[pbhjpbhj]

>If a player performs actions seconds apart that are separated by thousands of miles then the game temporarily ignores them, but after some time in the naughty corner they can resume play. //

I'm curious how the financial side works with the gameplay side - the people doing spoofing might also be those that are motivated enough to spend money on the game; you don't want to ban your whales [best spenders] just because they tried to cheat. Would be really interested to see how much of that weighs in to business decisions on crack-downs on unauthorised "play".

[tfm]

I'd certainly agree that someone who went to the effort of setting up a system for spoofing (even if it was just downloading an extra app) is, in some sense, more motivated than a very casual player.

I don't think though that Niantic have much of a moral hazard to consider here. Looking at what's purchasable in the Pokémon store, there's nothing that would be attractive to anyone who was able to virtually wander the world at all hours from the comfort of their couch, especially since anything that can be bought with cash money could be obtained using coins earned in-game. If a player's motivation in spoofing was to "catch 'em all" by whatever means necessary, it seems unlikely that they'd draw the line at restocking from Pokéstops along the way.

Comparing with the dark side of Ingress, there is a ludicrously well-organised black market economy offering purchases for every in-game commodity – all, of course, completely against the T&Cs, all completely abhorred by legitimate players, but all offered with consummate professionalism (think of the slick ransomware scammers offering a support number). Niantic don't see any of that cash. It is likely to have had a major impact on their design decisions for the PoGo store, and the game in general. If, for instance, there is no way to trade items between players, then it severely limits the options for a parallel economy.