SAM cheating in certain scenarios?

[Moses]

Curious what people think about this. Everyone knows about SAM, and it absolutely has usefulness in certain situations such as achievements that are broken.

Do you consider SAM cheating if you give yourself achievements for:

1. A game that has multiplayer achievements but the game is dead and those achievements are no longer attainable

2. For some kind of technical reason (like right now with Far Cry 4) where there's co-op achievements but it's impossible to connect with anyone without crashing

Or I guess pretty much any other kind of scenario where, through no fault of the players own, an achievement cannot be attained legitimately. Another good example is Paladins, that game has an achievement for playing the beta, which of course is long gone.

Just curious where everyone's cutoff point is for what's considered cheating, and what's considered a valid use of the tool.

[Boblin the Goblin]

None of it is cheating.

[Moses]

I guess I mostly meant "cheap", not cheating. Since it only effects you I guess it technically can't be cheating.

[BJWyler]

Yes, it is cheating because you did not earn those achievements in the manner in which they were supposed to be earned. Doesn't matter whether you personally are able to earn them in that manner or not. You missed to your chance to earn them legitimately - it doesn't matter why. So yes it is cheating.

However, whether one cares about it being cheating or not is a completely personal matter and is, nor should be, no concern to anyone else. Achievements are ultimately a personal goal and it doesn't matter one whit how each person decides to obtain their own achievements.

[Moses]

I think developers should only include achievements that players can earn on their own. No multiplayer achievements, no co-op exclusive achievements, and no DLC achievements listed if the player doesn't own that content. Basically, no achievement should ever reach a state of being unattainable, if it can reach that state then they should think of a new one.

[Moses]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Yes, it is cheating because you did not earn those achievements in the manner in which they were supposed to be earned. Doesn't matter whether you personally are able to earn them in that manner or not. You missed to your chance to earn them legitimately - it doesn't matter why. So yes it is cheating.

However, whether one cares about it being cheating or not is a completely personal matter and is, nor should be, no concern to anyone else. Achievements are ultimately a personal goal and it doesn't matter one whit how each person decides to obtain their own achievements.

The only way I really disagree with this is from the mindset that if a player has 100 percent of the achievements that are possible, then they've essentially completed the game. If an achievement is not possible, the player shouldn't be punished (profile stats) for not having it. While a game might have additional achievements, if they aren't even attainable then that's basically the same thing as them not existing at all. I'd be fine using SAM under this scenario and having the achievements I added not count towards my overall achievement total, but still giving me a +1 in perfect games. Like I said, if a player earns all achievements that are possible, that's the same as completing a game.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Moses:

I think developers should only include achievements that players can earn on their own. No multiplayer achievements, no co-op exclusive achievements, and no DLC achievements listed if the player doesn't own that content. Basically, no achievement should ever reach a state of being unattainable, if it can reach that state then they should think of a new one.

I agree, there should be no such thing as an unobtainable achievement. Quite frankly there should be no achievement that requires mashing the spacebar a quntillion times for no other reason than to mash the spacebar a quintillion times to earn a virtual self congratulatory pat on the back. But the vast majority of achievements are designed exactly in that manner, which is why achievements as a whole are meaningless.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Moses:

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Yes, it is cheating because you did not earn those achievements in the manner in which they were supposed to be earned. Doesn't matter whether you personally are able to earn them in that manner or not. You missed to your chance to earn them legitimately - it doesn't matter why. So yes it is cheating.

However, whether one cares about it being cheating or not is a completely personal matter and is, nor should be, no concern to anyone else. Achievements are ultimately a personal goal and it doesn't matter one whit how each person decides to obtain their own achievements.

The only way I really disagree with this is from the mindset that if a player has 100 percent of the achievements that are possible, then they've essentially completed the game. If an achievement is not possible, the player shouldn't be punished (profile stats) for not having it. While a game might have additional achievements, if they aren't even attainable then that's basically the same thing as them not existing at all. I'd be fine using SAM under this scenario and having the achievements I added not count towards my overall achievement total, but still giving me a +1 in perfect games. Like I said, if a player earns all achievements that are possible, that's the same as completing a game.

Which is perfectly well and good, but that has nothing to do whether it is cheating or not. It's a simple concept:

Did you earn the achievement in the manner as it was originally designed and intended to be earned?

