not cheating, or I would not be here. There is NO way for me to appeal this and I am left out in the cold man. So my 45.00 has gone to waste! All of my hard work playing has gone to waste now also. I mean, what good is EARNING all my unlocks and rank if I can't use them? This is not an effective way to control cheating when there is software you can buy to cheat with. I know I searched it out after this ban crap. I know for a fact that the ban appeal process is terribly flawed along with pbbans.com attitude towards the end user of a game. They MUST be in this for the advertising cash, instead of looking out for the gamer as they say. Otherwise this would be a moot point wouldn't it?

Mr Zorg! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZorg (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your experience does not qualify as a reliable source in the Wikipedian sense. A "reliable source" would be an article in a gaming journal, for example. I personally don't doubt your account at all, it is just that everything that is written on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and us lowly wikiuser don't cut it. --Sus scrofa (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This part of the article talks about effectiveness of punkbuster. It's plain to see that it does not work to any GREAT extent. There are flaws in the punkbuster system that will allow a ban to be initiated by a non-evenbalance person. This being said, there are enough complaints, to warrent the effectiveness of the system. When there is no way to tell what the violation is or was per say, how effective can it really be, there must be a way to check the violation called by the software or client. Without this in place, gamers are at the mercy of anyone who can create a screenshot, and forge someone's id into the picture, then simply turn it in and that person is now banned. When third party persons, such as found at many sites like pbbans.com can do this also, isn't it defeating the original foundation of punkbuster? So this clearly indicates a serious flaw in a persons rights to use the software as described by the manufactor. Punkbuster was a great concept, but it has strayed from the original concept to allow third party bans, and not actually catching someone cheating. Once that line was crossed it became a moot point to try and stop cheating, and more on the lines of controlling who may use the software they purchased. in a normal way intended by the developers of said software. MrZorg (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)MrZorg

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)
 * if you want to play online, is as optional as breathing to stay alive

YOU DON'T GET IT! THERE. ARE. NO. NON-PUNKBUSTER. SERVERS. AT ALL. ANYWHERE. Just check cod4. And the two or three that appear sporadicly on some games have almost no players on them.

Fundamentally, I just don't understand how this software could possibly work anymore in this day and age. And a client-end solution is a 1980s idea. The servers on MP systems need to be designed more cunningly to defeat cheating, there have been some good technical discussions about this. As far as I and my colleagues can tell, there is no way PB could reliably work, it's an 'on faith' system.

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.


 * I'm anti-punkbuster, and anti-hacker. But at the end of the day, I'll take hackers over punkbuster for these reasons... 1. Punkbuster often disrupts the ability of legitimate players to play a game they pay for. 2. Live admin will always do a better job at preventing cheating than any software of this sort. 3. You can ban hackers. It's hard to prevent damage by fault automated software. 67.193.104.129 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

go on ANY Battlefield games forums, and youll eee people pissed about how Pb dosent let real players have fun, andkeeps the hackers in and even PROTECTED Dice itself is tryign to handle it because PB isint doing a god damn thing, the Anti PB movment is still small, but trust me, if they dont clean up there piss poor act soon they wont have to many games using there services —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.93.171 (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oolong here, fresh from the Battlefield: Heroes (Yes, another Battlefield game) PTE (Public Test Environment). Mostly because Punkbuster has gone apeshit, the PTE altogether lacks players. We can't play for more than half a minute, legit player or not. And when it isn't going apeshit, the PTE is full of hackers. Then again... I, for one, cannot possibly think of a more sure-fire way to prevent hacking altogether than banning EVERYONE. Such a useful anticheat program! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

NETCODERS
The paragraph about netcoders suggests that they obtained control of the punkbuster server and added the 'rifle aim prediction' violation. This is false. The 'rifle aim prediction' thing was already there. All netcoders did is spread the phrase around to cause the mass banning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.101.225 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Incompatibilities
Wine! Sadly PunkBuster doesn't work with Wine! That should be mentioned... --88.192.122.234 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this still the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.151.68 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Counter-Strike beta & 1.x
I guess inclusion of the Counter-Strike related hacks that PB had so much hassle from.. which caused PB to stop work on CS. Proof: PunkBuster at web archive

PB started in 2000 solely for Counter-Strike / Half-Life. It wasn't until Spring 2002 when they announced they stopped support for HL/CS and they went on to support Quake 3, etc.

Quote from their news:
 * Monday 2.18.2002 [1:00PM]
 * We will soon begin phasing out support for the old PunkBuster for Half-Life (and Counter-Strike) to better focus on our current efforts. Since we suspended development back in August of last year, several new Anti-Cheat tools have sprung up for Half-Life in an effort to deal with cheating and some of them conflict with PunkBuster and cause false violations. Additionally, the old Tag Registry will soon be replaced with a premium Name Registry service where not only Clans and Guilds can register tags for their members, but individual players will also be able register their playing names. This subscription service will be for players and groups who desire to have an "Online Identity" verification system in place. There will be built-in universal support for multiple Clans / Guilds who use the same tag. More information on this topic will be released soon.

