JustBill retweeted
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 DMZ mode Free Trial is available now on all platforms
Play DMZ for free through November 11 at 10am PT
Play DMZ for free through November 11 at 10am PT
88
167
2,659
288,213
JustBill retweeted
Just a quick reminder that my website was up for about 40 days while this cheating website has been up for more than a year :)
2k shut down capbreaks.com but didn't do anything to sites like goldenscripts.store which are the reason we have so many cheaters in the game. They developed a way to let people cheat without a Titan, using the Xbox Cloud Service #NBA2K27
19
98
842
55,165
The amount of content creators STILL making goat build videos for 💰….
You know who you are. You’re just as bad as 2K right now.
You know who you are. You’re just as bad as 2K right now.
8
5
70
4,505
JustBill retweeted
Hey ya’ll, I just got pretty heart breaking advice, unfortunately I will have to take the site down at 10pm eastern, 7pm pacific. Depending on what 2k says in the next coming days I might have some good news though. I’m extremely sorry
48
29
699
191,421
JustBill retweeted
2K players pay for the game, spend money building their players, and enter online modes expecting a legitimate competition. When 2K publicly says it is tackling shooting cheats, players have a reason to take that seriously.
That is why our Sept 25th & Oct 1st, Anti-Cheat finding matters and why “you accepted the ToS” does not automatically end the conversation.
Our previous research identified a setting called AntiCheatShotDelayMinFieldGoalPercentage.
Its activation threshold changed from 80% to 110%.
You cannot make 110% of your attempted shots. Under normal shooting statistics, that change prevents this particular shot-delay mechanism from activating.
We established the change in our October 1st comparison. Our November 2nd check still showed it disabled.
We have not located a public explanation acknowledging this specific change.
Here is what that means from the paying player’s perspective.
2K publicly told players it was taking action against shooting cheats. On September 24, 2K announced permanent bans for shooting aids, scripts and input manipulation. It also described ongoing monitoring and improving detection. These were statements about actions and capabilities. A player could reasonably take that announcement as reassurance that 2K was addressing a problem affecting their experience.
The research gives players a concrete reason to question that reassurance. We found a change that made an identifiable anti-cheat timing mechanism unable to activate under normal conditions. From a player’s perspective:
“You told us you were tackling shooting cheats. We then discovered that you disabled this protection. Explain how that decision fits with what you told us.”
That is a fair accountability question supported by a documented change.
Information about cheating protection could matter to someone spending money. For a player who mainly buys 2K to play REC, Park or other competitive modes, fair competition can be a central reason for the purchase. That player might say: “If I had known this protection was disabled, I would have waited, spent less, or stopped buying additional VC.”
That is the potential purchasing issue. It becomes stronger when a player can truthfully show that 2K’s assurances influenced their decision.
Consumer law calls information “material” when it is important enough to affect a purchasing or usage decision.
The possible financial harm is paying because of a misleading impression. A player’s argument could be: “I spent money based on an impression of the online experience that was materially misleading.”
That could involve a game purchase or later spending, depending on what the player saw, when they saw it, and why they purchased.
Wasted time and ruined matches explain why players are upset.
What about the terms everyone accepted?
The terms put genuine obstacles in the way:
(Arbitration: That means presenting your individual claim to a private decision-maker instead of having an ordinary court trial.)
1. They allow certain background updates without notice.
2. They disclaim guarantees of secure or error-free service.
3. For covered players, they generally require individual arbitration instead of ordinary court proceedings and include class-action and jury waivers.
4. They attempt to limit damages to the greater of $500 or relevant spending during the preceding 24 months, subject to applicable law.
But they also preserve eligible small-claims cases and rights that cannot legally be waived. Other court routes depend on the applicable agreement, a valid opt-out, enforceability and exceptions. Arbitration normally requires a written dispute notice and at least 45 days of negotiation first.
5. The generally 30-day opt-out window is not a fresh opportunity every time someone becomes unhappy; earlier agreements may still bind them. Take-Two’s terms
***Players living in the UK, EEA, Switzerland and Australia are not covered by Take-Two’s mandatory arbitration requirement. Its terms expressly allow disputes to be handled by courts in their home country. Accepting the terms does not take away that court route.
So the useful legal argument is that a specific assurance may have misled players into spending money.
The absence of an announcement matters most if it left that assurance misleading. There is no automatic legal requirement to publish every security setting or maintain every protection forever.
*****A consumer-protection claim could still be considered where the evidence supports a misleading statement or omission, the applicable law allows the claim, and the player can establish the required harm. Some claims would belong in arbitration; others could reach court.*****
Arbitration changes the process. It does not mean the company automatically wins. A regulator complaint is another route for presenting documented concerns, although it does not guarantee compensation.
