Should people lose access to a game because of how they act?

[Bat Vader]

After watching this video from ReviewTech USA about how the Killing Floor 2 Devs plan on revoking access of their game to trolls and griefers. It begs the question but should people lose access to a game because they are generally unpleasant? Here is the video.

Spoiler

Personally I like and dislike the idea. I agree that griefers, trolls, and other generally unpleasant people shouldn't be allowed to play with others that just want to play the game and have fun. I don't think it's right they lose access to their game. I'm curious as to what others think of this. Do people find this to be a good idea or too harsh?

 

[MajorTomServo]

Maybe just make it so you can't play online with strangers if you're too much of a douche canoe. Like, you can only play with people on your friend's list or offline against bots.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Taking away access to a game that someone bought with money just because a developer doesn't like the way they behave is a very, very, very slippery slope. I can think of a few examples where it would be justified--they mainly fall into public safety--but probably 99% of the cases wouldn't fall into that.

As such, I think what should be done is what is done in Dark Souls II. If you keep dropping out during an invasion, which is something a lot of people did in the first game because they either didn't want to lose or the other person was hacking, eventually the game puts you in time out. You are cut off from the online world, but you can still play the game. If you want to get back into the online world, you have to use a special item. You start with one as a freebie, but if you need another one, you literally have to go back to the start of the game and just leave your character there for over an hour. You move, and the timer starts all over again.
I'm sure other games have something like this (didn't a fighting game have a way to make it so you could only play against other people who kept dropping out if you did it enough?), but this is the only one that I can think of. And I think that's a good idea.

 

[theSovietConnection]

As such, I think what should be done is what is done in Dark Souls II. If you keep dropping out during an invasion, which is something a lot of people did in the first game because they either didn't want to lose or the other person was hacking, eventually the game puts you in time out. You are cut off from the online world, but you can still play the game. If you want to get back into the online world, you have to use a special item. You start with one as a freebie, but if you need another one, you literally have to go back to the start of the game and just leave your character there for over an hour. You move, and the timer starts all over again.
I'm sure other games have something like this (didn't a fighting game have a way to make it so you could only play against other people who kept dropping out if you did it enough?), but this is the only one that I can think of. And I think that's a good idea.

I'd say either a system like this, or one like in GTA5's multiplayer. Have a server set aside for people who are a constant source of issues and only allow them to log on to that server for a set period of time if they wish to play with other people.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

last I checked, you can't really play killing floor by yourself. Losing access to multiplayer would basically be losing access to the game.

 

[AgedGrunt]

The word used in the agreement, alongside cheater, is "abusive". If Tripwire defines what you do as abuse or people on your own hosted server are considered abusive and you do not clean it up they can and presumably will nuke you from the game. No online play, no play at all.

Essentially, Tripwire is judge, jury and executioner. Fine, but "abuse" isn't totally clear until we see what brings out the ban hammer. That could be a racist griefer or it could be use of the word "rape" as a verb for all we know.

Having played plenty of KF, I don't get it. Maybe they're expecting a wave of popularity to bring a wave of jackasses, because KF was pretty chill. Plenty of idiots and people who don't understand teamwork, but not these kinds of idiots.

 

[crypticracer]

Removing access to the companies servers seems fine, but... hm... if the game is online only it becomes more problematic. Ignoring the EULA and what have yous, it comes down to the right of the consumer, those affected by the offender versus said offender. Neither should lose access to a product they paid for, but ultimately if you're part of a community you can be removed from it...

I think I just ended up talking in circles, not sure where I fall, it's a good question though.

 

[Fox12]

Wasn't there a system in place somewhere where trolls got stuck with other trolls if they got reported too often? I like that idea. I mean, it would be nothing but angry tweenagers humping rocks and shooting teamates, but that's what they deserve. Meanwhile, everyone else is fine.

 

[L. Declis]

I think that if they are going to ban you, then you should be refunded the money you paid for it.

If LoL and such have shown anything, it's that bad behaviour reports are slapped onto innocent or poorly playing players all the time.

Finally, they paid so they could have indefinite renting of the service. I would be angry if someone removed that from me after I paid for it. I bet this wouldn't work in a European court.

As it is, I won't support these kind of behaviours from Devs, so I shall be avoiding this developer until they recant.

 

[Vault101]

Taking away access to a game that someone bought with money just because a developer doesn't like the way they behave is a very, very, very slippery slope. I can think of a few examples where it would be justified--they mainly fall into public safety--but probably 99% of the cases wouldn't fall into that.
.

if you act like an asshole in a restaurant or bar then they are well within their rights to throw you out regardless of weather or not you paid for your meal/the cover I don't see why it should be that different with games, we all have an interest in maintaining a pleasant environment.

I mean I don't mean bricking the game or anything but its good to have SOME measures in place

snip.

snip.

sort of tangent but this whole "power of being a CON-SU-MER!!!" rhetoric has been floating around gaming spaces for quite a few years now...for better and worse *cough*recent events

anyway I agree and to expand on my point I think we can no longer act like its "just online", maybe even back in 2005 where the internet was a strange place we could pretend what happened on there was divorced from "real life" but the fact is the internet IS real life, its intergrated into nearly all aspects of our lives, the cool kids are online your grandparents are online and internet "culture" is no longer owned by the channers and the gamers, we can't pretend that harassment/trolling is "normal" anymore /rant

 

[The Madman]

If it's an online game and someone's behaviour is actively becoming a detriment to others enjoyment of said game, then hell yeah I 100% support the right of the developers to revoke that persons access to the game.

