I agree. I say ban them from the official servers but they should still have access to make their own and play on public servers. If I made a server and some player was being a jerk I would ban them.DerangedHobo said:KF2 devs can go fuck themselves with a chainsaw. "Moderate private servers"? Get fucked, you're going to shut down the servers that keep your game alive because they don't live up to your standards? Tripwire alone has lost faith in me as a consumer due to the "Oh, we're an established company with a highly successful game series, let's release a fucking game in Early Access!", let alone the fact that it had like a 1/3 of the content from the first one.
As for the matter at hand? Mute them if they are truly that toxic. I prefer shit to be handled from server to server. If they're outright hacking then sure, VAC ban them but apart from that you should really just give them some good ol' mod/admin justice.
I have always felt that is what public servers are for. It's not about people being able to handle themselves so much as it is punishing players that are there only to cause trouble. I don't think they should lose access to their game but a ban from the official servers is a good punishment. If unregulated servers did exist I couldn't really see them being used except by the people that want to cause trouble.cthulhuspawn82 said:The movie theater analogy shows why games are terrible and why we shouldn't pay for them. The analogy highlights the ridiculous fact that we dont own our games. A DVD is something you own, a movie in a theater is a service you buy temporary access to. Video games used to be like DVDs, now they are like movie theaters. I'm disgusted by the idea that I dont own anything I have purchased.
And why cant they have both monitored and unregulated servers, with the unregulated ones being "enter at your own risk" or, in other words, "only for grown adults who can handle themselves and dont need big brother protecting them"
I agree completely with this. Frankly, the permaban from a game that a player (even griefers/trolls/etc.) paid for, assuming it isn't cheating, is a quick way to end up with some lawsuits for refunds. If this sort of extreme measure occurs, I'm fairly certain the lawsuits will happen. It's better for developers to give players the dedicated server tools to monitor and filter out problem players on their own. That really is the best way to take care of the problem.Mutant1988 said:No.
They should however lose the ability to play the game with people that aren't assholes. A rating system that allows them to be matched with other jerks or restrict them to private games only in a server browser system.
For a limited time, of course, unless they keep getting bad behaviour reports.
Still, the only sure fire way to keep assholes out of your game is to be the host and remove them as you encounter them.
Nope nope and nope...Sanderpower said: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.
making jerks and other misbehaving people play against each other the way they did with Max Payne 3 and GTA 5 would indeed make much more sense if they are so keen to get out their way to globally punish peopleZhukov said:If I misbehave in a pub, I get kicked out, no matter how many drinks I paid for.
If someone doesn't have the basic fucking maturity and self control to get through a round of Killing Floor without acting like a turd then fuck them and fuck their thirty dollars. Lock 'em out and make the game a better place. Let them play solo mode. Or throw them in a cesspit server with the other screeching deadbeats.