Players should not have to decode files to discover that an anti-cheat mechanism cannot activate.
We have evidence of that change. We have 2K’s public assurances. What we do not have is a public explanation connecting the two.
******Explain why it was disabled, what protection replaced it, and what players were actually receiving while they continued spending money. Those are reasonable questions from customers who paid to compete. ******
We buy the game, spend VC upgrading our players, and put hours into learning our shots and dribble moves. When 2K says it is tackling shooting scripts, that can give players confidence to keep playing and spending.
“You reassured us that you were dealing with shooting cheats. We then found that you disabled this anti-cheat feature without an explanation. What protection were we actually getting?”
*********
Other possible arguments would be:
“I spent money because of what 2K told me about dealing with cheating. Important information was missing, and knowing it would have changed my decision.”
“I saw 2K’s announcement and decided to keep investing in my build. Had I known this feature was disabled, I would have waited or stopped buying VC.”
That is the kind of connection a consumer claim would need to examine. The issue is whether the company gave people a misleading impression that affected their spending. Consumer-protection rules can cover misleading statements and important information left out of them.
#SaveTheGame
That is why our Sept 25th & Oct 1st, Anti-Cheat finding matters and why “you accepted the ToS” does not automatically end the conversation.
Our previous research identified a setting called AntiCheatShotDelayMinFieldGoalPercentage.
Its activation threshold changed from 80% to 110%.
You cannot make 110% of your attempted shots. Under normal shooting statistics, that change prevents this particular shot-delay mechanism from activating.
We established the change in our October 1st comparison. Our November 2nd check still showed it disabled.
We have not located a public explanation acknowledging this specific change.
Here is what that means from the paying player’s perspective.
2K publicly told players it was taking action against shooting cheats. On September 24, 2K announced permanent bans for shooting aids, scripts and input manipulation. It also described ongoing monitoring and improving detection. These were statements about actions and capabilities. A player could reasonably take that announcement as reassurance that 2K was addressing a problem affecting their experience.
The research gives players a concrete reason to question that reassurance. We found a change that made an identifiable anti-cheat timing mechanism unable to activate under normal conditions. From a player’s perspective:
“You told us you were tackling shooting cheats. We then discovered that you disabled this protection. Explain how that decision fits with what you told us.”
That is a fair accountability question supported by a documented change.
Information about cheating protection could matter to someone spending money. For a player who mainly buys 2K to play REC, Park or other competitive modes, fair competition can be a central reason for the purchase. That player might say: “If I had known this protection was disabled, I would have waited, spent less, or stopped buying additional VC.”
That is the potential purchasing issue. It becomes stronger when a player can truthfully show that 2K’s assurances influenced their decision.
Consumer law calls information “material” when it is important enough to affect a purchasing or usage decision.
The possible financial harm is paying because of a misleading impression. A player’s argument could be: “I spent money based on an impression of the online experience that was materially misleading.”
That could involve a game purchase or later spending, depending on what the player saw, when they saw it, and why they purchased.
Wasted time and ruined matches explain why players are upset.
What about the terms everyone accepted?
The terms put genuine obstacles in the way:
(Arbitration: That means presenting your individual claim to a private decision-maker instead of having an ordinary court trial.)
1. They allow certain background updates without notice.
2. They disclaim guarantees of secure or error-free service.
3. For covered players, they generally require individual arbitration instead of ordinary court proceedings and include class-action and jury waivers.
4. They attempt to limit damages to the greater of $500 or relevant spending during the preceding 24 months, subject to applicable law.
But they also preserve eligible small-claims cases and rights that cannot legally be waived. Other court routes depend on the applicable agreement, a valid opt-out, enforceability and exceptions. Arbitration normally requires a written dispute notice and at least 45 days of negotiation first.
5. The generally 30-day opt-out window is not a fresh opportunity every time someone becomes unhappy; earlier agreements may still bind them. Take-Two’s terms
***Players living in the UK, EEA, Switzerland and Australia are not covered by Take-Two’s mandatory arbitration requirement. Its terms expressly allow disputes to be handled by courts in their home country. Accepting the terms does not take away that court route.
So the useful legal argument is that a specific assurance may have misled players into spending money.
The absence of an announcement matters most if it left that assurance misleading. There is no automatic legal requirement to publish every security setting or maintain every protection forever.
