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

[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.

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.

Contract disputes are nothing new, and corporate lawyers basically only know one word when their company is sued: "Settle out of court, make sure there is an agreement for non disclosure." Also the most highly paid lawyers usually in this case are on the plaintiff side not the defendant side. Because the plaintiff's lawyers get a massive cut of the the award, or settlement, plus fees.

Edit: Besides video games are still considered packaged goods. You can't as a pizza delivery person take a pizza back after it's paid for if the recipient insults you. Delivery pizza is also a packaged good. Paying for the content gives the end user a lot of leeway in rights from a legal standpoint. Since these people are performing game wide bans on privately owned servers that are not their own, they're violating the end user's rights.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm ok with it just as long they don't abuse their power like I mean if someone is being annoying to another person but not warrant a banned normally (like a friend annoyed you in a joke like way).

In saying so that part of the agreement should be the first thing you see when it appear on your screen given how some of us don't read it all. That way they got no right to complained it when it was present right in their face!

 

[Albino Boo]

Contract disputes are nothing new, and corporate lawyers basically only know one word when their company is sued: "Settle out of court, make sure there is an agreement for non disclosure." Also the most highly paid lawyers usually in this case are on the plaintiff side not the defendant side. Because the plaintiff's lawyers get a massive cut of the the award, or settlement, plus fees.

Thats nonsense now you're just making thing up to try and cover up the fact that you are factually incorrect. To settle there would have to be a court case on record with the details of the complaint. Try knowing something about the topic you are posting about.

 

[Vault101]

[quote/]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[/quote]
uhhh my analogy still stands :

>I paid for the meal or a movie ticket
>acted like a dick
>got kicked out

in that case I lose my privilege as a patron if I disrupted the service for others..

but anyway nitpicking aside-

Excepting that you're doing it from your own home

but you are acting within a public "space"

just like someone might get banned from the Escapist even though what they're "doing" is within the privacy of their home

weather or not the game is fully online is irrelevant, YES it would be essentially "bricked" if you were forever banned, but if it gets to the point where one is permanently banned then they should perhaps reflect on the reason why

[i/]oh but with THIS game they would be locked out, as opposed to THIS one where they would be restricted to single player[/i] is kind of a poor argument, it shouldn't make a difference what kind of game it is

and I'm not even saying permanent banning should be the first option, but I absolutely support having measures in place

what those measures are is another issue

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Contract disputes are nothing new, and corporate lawyers basically only know one word when their company is sued: "Settle out of court, make sure there is an agreement for non disclosure." Also the most highly paid lawyers usually in this case are on the plaintiff side not the defendant side. Because the plaintiff's lawyers get a massive cut of the the award, or settlement, plus fees.

Thats nonsense now you're just making thing up to try and cover up the fact that you are factually incorrect. To settle there would have to be a court case on record with the details of the complaint. Try knowing something about the topic you are posting about.

You're making assumptions that I've never had to file suit for mistreatment.

Even so, my edit point stands, video games are packaged goods, this stipulation is actually abusive under the regulations of what EULAs are allowed to do. Assuming they're banning people from all servers. Valve has on occasion been forced to reverse a steam ban for cheating because of how steam bans work, and the fact that their games are packaged goods. Now if Killing Floor 2 main component is run entirely on servers owned by the developer/publisher, then they can actually enforce this policy. But it's still prudent to settle out of court with a non-disclosure agreement, rather than be involved in a protracted legal battle.

Addendum edit: You keep saying factual. Factual can actually have nothing to do with it. People pressing charges against companies(and often other people) have been known to win law suits on sympathy alone. Regardless of how their suit might have no legal founding, people have still won suits in court with no legality to back them up. Far more often this sort of situation is settled out of court. Many companies have had to shut down when they won law suits against charges filed against them. Plus if it gets to the point of class action suit, settle, it's almost the only option. Basically law suits against companies leaves said company in a lose/lose situation no matter what they do.

 

[latiasracer]

Eh, at the end of the day you are buying the license, NOT the game.