Also, in 2001/02 PB developed the PBC client primary video memory snapshots.. Andwan0 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Class Action Lawsuit
Due to the law-breaking practices Punkbuster has used to wrongfully ban "cheaters" with faulty spyware - aka itself - there will be an upcoming lawsuit started by *thousands* of people who have wrongfully been banned, never told why - essentially wasting money. Worse yet, their ILLEGAL "Hardware bans" have made it so you cannot play on any OTHER rightfully owned game - and most are pb protected servers, meaning you lost the "right" to play online because of a faulty, illegal, crappy piece of software that was also wrong. Damages are in the millions, as gamers often lost seven to eleven pb protected game "rights" because of a wrongful Hardware ID ban. Join the fun - ask around, get your share of money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.147.69.138 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is an update on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.211.156 (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Performance in Crysis/Crysis Wars
Why is there no mention of the fact that PB in these games causes heavy lag, more server crashes (although it's improved since the last maintenance update), kicks people randomly and detects almost nothing? Take this as an example:. Click the Crysis Wars hack link on the right-hand side. NONE of this is detected by PB, and there are many more examples of this. Plus, there have been almost no updates, and the ones players were given were all maintenance rather than detection updates. 87.194.249.80 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything on Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. Blogs don't cut it I'm afraid.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd party associations like punkbuster really tick off many in general, and I like to avoid them whenever possible >>> it allows the game developer to sidestep responsibility for preventing hacking, yet doesnt actually stop it since a cheater/hacker will just buy another copy of the game. Tangent: Its a total scam because its in both Activision's (for example) and Punkbuster's best interests to allow for hacks, catch people, have them buy more copies of the games, yet not fix the underlying problem (if that happened, Punkbuster wouldnt need to exist, and then Activision wouldnt sell multiple games to those who get caught, in fact, its in both of their best interests for hacks like artificial aiming radar and chams to get more exposure and use). The downside for gamers is that as long as it is beneficial for PB to exist, hackers will exist (no criminals = no need for police) anyways... and hackers will simply hack their registry, get a new game copy, etc. So the cheating still goes on. Heck, I wouldnt be shocked if Activision itself 'leaked' code to the guys who make all those hacks to keep that market going. The other downside is that PB kills a game, and often for hardware glitches. Heck, you can hack & rewrite FRAPS itself to make fake screenshots of people to send in to PB to get someone you dont like banned. The only recourse that a consumer has to this is to try to get the PB ban lifted (yeah right, I hear its impossible... they dont even read appeals). The other logical recourse would be to demand one's money back... but from who? Activision isnt responsible for the 'ban' since Punkbuster is a 3rd & seperate party. PB isnt the company that sold you the game either... their software was merely 'included' with the game, and 'optional' at that they will claim. Long story short though, PB should be shut down (I hope those lawsuits stick, as legally, they should and their UA should be argued as fraudulent). If a PB ban from one game can result in PB bans across other game titles (perhaps games 'yet to be purchased' or 'after one realizes the error of their ways') then thats a huge class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.33.119 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is obviously a lot of discontent with PunkBuster out there. I find it puzzling that none of this seems to register among gaming journalists, who would count as reliable sources in Wikipedia's sense.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of suggesting it, but if documented issues and widespread criticisms are being ignored by 'reliable sources' then they're hardly reliable, which may be grounds for WP:IAR in order to 'assume' an encyclopaedically unreliable source is in fact reliable. Let's not forget that the entire dispute is chiefly founded on gamers' opinions after all, and therefore popular gaming forums are de facto reliable sources. --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rework article
Because right now, the article is nothing but an ad for evenbalance inc. It contains no critism, negative points are deleted constantly while weaselwords and false remarks remain in the article. Fix this article or delete it, the wikipedia shouldn't be missued as an advertising tool. 218.241.90.10 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Critics seem to have a hard time coming up with reliable sources for their claims. If there are weasel words tag them with .--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How about these facts?

When you launch a game, such as BF:BC2, Punkbuster will run. While it's running, Punkbuster can: Take a screenshot of whatever you are doing. Look through any files on your computer. Look through any running programs. Look through ANYTHING on your computer at all. When you exit the game, punkbuster doesn't stop running. EVEN IF you ctrl+alt+del and kill the process, it will come back in a few minutes because of the service it created for itself. 24.154.119.139 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Even Balance into PunkBuster
Honestly with such a lack of information about Even Balance's business side, it may as well be merged into PunkBuster as it's the only product they make. Really the two are synonymous with each other. &raquo;  Skyy Train  (talk)  07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)