If yes, then it's not cheating.

If you earned it any other way than that, then yes it is technically cheating.

There's no real need to justify getting achievements one way or another. There's plenty of ways to "cheat" achievements other than SAM. It is what it is, no need to try to play at mental gymnastics to avoid calling a spade a spade. Do what works for you, be it SAM or any other way. The only one who cares (or should care) is you, yourself. Simple As.

[JacquesPatat]

depends on how you look at it. Some people will say its cheating, others not. for me achievements is just of gimmick for developers for last few years, nice to give you an idea of how you progressing through the game and to some extent give some replay-ability to the game. Also with achievements there are some which is to easy aka start game, do tutorial, finish first level/second level/etc, finish game, then its all the achievements for the game, then you get the achievements which is next to impossible to achieve aka play with developer on same server (you won't know what server they are on unless you following them/friends with them/got invite from them or developers are not playing the game) or its achievements what is related to some kind of event or season (yes there are some game what have servers for you to achieve it, but not all games)

But for me at least, the achievements should be kept to single players and not multiplayer games.

[AustrAlien2010]

People have asked this question so many times, that I am pretty sure they consider it cheating.

[AzzY]

Originally posted by Moses:

Curious what people think about this. Everyone knows about SAM, and it absolutely has usefulness in certain situations such as achievements that are broken.

Do you consider SAM cheating if you give yourself achievements for:

1. A game that has multiplayer achievements but the game is dead and those achievements are no longer attainable

2. For some kind of technical reason (like right now with Far Cry 4) where there's co-op achievements but it's impossible to connect with anyone without crashing

Or I guess pretty much any other kind of scenario where, through no fault of the players own, an achievement cannot be attained legitimately. Another good example is Paladins, that game has an achievement for playing the beta, which of course is long gone.

Just curious where everyone's cutoff point is for what's considered cheating, and what's considered a valid use of the tool.

[Moses]

I like that it shines a spotlight on how developers implement achievements, you can learn a lot about a studio based on this. Some games are very easy to complete 100 percent, some are notoriously difficult, some clearly use achievements as a lazy gimmick to get players to put more time into the game, some even try to make money from it (Sniper Elite 3 has an achievement to buy their other games).

I feel like if people are using SAM a lot for any particular game, there might actually be a good reason for it. I wish Steam would have stricter standards for what they allow developers to get away with.

[Donfimy]

I platinued the Resident Evil 5/6 and batman arkham origins using Sam to unlock the multplayers achievements, it's pretty disappointing having to do it, because it fails the concept of a achivement, that is the time you spent playing, how much hours you've put into the platinum.
Another game i wanted the platinum was Gmod, but just look at the achievements, they are based on how much time you wasted and the impossible one that requires you to meet garry himself in the same Server.
And about the multplayer ach: if your Wifi is like mine and you don't have time to play with someone else, it's basically also impossible

[miakisfan]

If Steam allows it to be used I have no problem with it.

On a personal note as someone who is against MP achievements I have no problem with it being used on them.

Achievements are not a true part of any game. They do, however, give the ability to make a game last longer. At the end of the day, though, I believe achievements should be treated on an individual-by-individual basis. People should not be treated differently because they choose not to earn achievements the hard way.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Moses:

I like that it shines a spotlight on how developers implement achievements, you can learn a lot about a studio based on this. Some games are very easy to complete 100 percent, some are notoriously difficult, some clearly use achievements as a lazy gimmick to get players to put more time into the game, some even try to make money from it (Sniper Elite 3 has an achievement to buy their other games).

I feel like if people are using SAM a lot for any particular game, there might actually be a good reason for it. I wish Steam would have stricter standards for what they allow developers to get away with.

I disagree. It's not Valve's place to tell developers how they should design their games, and the related content, which includes achievements - no matter how poorly designed.

It's incumbent upon developers to design better content, and for the gaming community to let them know when such content is poorly designed - like achievements - in a proper and constructive manner.

[AustrAlien2010]

If you care about achievements, then you should probably not do it, because then they would not be achievements.
If you don't care about achievements, then you should probably also not do it, because you don't care about achievements.

Whatever you call it, is irrelevant. Logic simply dictates that you should not do it. If you do it, then you become illogical.