if anyone has a bot maker for games please post the link

no, we're not going to help cheaters and PK'ing lowlife thieves.

Psh.. it's not so serious.. a bot isn't necessarily bad. IMNSHO, there's no such thing as 'cheating' in a computer game.. It's like 'cheating' in reading a book by looking at the last page first. It only really hurts yourself. Oh yeah.. w/ regard to online tournaments, ok, ok. Don't cheat in a tournament, you'll get found out and blacklisted anyway, or just lose respect in w/e gamerz community you're a part of. For MMORPGS? Hey, the real world has gangs and murderers and fraudsters, so I guess, if there are people who play that way in an MMO world, they're a feature!

But anyway, on topic: No, no idea where to find a bot maker. It likely depends what game, since there's rarely such a thing as 'generic'.

Im new to game development. what is a bot or a bot maker?

a bot is an illegal (usually) plugin for an online game that allows people to cheat.
It will play for them, allowing them to for example do repetitive tasks for days or weeks on end that build up a character or the character's wealth without the player doing anything.
Or it enhances the player's reaction time or perception of the game environment so he can spot prey (iow, other characters to kill and steal from).
Or (the third major kind) it allows the player to play several characters at the same time, so he can control an entire army all at once and again use that to attack other players and steal from them.

The only legitimate bots are run by game companies themselves during testing of games and to combat player controlled bots.

>a bot isn't necessarily bad.
I beg to differ. In MMOs bots encourage farming and can severely damage the game economy and balance.

>IMNSHO, there's no such thing as 'cheating' in a computer game.
Once again taking my experience from MMOs, bots are almost always in violation of the EULA as a form of cheating. Violating the EULA is an illegal act as well.

>It only really hurts yourself.
Perhaps if you're the only one playing the game and the results have zero effect on others. That's as silly as it is rare though; bots are generally used to improve one's standing in multiplayer games.

I dont think cases of this have ever been put through a court ( I may be wrong, but it's not critical to my argument ). Just because a EULA says something is illegal doesn't actually mean that it is... A publisher can put anything in a EULA, and a EULA is totally worthless if its proved to be overly restrictive or untenable. A EULA is un-inforceable in many countries; lots of these 'cheaters' are offshore in countries/jurisdictions which might not even respect a game's copyright let alone a usage agreement.

As I said previously, I do think of these people as a feature, they're a minority, interesting on a level, and the companies controlling servers + the publishers seem to be able to deal with it, and do put sufficient measures in place from the very beginning ( security is a good thing to consider from the beggining! it's the responsibility of the publisher to make sure that they can keep control, or at least make it difficult to cheat. Relying totally on legislation is .. well, a pretty poor approach considering the worldwide stage ).

I think that the 'real' law should stay well away from computer games. I don't want to be legally liable in this world for my actions in a virtual world. That's the whole point of a virtual world!

That is my personal opinion on the matter, as a player of various games in the past, and as an amateur developer now. I don't feel obliged to back it up or argue it as 'teh correct way'', but I don't really mind doing so =P.

>Just because a EULA says something is illegal doesn't actually mean that it is...
No, it really is. Violation of the EULA constitutes violation of a license agreement, and a license agreement is a legally binding contract. Allow me to point out the logical fallacy in your argument.

1) An EULA can be overturned in court and,
2) An EULA cannot be enforced everywhere therefore,
3) Violation of an EULA is not illegal.

The error being the assumption that the EULA would be overturned in court or that all violators are in a location where the EULA cannot be enforced. The fact is that your two cases are exceptions rather than the rule, and if you remove the exceptions, your claim is silly. Violating an EULA is an illegal act that can be prosecuted however the creator wishes. This could be an actual lawsuit or it could simply be termination of services.

>I think that the 'real' law should stay well away from computer games.
Most software has license agreements, and violations of these agreements have been taken to court. I don't see how a video game license agreement is different from any other software.

If a EULA gets overturned in a court, or if a little niggle in the wording prevents the EULA being upheld, or equally, prevents it being considered applicable with regard to creating(?) the intented restriction, going against those things in the EULA that would result in actions being 'illegal' ( by breaking a legally binding agreement ) wouldn't actually be illegal. It's not really a logical falacy, it's a consequence of a -- completely possible -- set of events. Rare, perhaps; but since it seems they use this kind of clause in their agreements ( as in, restrictions on means of play not as in restrictions on copyright infringment and illegal distribution ) more as a threat than as a legal tool, it doesn't seem to have come up enough to have been really tested in a court.

I think it is quite different from protecting a copyright or restricting distribution. They push agreements on us as uneducated people, we're not lawyers, we don't really want to have to think about these things. It has the potential to pull consumers into legal problems on the whim of a publisher and criminalizes laughable things. I just don't really think that's the way things should be, and I'm pretty sure that many people ( thinking purely as 'consumers' ) have that view aswell.

>It's not really a logical falacy, it's a consequence of a -- completely possible -- set of events.
It's a logical fallacy because you've derived a hard conclusion based on the assumption that those events have already taken place. To remove the fallacy you have to prove that those assumptions are true, or alter your conclusion to allow for the alternative where those assumptions prove false.