Ea is a bit different. They can band you from multiple games because of your behaviour outside of a game.Signa said: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.
Ea is a bit different. They can band you from multiple games because of your behaviour outside of a game.Signa said: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.
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?Fappy said: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.
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.L. Declis said: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?Fappy said: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.
Being a "good consumer" is so vague, and it begins to let people be punished and monetarily punished for something they disagree with.
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 theftVault101 said: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.Sniper Team 4 said: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.
.
I mean I don't mean bricking the game or anything but its good to have SOME measures in place
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.albino boo said: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?
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.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said: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.albino boo said: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?
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.albino boo said: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.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said: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.albino boo said: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?
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.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:Snip
Another example of Valve leading the field and everyone else being 10 years behind is here.Bat Vader said: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?
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.albino boo said: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.
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.Bat Vader said: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.crypticracer said: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.