If players are being complete asswipes, why should only lose access to multiplayer. That game has single player content & they did pay for it.
For starters, ignorance is not the same as hypocrisy.snekadid said:Then stop acting hypocritically and deserving it.Bat Vader said:There isn't any need to bring insults into this. I would prefer if people acted civil in my thread and didn't flame or bring insults.
Super late to answer this one, but people don't like vote-kicks because vote kicks don't work. In fact, they're bad for everyone involved.Signa said:Backing up one second, since not one person in this thread has explained it to me, why is a vote-kick option not enough? Why does it have to be the ownership of the game that is threatened instead?
Oh, God no... That's free trolling.L. Declis said:I think that if they are going to ban you, then you should be refunded the money you paid for it.
Sure, but their disruption is the same. To the extent that some people like spamming music or just yelling into the mic.Jabberwock xeno said:I'm sorry, my post there wasn't clear. I mean that comparison in the context of being banned from offline play or private servers. In those situations, it is like a company taking away a movie you are watching in your own home because you are being disruptive there. I've updated that post to be more clear.That's really not. Yes the person is at their home (Or a gaming lounge). But they're participating in your game. It's multiplayer, it ain't new. They're in your game, you're in their's, and you can communicate through text and voice, and some assholes insist on using that to fuck with everyone else's game. It is exactly analogous to someone deciding to start shouting whatever in a movie theatre.
I still can't help but feel we're all mad at some boogieman that doesn't really exist on the level everyone says he does. That anger is driving the support for this measure which I can't agree with. Personally, I've never seen a troll/asshole get kicked, and then have him show up again later, let alone still being an asshole later.ffronw said:Super late to answer this one, but people don't like vote-kicks because vote kicks don't work. In fact, they're bad for everyone involved.Signa said:Backing up one second, since not one person in this thread has explained it to me, why is a vote-kick option not enough? Why does it have to be the ownership of the game that is threatened instead?
If you have someone breaking the rules and you vote-kick them, it does nothing but postpone their bad behavior, or transfer it to another server.
"But wait," you say, "what if we make vote-kicks cumulative, and if you get too many, you get a permaban?" OK, this might work, but you're forgetting the other bad thing about the internet. People will abuse the system. "Hey, there's that guy who kept killing me in the last game. Let's vote-kick him." "Hey, Signa is a hacker! Kick him!" "Hey, my friend wants to join the server and that Signa guy isn't anyone we know., Let's vote-kick him."
Of course, the reverse could also hold true. If the douche jumps on a server with a bunch of his friends, he could simply have them vote against kicking him, and maintain his bad behavior with no consequences.
All of this is to say that if we're going to have a system for punishing people, I don't think it should be based on community votes. Let players report bad behavior, and then have someone who checks the logs to see what really happened.
I can't believe I'm actually reading this. You are advocating taking people's game that THEY PAID FOR, over harmless trolling.Rebel_Raven said:Basically, you're asking if people should loose access to the single player part of the game, like story mode in CoD, or Vs AI/Season in madden, or some such?
Not immediately, no.
If they maintain being trolls by what ever means after being punished before they lose access to the game, then yes, they should. It's a likely next step in punishing someone that was bypassing the game's guards against this behaviour.
That's amusing coming from the guy whose sole argument was that companies will turn into evil overlords and start banning people for the stupidest things.Signa said:I still can't help but feel we're all mad at some boogieman that doesn't really exist on the level everyone says he does. That anger is driving the support for this measure which I can't agree with. Personally, I've never seen a troll/asshole get kicked, and then have him show up again later, let alone still being an asshole later.
As a person who played a lot of WoW, it happens a ton. This is a game that requires you to pay for a base game and an expansion and requires you to pay 15 dollars a month and people will still go out of their way to be megadouches. If they get banned for being megadouches (which has happened and its glorious) they freak the fuck out and complain about how Blizzard stole their money.Signa said:I have to ask the question, how many of these trolls have been spotted in paid games? Before TF2 went free to play, I almost never saw assholes/trolls. Maybe twice. After free to play? Quite a bit more. I could see people being mad at trolls in general, but dismissing the context they saw them in and then supporting this.
Irrelevant. Besides, I'm less concerned about this company turning evil overlord, and more of how the decision is made to ban. If it's all user feedback, it's open for abuse. If it's a successful system, other companies that are already evil overlords could also implement and then abuse it. My original post in this thread talked about how it wasn't cool when EA did the same thing for something similar.shintakie10 said:That's amusing coming from the guy whose sole argument was that companies will turn into evil overlords and start banning people for the stupidest things.Signa said:I still can't help but feel we're all mad at some boogieman that doesn't really exist on the level everyone says he does. That anger is driving the support for this measure which I can't agree with. Personally, I've never seen a troll/asshole get kicked, and then have him show up again later, let alone still being an asshole later.