It's called life and having to take responsibility for your actions, a concept I'm not entirely sure a decent proportion of the 'gaming community' is familiar with.

Plus it's just a goddamned game. Oh no, they got themselves banned and can't play a game they might've thrown 50$ at if even, forgive me if I'm not weeping. It's not like they're loosing access to anything genuinely important, they'll live. Live to hopefully learn to be less of an ass in the future. Hopefully.

 

[Bat Vader]

Removing access to the companies servers seems fine, but... hm... if the game is online only it becomes more problematic. Ignoring the EULA and what have yous, it comes down to the right of the consumer, those affected by the offender versus said offender. Neither should lose access to a product they paid for, but ultimately if you're part of a community you can be removed from it...

I think I just ended up talking in circles, not sure where I fall, it's a good question though.

They could start their own servers or play on other people's servers just not the ones run by the company. If I ran my own KF2 server and people acted toxic I wouldn't hesitate to ban them.

Taking away access to a game that someone bought with money just because a developer doesn't like the way they behave is a very, very, very slippery slope. I can think of a few examples where it would be justified--they mainly fall into public safety--but probably 99% of the cases wouldn't fall into that.

As such, I think what should be done is what is done in Dark Souls II. If you keep dropping out during an invasion, which is something a lot of people did in the first game because they either didn't want to lose or the other person was hacking, eventually the game puts you in time out. You are cut off from the online world, but you can still play the game. If you want to get back into the online world, you have to use a special item. You start with one as a freebie, but if you need another one, you literally have to go back to the start of the game and just leave your character there for over an hour. You move, and the timer starts all over again.
I'm sure other games have something like this (didn't a fighting game have a way to make it so you could only play against other people who kept dropping out if you did it enough?), but this is the only one that I can think of. And I think that's a good idea.

The problem with Dark Souls is a lot of invaders are asshats in overpowered builds that cheese the shit out of the game to win. I don't blame anyone for disconnecting from that shit.

Me neither. That's why whenever I played DS2 I would make sure the game wasn't connected to the internet. I don't want to deal with people that could potentially be jerks for no reason.

 

[Sanderpower]

Well if people actually decided to read the terms and agreement of the games they bought (which lets face it, nobody ever does) they would realize that game companies are completely in their rights to do it. When you click that "accept" button, you're entering into a contract with those game developers. So if in the Terms and Agreement they say they can ban you for being abusive in games and you agree to those terms, then they are completely justified in their actions.

Now SHOULD game developers do that? I'd say yes. IF I pay for my ticket to movies yet i'm annoying the other customers, I would be kicked out. Even if that means I lost my money.

But then again i'm sure some theaters offer refunds to those who got kicked out of the movie, therefore i'd say if a user's account has been banned from the game, they should be able to refund their game. I believe this of course only applies for the full game itself.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

Thanks god a dev who gets it. I am so sick and tired of all these "but I paid for the game" arguments. So what? You might have also paid for the drinks in a club and still you would get thrown out if you started dancing naked on the tables or trying to rape a girl in the bathroom. The game is not yours. You rented it under a contract. Break the terms of that contract, you loose the game. If they do this right, and make a complete EULA detailing proper causes for banning (such as insulting for the sake of it, beeing a racist prick, making death threats and throwing pointless tantrums like a 2 year old, destroying the game by TK-ing or griefing) then they go right on ahead an set a precedent that more games can follow. If KF 2 pulls this off, then I can finaly hold out hope that the plague of intentional feeders and pointless trolls in MOBAs can end and we will see the banhammer start falling in those games as well. As a wise man once taught me: "your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins". When your only means of enjoyment and fun is to ruin the game for 4 oher people, then you sir can kindly go jump off a bridge and go back to sodomizing kittens, you malladjusted therapy needing asshole. You do not get to keep doing that just cause you paid an arbitrary sum of money.

Oh, and as an aside: there is allready a precedent for this. Bans in MMOs. Even in WoW, users who have paid not just the price of the game, but also a monthly subscription for years, can get banned at the drop of a hat if they break the terms of the EULA. THAT is how you hanbdle online gaming, not the way some devs do it today *cough*riot*cough* who just let utter imbeciles ruin the game just because they don't want to loose another posible money bag.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

Go out and play League of Legends for a while.

Then come back and tell me that it's harsh to lose access to something you sunk money into.

 

[List]

They should just have 2 seperate servers. One where all the players play nice. And another one where they send you for a certain amount of time as punishment, a time-out if you may, where all the other players you will meet are other abusive "players".

 

[Chaos Isaac]

To be entirely honest, I like it. Too many people ruining other's experiences get away with shit with no tangible punishment, and I wouldn't be opposed to somewhat similar systems for other games.

The trouble is, to make sure this isn't abused in any manner, which is always a tricky thing.

 

[CrystalShadow]

In multiplayer games, I think, yes. It's fair.

If you're messing up everyone else that's playing, then the devs have every right to punish you for it.

However, for single player games... No. Absolutely not! You're not hurting anyone else in single-player, so they have no right to do anything to it.

When it comes to things where the multiplayer functionality is less organised (like older PC titles where servers were just run by people that had a copy of the game), that's sort of in the middle.

In that case the people running any given server should be allowed to ban you from it, but banning you altogether is a different matter entirely.

 

[Signa]

All I have to say is it wasn't cool when EA did it, and I don't think Tripwire should get a pass on this choice.