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

[Fappy]

I think it depends entirely on the game, especially its business model. If it has micro-transactions, DLC, and other additional expenses on-top of the initial purpose, I can see the problem. If it's just a basic software license... well, you agreed to the EULA. If you clearly violated it then they have the right to take whatever actions listed therein. It may not be the most legally sound document, but it's not like anyone's ever going to go to court over it.

This argument really boils down to the tired product vs. service argument that the industry's been struggling with for the better part of a decade now. If you consider Killingfloor 2 the former, then yeah there are some issues there, but if it's treated as a software license then that's that.

It's a controversial move, and not one I would make myself, but I understand the intent. It may be bad for some users (mostly assholes, presumably), but the point of it isn't to screw over consumers, it's to cultivate a healthy community. If I gave two-shits about shooters I may actually be interested in this. Decent multiplayer communities are hard to come by these days, unfortunately.

 

[L. Declis]

It's a controversial move, and not one I would make myself, but I understand the intent. It may be bad for some users (mostly assholes, presumably), but the point of it isn't to screw over consumers, it's to cultivate a healthy community. If I gave two-shits about shooters I may actually be interested in this. Decent multiplayer communities are hard to come by these days, unfortunately.

But what is "good behaviour"? The company makes a move you dislike and you complain? Can that be bannable? You beat a mod in a game and it is your word and his? You begin a petition to change some aspect? You have one bad day and someone is trolling you? You say something they dislike regarding politics? You say you dislike them on Twitter?

Being a "good consumer" is so vague, and it begins to let people be punished and monetarily punished for something they disagree with.

 

[Fappy]

It's a controversial move, and not one I would make myself, but I understand the intent. It may be bad for some users (mostly assholes, presumably), but the point of it isn't to screw over consumers, it's to cultivate a healthy community. If I gave two-shits about shooters I may actually be interested in this. Decent multiplayer communities are hard to come by these days, unfortunately.

But what is "good behaviour"? The company makes a move you dislike and you complain? Can that be bannable? You beat a mod in a game and it is your word and his? You begin a petition to change some aspect? You have one bad day and someone is trolling you? You say something they dislike regarding politics? You say you dislike them on Twitter?

Being a "good consumer" is so vague, and it begins to let people be punished and monetarily punished for something they disagree with.

Well obviously you'd want clear guidelines as to what constitutes a bannable offense as well as an appeals system to handle tricky cases. LoL bans use hard evidence to level again the player in question (like chat logs), so I'd expect a similar level of discretion from Tripwire.

Have a detailed code of conduct that the player must agree to as part of the EULA and I think the dev's are in the clear.

 

[jklinders]

How about a reputation system? Instead of outright banning an account, set a way to see in advance that someone has a rep for being a prick. Kind of like a blacklist or something. That way if someone does not want to deal with their shit they can kick them from the group.

Good behavior over time could remove the blacklist designation. It's not perfect, but I have run into just enough assholes online to know they can really ruin a session.

 

[Metailurus]

Killing Floor 2 devs have also made a post on Steam forums stating how that such an action is only reserved for very extreme cases, and in fact have only ever followed through on this on 2 cases out of 10 million game copies sold, 1 of whom was convicted in court for hacking. citation needed: http://steamcommunity.com/app/232090/discussions/0/618459405713048275/

So no, individual behaviour isn't really a good reason, it needs to be sustained and widespread for someone to be considered a serious problem.

 

[Kyrian007]

I like the idea. They put the policy right out in the open, they said it would be used for extreme cases only, its their servers... I have no problem. And my other take on it comes to the same conclusion from the self-interest side. I try and be courteous to others when I play online and I don't have a problem following rules... so this doesn't affect me. It may affect others... but screw them, that's not my problem. It sounds like they would deserve it anyway.

So... yeah, good for them. I wish more devs would do this.