That's how steam works, and that is how it's always worked. You play by the developers rules, and i'm pretty sure most EULAS reserve the right to revoke your license anyway.

 

[ffronw]

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.

Actually, it has been tested in court, and the EULA has been upheld. For one example, go look at the MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al. [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/82/] case. The court upheld the EULA, and confirmed that users do not own the software. They merely purchase a license to access the servers.

EULAs are far more sturdy than most people on the internet believe. They're written by experienced attorneys, with regard to case law at that time. The "packaged goods" argument takes a huge hit when you realize that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already dismissed that and affirmed that in the case of online games, the company is simply selling a license.

Being banned from Killing Floor 2 is no different than being banned from WoW, RIFT, SWTOR, or any other MMO. You don't get to throw a fit about lawyers and get your account back. The EULA will likely say something like this:

Grant of Limited Use License. If you agree to this License Agreement,computer software (hereafter referred to as the "Game Client") will be installed on your hardware. If your hardware meets the minimum requirements, the installation of the Game Client will enable you to play the Game by accessing your account with the Service (your "Account"). Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, (The company) hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license to (a) install the Game Client on one or more computers owned by you or under your legitimate control, and (b) use the Game Client in conjunction with the Service for your non-commercial entertainment purposes only. All use of the Game Client is subject to this License Agreement and to the TOU.

Note the bolded part. That's the part the court says is perfectly within the law, and that's the part that means that they can suspend your access at any time.

 

[gnihton]

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.

I've just taken £40 away from you because I don't like your tone.

Of course, you have no right to complain. I mean, did you really expect your punishment for abusing social interaction to be handled socially, rather than by some unrelated authority stepping in? How naive.

What you've typed disgusts me, but I would never demand that it be removed, or more relevantly, that you be banned. Your punishment is that you have my ire, and anyone else's whom you have annoyed. That's how public forums and social interactions work.

 

[Albino Boo]

Contract disputes are nothing new, and corporate lawyers basically only know one word when their company is sued: "Settle out of court, make sure there is an agreement for non disclosure." Also the most highly paid lawyers usually in this case are on the plaintiff side not the defendant side. Because the plaintiff's lawyers get a massive cut of the the award, or settlement, plus fees.

Thats nonsense now you're just making thing up to try and cover up the fact that you are factually incorrect. To settle there would have to be a court case on record with the details of the complaint. Try knowing something about the topic you are posting about.

You're making assumptions that I've never had to file suit for mistreatment.

Even so, my edit point stands, video games are packaged goods, this stipulation is actually abusive under the regulations of what EULAs are allowed to do. Assuming they're banning people from all servers. Valve has on occasion been forced to reverse a steam ban for cheating because of how steam bans work, and the fact that their games are packaged goods. Now if Killing Floor 2 main component is run entirely on servers owned by the developer/publisher, then they can actually enforce this policy. But it's still prudent to settle out of court with a non-disclosure agreement, rather than be involved in a protracted legal battle.

Addendum edit: You keep saying factual. Factual can actually have nothing to do with it. People pressing charges against companies(and often other people) have been known to win law suits on sympathy alone. Regardless of how their suit might have no legal founding, people have still won suits in court with no legality to back them up. Far more often this sort of situation is settled out of court. Many companies have had to shut down when they won law suits against charges filed against them. Plus if it gets to the point of class action suit, settle, it's almost the only option. Basically law suits against companies leaves said company in a lose/lose situation no matter what they do.

Ok you don't appear to understand that these trails are judge only and don't have any jury and are only judged on the law alone

 

[lacktheknack]

Mostly because I'm increasingly disillusioned with consumers, consumerism and the "powers" they "wield", I say HECK YES.

Let the toxic douchecanoes be held accountable for once in their goddamned lives.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

It's how it's done, not what's being done that's the issue. Punishment is short term solution which in turn causes other issues.

What should happen is that gamers should be encouraged to behave better. Priority use of the better, more reliable connections; free additional content such as skins; seperate "VIP" areas etc. for more users who have been more respectful over a certai period.