Both WoW and COD have grand mass appeal for their userbase. They are games that non-gamers will play religiously. You're guaranteed to find assholes in them. I'm not trying to invalidate your point about them, but it comes as no surprise because of who the games attract.As a person who played a lot of WoW, it happens a ton. This is a game that requires you to pay for a base game and an expansion and requires you to pay 15 dollars a month and people will still go out of their way to be megadouches. If they get banned for being megadouches (which has happened and its glorious) they freak the fuck out and complain about how Blizzard stole their money.Signa said:I have to ask the question, how many of these trolls have been spotted in paid games? Before TF2 went free to play, I almost never saw assholes/trolls. Maybe twice. After free to play? Quite a bit more. I could see people being mad at trolls in general, but dismissing the context they saw them in and then supporting this.
Check out your average CoD online game. Again, people are paying 60 dollars for the game. Many are spending 60 more dollars for map packs. On top of that they're paying for an online subscription to Xbox Live (do you still need to pay to get into PS online games? Cant remember). They're more than willing to be megadouches after they've spent 100+ dollars on the game.
Even in F2P games, people act like megadouches after they've spent a ton of cash on the game because they feel they're perfectly entitled to be megadouches because they paid into the system.
If that's true and these kinds of trolls don't exist then what are you complaining about? This would inherently then mean that no one gets kicked.Signa said:I still can't help but feel we're all mad at some boogieman that doesn't really exist on the level everyone says he does. That anger is driving the support for this measure which I can't agree with. Personally, I've never seen a troll/asshole get kicked, and then have him show up again later, let alone still being an asshole later.
Ok then, let me give you a new analogy.Signa said:I think it's very important to point out that in the movie theater analogy, customers in the theater all paid for that session of movie viewing, and nothing else. They don't have the option to come back later and enjoy the movie without the douche in the room, nor can they go see a different movie later. In order for the situations to be similar, the theater would have to offer a permanent service where customers can come and go as they please to each movie in the theater. Suddenly, ruining one movie for a lot of people isn't so bad since they can just go see a different one or view it again when the douche isn't around.Lightknight said:Yes, for the same reason I think an asshole standing up and shouting in a movie theater during the movie should be removed.
It's not about taking something away from that person so much as it is preventing that person from taking away from everyone else. The rest of the people there also paid for the experience and they're ruining it for everyone.
As long as this is part of the user agreement then absolutely. But even if not, social contract isn't unreasonable to follow.
The analogy still falls apart when you consider things like people's time in getting to and attending the theater. I have no problem saying that a douche in the real world should be removed from a theater, but in an online world, the affected customers have options to get away from the douche without compromising their experience significantly. Options that doesn't involve the douche losing money or rights.
For starters, yea, it is. Willful ignorance is exactly that. "I Purposefully never read or cared about what happened to people that violated the EULA but now I'm mad because someone flat out told me". Thats hypocrisy.Mutant1988 said:For starters, ignorance is not the same as hypocrisy.snekadid said:Then stop acting hypocritically and deserving it.Bat Vader said:There isn't any need to bring insults into this. I would prefer if people acted civil in my thread and didn't flame or bring insults.
Secondly, large scale renouncement of ownership based on in-game behaviour has until recently been practically impossible to enforce (Except with cheating), due to flawed feedback systems and lack of reliable evidence.
Also new is the notion that it's the responsibility of the company to "police" your games, rather than you being given the tools to do so yourself.
I don't trust companies with the authority to say who gets to keep owning a game or not. If they want to boot them off the main stream service and can actually prove that they deserve it, then fine. But I'm a bit disturbed by how that proof is collected. Are they going to record every single bit of gameplay and then systematically remove people? Sure, that would get rid of the jerks but that makes it a bit of a police state, doesn't it?
I prefer the solution of simply restricting users to playing with friends only (Private games) for a limited time.
That a real quote or just something you made up?snekadid said:For starters, yea, it is. Willful ignorance is exactly that. "I Purposefully never read or cared about what happened to people that violated the EULA but now I'm mad because someone flat out told me". Thats hypocrisy.
And I'm still saying that revoking the use of a paid product in too much. Revoking access to a service on the other hand, has been done, and is fair to do.snekadid said:Wow has been doing this for a decade now. You know who is the only ones that complain? The raging assholes who got banned. They go on the forums screaming up a storm and when asked what they were doing when they got banned, they either shut up or tell you how they were threatening to rape someones dog with a pipe. No one else complains that these people are gone. This is why there has never been a big outrage over this type of EULA existing forever, because it works and even regular assholes don't have to worry about it because the standards are so low that 99.9% of the people that play will not get banned, because they lack the vitriol to spew garbage wherever they go. Just calling your healer a "****" wont get you banned.