 

[Albino Boo]

If you walk into bar and buy a drink and do something the management doesn't like you get thrown out and don't get your money back. If you buy a train ticket and behave in a manner the management doesn't like you get thrown off and get your money back. If you buy a cinema ticket and misbehave in the eyes of the management you get thrown out and no cash returned. Why is different because its online?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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

The one major problem with this is that Killing Floor 2 is ostensibly an online only game. While this might seem like a good idea, taking power out of the hands of server admins is a bad way to do things. Basically it is bricking the game for some people, luckily the developer has been rather judicious about the process. That doesn't mean that this doesn't set a precedent for other less trust worthy developers and publishers to ban people who complain about their games. That's when you start to get in to the territory of "I paid for this" this isn't the same as being kicked out of a bar or restaurant. In this case a person actually paid for goods and services rendered, banning someone from a multiplayer focus video game, at least with out a refund, is tantamount to theft

If you walk into bar and buy a drink and do something the management doesn't like you get thrown out and don't get your money back. If you buy a train ticket and behave in a manner the management doesn't like you get thrown off and get your money back. If you buy a cinema ticket and misbehave in the eyes of the management you get thrown out and no cash returned. Why is different because its online?

It's different on several levels. One is the general cost of games, the other is that games are still goods. You pay for a license and have access to the content. If we start nit picking on this people could be banned from multiplayer games for having a justified complaint about something like balance of weapons, or classes. When we get to that point they could censor people just by banning them from the game entirely. This could also end up bleeding into single player games. It's just not a good idea. Especially when considering that when you play online in a game you're playing from home. While individual servers can ban you in most games, game wide bans for online only games is basically theft. Because it's an item you have for personal enjoyment from home, and you're technically not in someone's establishment. If the game was subscription based, or free to play microtransaction they could justify this. But for a non-subscription retail game... This is walking on thin ice.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Only if it's something that can't be solved by other players muting the offending player.

Harassment (which goes beyond in game mic abuse and offensive text), hacking, scamming, posting of pornographic imagery or content of an illicit nature... etc. I don't care what you paid to play the game, I'm in full support of a developer withdrawing your online privileges for as long as they see fit and without refund, even permanent bans if the offense is severe enough.

If you paid 40 bucks on a cinema ticket and junk food, you should still get kicked out for disrupting or offending other cinema goers.

Online gaming is a social event. If you can't be sociable, you shouldn't be online. By social I mean at the very least be passive... you don't have to be chummy with everybody.

I'm pretty sure pub club memberships on this site can be banned for breaking site rules. The onus is on the member not to infringe on those rules, not for the site to enable your assholery.

 

[Albino Boo]

If you walk into bar and buy a drink and do something the management doesn't like you get thrown out and don't get your money back. If you buy a train ticket and behave in a manner the management doesn't like you get thrown off and get your money back. If you buy a cinema ticket and misbehave in the eyes of the management you get thrown out and no cash returned. Why is different because its online?

It's different on several levels. One is the general cost of games, the other is that games are still goods. You pay for a license and have access to the content. If we start nit picking on this people could be banned from multiplayer games for having a justified complaint about something like balance of weapons, or classes. When we get to that point they could censor people just by banning them from the game entirely. This could also end up bleeding into single player games. It's just not a good idea. Especially when considering that when you play online in a game you're playing from home. While individual servers can ban you in most games, game wide bans for online only games is basically theft. Because it's an item you have for personal enjoyment from home, and you're technically not in someone's establishment. If the game was subscription based, or free to play microtransaction they could justify this. But for a non-subscription retail game... This is walking on thin ice.

A season ticket for permish football cost at least £2000 pounds a year and you still lose it for bad behavior. You can pay £100s for theater and concert tickets and you still lose them. In the rest of world if you behave like a dick you lose out and don't get refunds even when spending far higher sums than on games. Just because something is online doesn't not mean its different.

 

[Gunner 51]

I applaud any anti-cheating or anti-douche policies. I acknowledge there is no perfect system - but ya gotta try.