Let the cream rise to the top and give the trolls an incentive to better themselves too.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Does that mean then that if me and 50 trolls get together to complain about a perfectly nice player then they can be blocked for being a problematic player that upsets people? Ooh, think of the potential for online bullying that this system could promote!

If the way i play a game causes developers to want rid of me then they can easily refund the cash i paid and block me. I think if they want to make a stand then thats good but they shouldn't have any ability to financially profit from the decision.

 

[BeerTent]

Oh my god guys, watch the fucking video. It explains what they're doing.

With that in mind, I whole-heartedly agree with what they're doing.

This is a severe action, and tripwire knows it. They have this reserved for people who are clearly breaking the game, people who are extremely unnecessarily abusive to other people. Who the fuck doesn't want this? I'm a dick, and I will never be hit by this EULA. I will never be banned by KF2 because when someone says "Stop shooting out the lights." I stop without loading mods, hacks, crashing the server, or profusely calling racial slurs for 6 hours.

On top of this, games have changed. They're not the same as they were before. KF2, GTAO, NS2, any MMO under the sun... To view these as anything other than a "service" is asinine. We can dodge it as much as we want, mince words around, but that's that. It's a continued service. Why do games like Starsiege Tribes no longer exist? Auto Assault? You don't make your purchase and have the physical media anymore, you pay your price, and get to enjoy it for as long as the company is hosting it. Hell, even if we go back to the half-life days of online gaming with counter-strike and DoD. Are you abusive on my server? You've been added to a banlist. The difference between then and now is that we actually have someone smart overseeing it, and you have access to 0 servers.

On top of this, this is the EULA. By buying it, and playing it, you've already said it's okay. I'm okay with perk resets. I expect them to happen. For some reason, some people who bought it aren't. Why the fuck did you buy it in early access?

VAC Bans. We agree with those? Yes? No different.

Welcome to the new world, where people pay for a service, and would like to enjoy the unmodified service without being called a '******' 7 times in 3 minutes. Lookin' at you Dustbowl Fortress 2.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

 

[Alma Mare]

A much simpler measure would be timed bans, scalating up to a month. Repeatable as many times as the guy screws up. By the time you start to get month-sized time-outs, it'll sting like a ***** but you still won't lose access to the stuff you bought. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Silvanus]

In an online game, yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable-- though I would also set the bar relatively high, with a few warnings or suspensions before an outright ban. Less leniency if it's outright harassment.

The others with whom the individual is playing have paid for the game, too, and should have a reasonable expectation of a non-shitty atmosphere.

 

[happyninja42]

If you put in the EULA something along the lines of "You will behave nicely, and not like an asshat, or we will kick you out of the game." Then I don't have a problem with it. Other types of social events, (sporting events, musical concerts, etc), all have policies to remove people who are being disruptive, even if they paid to get in there. So I don't see an issue with doing the same on the digital front.

If they use some kind of aggregate rating system, then you will honestly have to go out of your way to be an asshole and get banned. I played LOL for a long time when they had their behavior Honor system, and while I would occasionally get a neg report from some asshole troll, just being a deuche, the majority of my rankings were positive, because I *gasp* acted like a rational, friendly adult! So those few neg reports were just blips on a positive overall behavior.

So I don't really have a problem with this. If the trolls really are the "vocal minority" in the gaming community, the majority of interactions will be positive, which will result in an overall positive rating, which means you won't be in risk of banning.

So yeah, I don't have an issue at all with this behavior by the company.

 

[MonsterCrit]

I kinda agree with this. to a degree. Lose all access.. no that's going too farlose multiplayer access.. sure. But for some game types that's pretty much the same .

 

[Aetrion]

If a players behavior is driving other players out of the game it's perfectly reasonable to ban them.

 

[WhiteNachos]

People who say horrendous stuff should be automatically muted and lose their ability to send private messages except for playing with friends.

Hackers should just be barred from the online portion.

No one should lose their ability to play the single player. If companies pull that kind of shit they should be taken to court.