This poses an interesting question. How simple an algorithm can be so that "cheating" it is still considered illegal? At which point it becomes the machine owner's loss instead of the player being guilty of cheating?
Suppose that there is a game that produces random numbers and asks the player whether the next number will be odd or even. If the player guesses correctly he will gain a point and if he guesses wrong he will lose a point. Eventually the machine will pay some amount of cash for points collected. Now, it turns out that the machine happens to produce an odd number after each even number, and an even number after each odd number. If (and when) the player figures that out he can rack up points and get a good payout from the machine. Nobody would dare to accuse the player being a cheater because it's so plain obvious that the machine is just programmed in a stupid way.
Now, let's consider a game that is more complex but still simple enough that you could figure out the algorithm either in your head or by feeding a long enough sequence of the game state to a computer to be processed offline. Then after you've reverse-engineered the algorithm you can play it yourself and you'll know at least something that will happen in the game, ahead of the time. Time to cash the machine again. Is this still not cheating?
How about reading the machine's binary dump found on the internet and rebuilding the game algorithm that way, then abusing the knowledge for gains when playing the machine. Cheating or not cheating? Why? How complex the algorithm needs to be for beating it to be considered cheating? How would it matter where the understanding came from?
As in the article, if the game can be reduced to a database of a number of multiple-choice questions and the answer bit for each correct option, how much protection from "hacking" does the game enjoy and why? Especially if the questions could be answered by knowledge acquired from regular studies instead of reading them from the binary dump? How much complexity is required for this sort of protection? And how about different people considering the game's inner workings very complex vs rather simple? If for one an impenetrable oracle of quizzes is a simple exercise for some other, where does illegality come into play?
When does it become the loss of the game machine's owner or maker if we keep considering ever poorer and poorer implementations?
> Then after you've reverse-engineered the algorithm you can play it yourself and you'll know at least something that will happen in the game, ahead of the time. Time to cash the machine again. Is this still not cheating?
Sounds like counting cards. From Wikipedia, "Card counting is not illegal under British law, nor is it under federal, state, or local laws in the United States provided that no external card counting device or person assists the player in counting cards. Still, casinos object to the practice, and try to prevent it, banning players believed to be counters."
So you may not go to jail, but maybe you'll get shot in the back of the head
You do realize that sort of stuff doesn't happen anymore. Vegas became incredibly corporate after the mob got kicked out. Maybe that sort of thing still happens elsewhere but I would be surprised if it happens anywhere in the US anymore. With the exception of completely illegal shady underground casinos.
Suppose that there is a game that produces random numbers and asks the player whether the next number will be odd or even. If the player guesses correctly he will gain a point and if he guesses wrong he will lose a point. Eventually the machine will pay some amount of cash for points collected. Now, it turns out that the machine happens to produce an odd number after each even number, and an even number after each odd number. If (and when) the player figures that out he can rack up points and get a good payout from the machine. Nobody would dare to accuse the player being a cheater because it's so plain obvious that the machine is just programmed in a stupid way.
Now, let's consider a game that is more complex but still simple enough that you could figure out the algorithm either in your head or by feeding a long enough sequence of the game state to a computer to be processed offline. Then after you've reverse-engineered the algorithm you can play it yourself and you'll know at least something that will happen in the game, ahead of the time. Time to cash the machine again. Is this still not cheating?
How about reading the machine's binary dump found on the internet and rebuilding the game algorithm that way, then abusing the knowledge for gains when playing the machine. Cheating or not cheating? Why? How complex the algorithm needs to be for beating it to be considered cheating? How would it matter where the understanding came from?
As in the article, if the game can be reduced to a database of a number of multiple-choice questions and the answer bit for each correct option, how much protection from "hacking" does the game enjoy and why? Especially if the questions could be answered by knowledge acquired from regular studies instead of reading them from the binary dump? How much complexity is required for this sort of protection? And how about different people considering the game's inner workings very complex vs rather simple? If for one an impenetrable oracle of quizzes is a simple exercise for some other, where does illegality come into play?
When does it become the loss of the game machine's owner or maker if we keep considering ever poorer and poorer implementations?