As many folks above me have already said that if you act like an idiot in a cinema for example, you're going to get thrown out. This should also be true of games, if you're spoiling the fun of other people who have also paid good money to play that game, you should get thrown out of the game.

It's sad to see that mutliplayer games now require referees, but that's the way the world is nowadays.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

In every other walk of life we lose our privileges if we act like antisocial assholes. Why is gaming any different? Online gaming would be a much more pleasant experience if people acted with the same restraint and civility that they do in the real world when they could lose their match ticket/gig ticket/dinner reservation etc.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

If you walk into bar and buy a drink and do something the management doesn't like you get thrown out and don't get your money back. If you buy a train ticket and behave in a manner the management doesn't like you get thrown off and get your money back. If you buy a cinema ticket and misbehave in the eyes of the management you get thrown out and no cash returned. Why is different because its online?

It's different on several levels. One is the general cost of games, the other is that games are still goods. You pay for a license and have access to the content. If we start nit picking on this people could be banned from multiplayer games for having a justified complaint about something like balance of weapons, or classes. When we get to that point they could censor people just by banning them from the game entirely. This could also end up bleeding into single player games. It's just not a good idea. Especially when considering that when you play online in a game you're playing from home. While individual servers can ban you in most games, game wide bans for online only games is basically theft. Because it's an item you have for personal enjoyment from home, and you're technically not in someone's establishment. If the game was subscription based, or free to play microtransaction they could justify this. But for a non-subscription retail game... This is walking on thin ice.

A season ticket for permish football cost at least £2000 pounds a year and you still lose it for bad behavior. You can pay £100s for theater and concert tickets and you still lose them. In the rest of world if you behave like a dick you lose out and don't get refunds even when spending far higher sums than on games. Just because something is online doesn't not mean its different.

Excepting that you're doing it from your own home, and the implications this has on software you actually buy can be trouble in the making. Remember that if you're on a public server it's still a privately owned thing. Now this works legally in two ways, if a company owns the server, specifically if they're the developer, or publisher of the game they can ban you from that server. The same applies to public servers not owned by the developer/publisher, but paid for by private companies like The Escapist, or by individuals. You're their at their pleasure, thus you can be expelled at their digression. Where it gets murky legally is if a publisher/developer bans someone from a purely online game entirely, when they don't own the servers. While arguments can be made for trolls, griefers, and cheaters there is the potential for legal backlash due to company abuse, or violation of the EULA. Worse still is that if the EULA rule is upheld then developers and publishers could potentially ban users who give them a bad review from the game. Then where does that stop, they could put a clause in the EULA that says if you give the game a poor review, or speak about it in a manner they object to, you get banned from the game. They could potentially apply this to even single player games and game modes. Then this starts to fall in to the territory of weather, or not this is a violation of privacy, because you're playing the game in your own home. It's a legal mess, one that could be abused to the detriment of all video gaming at the leisure of publishers like Ubisoft and EA.

 

[Mutant1988]

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.

 

[Albino Boo]

Snip

I'm sorry but your are factually incorrect. Its a contract and all the other examples i gave manage to do the same under contractual law without any trouble. Is one clause and that it , al it has to say in the management have to right to terminate service, any of story. You are making the classical mistake thinking that because something is online the law is somehow different, it isn't the same simple term for everywhere else applies. If you make abusive telephone calls from your home you still lose the telephone service. There is no legal difference because your are in your own home. You don't like thats fine but you will not make any headway with factually false arguments.

 

[gnihton]

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?

Another example of Valve leading the field and everyone else being 10 years behind is here.

I don't understand why everybody doesn't just copy Dota 2's model for dealing with undesirables. If their behaviour is repeatedly pulled in to question, then you are just put in "low priority" and forced to play with other people that have been deemed undesirable for about 5 games.

It's fair, doesn't go ridiculously over the top in terms of punishment (personally I much prefer minimum moderation in just about everything, this is one of the best ways to handle it), allows them to continue playing, protects others from undesirables because they're in a separate queue much of the time, and, quite importantly, encourages them to fix their attitude by inflicting others like them on themselves.

