Player banned from game... not sure what to think

[ik9000]

don't know what to make of this. Someone pays for a game, then gets banned from the servers so can no longer play it. In one way, he clearly wasn't playing fairly, but in another, is it his fault for exploiting defects in the game? Shouldn't they just patch it to prevent him from doing this rather than ban him?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32654414

this is why i don't buy such online dependent games.

[directhex]

don't know what to make of this. Someone pays for a game, then gets banned from the servers so can no longer play it. In one way, he clearly wasn't playing fairly, but in another, is it his fault for exploiting defects in the game? Shouldn't they just patch it to prevent him from doing this rather than ban him?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32654414

this is why i don't buy such online dependent games.

He was ruining the game experience for hundreds of other people. Why is he the one to be protected? Why not them?

[ik9000]

He was ruining the game experience for hundreds of other people. Why is he the one to be protected? Why not them?

I'm not arguing about that, but how does this work when someone has shelled out for the game - multiple characters in his case? And it's one thing hacking a game and cheating, another if he is simply exploiting bugs in the game that he found out how to do (and anyone else could do). If the latter the software company need to patch before they simply wield the ban hammer to cover up their own failings.

NB that in the original SF2 the multi-punch hits were not programmed but an unplanned bug that players stumbled across. In that case the dev took the line anyone could exploit them, and liked the challenge of people finding out how to do the rapid bunch pressing in a way that let them exploit it. Did other players lose as a result? yes. Different approach to a similar problem. In a fighting game it's dog eat dog. If there's no hacking going on, I wonder how reasonable it is to ban someone who has figured out a way of doing something neat.

[Biscuit]

I was going to comment on this, until I had a look on youtube about people talking about the things they have been banned for... what a crock this game is.

[TooNice]

Apart from the virtual execution, this is a pretty standard practice in MMORPGs for as long as I remember.

I think that sometime one might convincingly argue that one did not realise that a particular exploit is an exploit at all, but those are generally very few in between, and this one is pretty clear cut.

Developers normally patch exploits as they are found, but it doesn't mean that it is okay to exploit until then.

In a fighting game it's dog eat dog.

Case by case. It is not uncommon for characters to be banned from tournaments for a number of reasons, typically because it is particularly and unintentionally cheap (e.g. infinite combo that is easy to pull and un-punishable etc.).

Simple test: if everyone was to exploit the bug, would it add depth to the overall gameplay, or turn the game into a dull, one dimensional experience where it is just that or nothing. Here, it is clearly the later.

[MrRockliffe]

If he's affecting the game for other players, he should be banned.

However, in games where they're not hurting anyone, it's unfair that they should be banned.

In games like runescape, you can be manned for using macros, which is unfair as it's the most boring game at times due to all the clicking you have to do.

[Allen]

don't know what to make of this. Someone pays for a game, then gets banned from the servers so can no longer play it. In one way, he clearly wasn't playing fairly, but in another, is it his fault for exploiting defects in the game? Shouldn't they just patch it to prevent him from doing this rather than ban him?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32654414

this is why i don't buy such online dependent games.

GW2 is an MMORPG, you can't play it offline. When he purchased the game and signed up for an account, he agreed to an EULA. In that EULA it would have stated that he couldn't hack, cheat or do anything else deemed as "unfair" which would spoil the game for others. He broke the EULA and therefore faced the consequences.

Yes, of course ArenaNet should, and probably will, patch whatever exploits he used, but I don't think it's ever the developers who should be held responsible. Software has bugs, and games probably have more than others due to developers being rushed to push out content. Yes of course they should fix it, but if the EULA stipulates that players should not abuse these bugs, then they should be mature enough, and feel morally obliged, to not abuse them. Just like I would never do if I ever found a bug in a game (I was going to specify MMORPG's, but I wouldn't abuse bugs in ANY game I played).

There's no sympathy from me for this guy, he clearly broke the rules many times, and if I still played GW2 I would be glad to see the back of him, regardless of how much he paid for the game.

[peterb]

Well at least he was banned with some style! I rather wish HEXUS had something like this for the post count pimpers and spammers!

[kalniel]

I'm not arguing about that, but how does this work when someone has shelled out for the game - multiple characters in his case? And it's one thing hacking a game and cheating, another if he is simply exploiting bugs in the game that he found out how to do (and anyone else could do).

Anyone can use a car to kill someone else, but by living in this country, they've agreed to abide by a set of laws that says not to, even though they are not being physically stopped from doing so.

If you buy a game that has legally viable conditions of use and then agree to them, I think it's reasonable to expect you to stick to them. There is no right that says you must be able to play a game despite breaking the conditions of use. Just like I might expect not to be allowed to drive a car if I use it wrongly.

[sammyc]

Regardless of his being in the wrong, that's a rather baying-for-blood lynch mob sentence, innit? Ok it's a game, my runescape character's life just flashed before my eyes..


(Entirely off topic, the ad for a printer repair company at the bottom right of my screen states 'Low Cost Fast Efficent[sic] Reliable' - no idea if anyone wishes to know this or not.)

[kalniel]

Well at least he was banned with some style! I rather wish HEXUS had something like this for the post count pimpers and spammers!

On the NWN server I used to help run a builder went to the trouble of creating a Hell area just for banned players. Any time a character logged in with their product key/IP/username they'd be teleported straight to this Hell where they couldn't do much - the art design of the area was pretty cool but the sound effects were enough to drive most crazy.

Presume you have the option to send naughties to Coventry on these forums? If not, I recommend getting that functionality - came in useful on a publisher forum I used to moderate.

[abaxas]

Providing the guy didn't use anything external to the game itself, he has done nothing wrong.

[kalniel]

Providing the guy didn't use anything external to the game itself, he has done nothing wrong.

That's not what the license says that he agreed to.

I really really don't want to live in a world where I can't be given the responsibility to follow agreed conditions without being forcibly nannied so there's no alternative. Whether that's dumbing down games to reduce degrees of freedom or sticking speed restrictors on all cars.

[Doniu]

They deleted his whole character because he was abusing glitches and most likely used a bot to get all his stuff. Justice served.