*****A consumer-protection claim could still be considered where the evidence supports a misleading statement or omission, the applicable law allows the claim, and the player can establish the required harm. Some claims would belong in arbitration; others could reach court.*****
Arbitration changes the process. It does not mean the company automatically wins. A regulator complaint is another route for presenting documented concerns, although it does not guarantee compensation.
Players should not have to decode files to discover that an anti-cheat mechanism cannot activate.
We have evidence of that change. We have 2K’s public assurances. What we do not have is a public explanation connecting the two.
******Explain why it was disabled, what protection replaced it, and what players were actually receiving while they continued spending money. Those are reasonable questions from customers who paid to compete. ******
We buy the game, spend VC upgrading our players, and put hours into learning our shots and dribble moves. When 2K says it is tackling shooting scripts, that can give players confidence to keep playing and spending.
“You reassured us that you were dealing with shooting cheats. We then found that you disabled this anti-cheat feature without an explanation. What protection were we actually getting?”
*********
Other possible arguments would be:
“I spent money because of what 2K told me about dealing with cheating. Important information was missing, and knowing it would have changed my decision.”
“I saw 2K’s announcement and decided to keep investing in my build. Had I known this feature was disabled, I would have waited or stopped buying VC.”
That is the kind of connection a consumer claim would need to examine. The issue is whether the company gave people a misleading impression that affected their spending. Consumer-protection rules can cover misleading statements and important information left out of them.
#SaveTheGame
19
95
606
39,908
JustBill retweeted
I’ve literally seen professional athletes playing with cheaters nobody cares 😭
Very first court I see on the day:
Cheaters on both teams playing each other and even a basketball logo just feeding the cheater on his team
@NBA2K DO SOMETHING
6
4
46
5,342
JustBill retweeted
I’m Genuinely Curious To Know What Kind Of “TRIAL AND ERROR” Experiments Have Been Done To Combat CHEATERS, ZENS & TITANS In #NBA2K27…🤔
What Kind Of Time, Research & Resources Have Been Dedicated To Identifying And Preventing The VERY SAME Tools That Give Players An UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?
What Kind Of Time, Research & Resources Have Been Dedicated To Identifying And Preventing The VERY SAME Tools That Give Players An UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?
If you don’t already hate them enough, wasting 100s if not thousands of dollars is trial and error I guess
4
12
117
6,729
JustBill retweeted
2k shut down capbreaks.com but didn't do anything to sites like goldenscripts.store which are the reason we have so many cheaters in the game. They developed a way to let people cheat without a Titan, using the Xbox Cloud Service #NBA2K27
50
167
1,514
142,026
JustBill retweeted
The % of active players on each platform that played Call of Duty during MW4 launch vs Black Ops 7 launch:
MW4 Launch:
PS5 US - 19%
XBX - 17%
US Steam - 4.2%
Black Ops 7 Launch:
PS5 US - 23%
XBX - 29%
US Steam - 1.5%
Source: Circana
MW4 Launch:
PS5 US - 19%
XBX - 17%
US Steam - 4.2%
Black Ops 7 Launch:
PS5 US - 23%
XBX - 29%
US Steam - 1.5%
Source: Circana
494
231
4,623
2,952,969
2K just shut down a website that HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND THE BUILDER AND OPTIMIZES YOUR CAP BREAKERS.
this is a game that still has cheaters in about 30-40% of matches.
2k makes money off of the confusing builder.
And what this tells me is THEY PROFIT OFF OF CHEATERS AND ZENS!!!
this is a game that still has cheaters in about 30-40% of matches.
2k makes money off of the confusing builder.
And what this tells me is THEY PROFIT OFF OF CHEATERS AND ZENS!!!
If you don’t already hate them enough, wasting 100s if not thousands of dollars is trial and error I guess
10
71
577
26,305
In the event this pops off tonight I talk more about it here: youtu.be/jdGrgelf0_Q?is…
0
0
2
2,182
Just play 2K15. If you know… you know.
So I take that 2K dgaf about the game anymore. Cheaters are everywhere. It’s time I leave this game behind ngl. We all love basketball 🏀 but this shit is not it. Ppl spend so much money to play a game to have fun but to play cheaters 1 out of 3 games is wild asf. GTA 6 can’t get here soon enough bruh. I have been playing 2K since 2K10. I think it’s time I let ts go cuz ain’t no way it’s this fn bad.
1
0
6
662
JustBill retweeted
This guy has finally held 2k to some transparency. 2k has never had checks & balancing. No one to answer too. This year through @JohnsGoated we saw what was under the hood & how they lied/mislead us about everything. M
Well, IT happened. That’s all I’m gonna say
9
42
657
47,290