It's an almost perfect moderation system, that others need to start copying.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'm sorry but your are factually incorrect. Its a contract and all the other examples i gave manage to do the same under contractual law without any trouble. Is one clause and that it , al it has to say in the management have to right to terminate service, any of story. You are making the classical mistake thinking that because something is online the law is somehow different, it isn't the same simple term for everywhere else applies. If you make abusive telephone calls from your home you still lose the telephone service. There is no legal difference because your are in your own home. You don't like thats fine but you will not make any headway with factually false arguments.

The EULA as a contract generally isn't worth the font it's printed from either. As most people are unaware of the stipulations in most of these documents and aren't lawyers, which means that in legal action they have some unusual advantages if they press the issue in court. If the EULA starts defining what players are allowed access to privately owned servers, which starts reaching beyond what the publisher is allowed to do with content a user purchased. In US court at least this could result in multiple millions and more in damages caused to someone on an emotional level, at the very least. Also if they put stipulations like being able to harvest your organs at will, and any other EULA stipulation was upheld, they could actually do it, because you agreed to the contract.

 

[Dandark]

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.

Actually a lot of the complaints I hear are because you are not allowed to do this on any server. I think most people understand and are happy with people getting banned from someone's server because the owner didn't like their use of the word "rape" or something, same with offical tripwire servers. I haven't looked into it myself because it doesn't really affect me(I rarely talk online and I never really get into verbal fights) but people are upset because they are forced to moderate people as tripwire says on their own private servers or they will be banned.

So people who want to play with a group of friends they know can't make a server where they enjoy abusively trash talking each other using words like rape, ****** or whatever is being moderated because they will be banned for doing so. I think it extends to private servers as well as public ones.

It probably doesn't seem important to people who don't enjoy acting like this but I can see why some people would be upset and it seems like a really harsh punishment just because they don't like someone. Banning them from a server or even all offical tripwire servers because they are upsetting other players is fine, but revoking the game they paid for entirely is a bit harsh and seems more like an abuse of the how games are not actually sold but rented out these days.

 

[wickedmonkey]

Yes.

If you're cheating/griefing/being abusive to other players etc. I don't see why developers can't revoke your access to their game. If it's in the EULA/Terms and Conditions and you hit "I accept", then you agreed to play by their rules.
If people are upset because they're now £40 out of pocket and not able to play their shiny new game any more then maybe next time they'll think twice before being a poisonous douche-bucket again.

 

[Albino Boo]

I'm sorry but your are factually incorrect. Its a contract and all the other examples i gave manage to do the same under contractual law without any trouble. Is one clause and that it , al it has to say in the management have to right to terminate service, any of story. You are making the classical mistake thinking that because something is online the law is somehow different, it isn't the same simple term for everywhere else applies. If you make abusive telephone calls from your home you still lose the telephone service. There is no legal difference because your are in your own home. You don't like thats fine but you will not make any headway with factually false arguments.

The EULA as a contract generally isn't worth the font it's printed from either. As most people are unaware of the stipulations in most of these documents and aren't lawyers, which means that in legal action they have some unusual advantages if they press the issue in court. If the EULA starts defining what players are allowed access to privately owned servers, which starts reaching beyond what the publisher is allowed to do with content a user purchased. In US court at least this could result in multiple millions and more in damages caused to someone on an emotional level, at the very least. Also if they put stipulations like being able to harvest your organs at will, and any other EULA stipulation was upheld, they could actually do it, because you agreed to the contract.

Yeah thats why its never been tested in court in the US, the most litigious nation in world. Don't believe internet lawyers because the talk an awful lost of nonsense. You have to have grounds to to challenge EULAs and it the most litigious nation in the world can't find them then they don't exist. Highly paid lawyers versus someone on the internet, it not hard to work that the highly paid lawyers win. You also clearly don't understand the law because trading in organs is an illegal act in virtually all jurisdictions sticos and you can't contract an illegal act.