Steam Game Ban: developers gain game player banning powers

[Saracen]

FFS why is literally everything nowadays instantly met with the downsides ? People are so OBSESSED with finding the bad in everything, it's like being happy about something isn't trendy...

Also, it is completely idiotic to think someone would get banned for criticizing a a game. It is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, but not at all surprising. People just love coming up with scenarios that would outrage many, then act like it was a foregone conclusion. It needs to stop, seriously. No developer in their right mind would ban people for criticism, because the backlash would be immense and swift. But more importantly they wouldn't do it because that's the sort of thing a crazy person does.

Can we please for the love of god stop all trying to instantly think of the worst possible thing that could happen, at this point it's almost like a competition to see who can come up with it. I know it's awesome and all and it's a great way to get attention (because it's guaranteed to be talked about), but you're just ruining **** before it even starts

Perhaps some others have had less happy experiences than you.

As for getting banned over a bad review, as I don't, and won't, use Steam I have no experience of, or interest in, whether that happens or not.

But I do have experience of a developer threatening, not to 'ban' over a review they didn't like, but to take legal action over it. If you've been threatened with legal action, which requires them to actual spend money and go to court, then don't you think if they could just 'ban' an account, they would have?

The notion that companies have, can, and no doubt will continue to seek to suppress bad publicity/PR is not at all far-fetched. I can tell you that from personal experience.

In my case, by the way, EVERYTHING I had criticised was factual and true, and I had detailed logs, screen captures and photos to prove it. So, after a long discussion with the editor and lawyer, the multinational publishing company I'd written the review for invited the developer to go right ahead and sue, if that's what they wanted to do .... see you in court. The developer must have thought better of it, because that was the end of that.

[aniilv]

devs never will go to court since that involves spending money... but, sending threat letters and, now, giving bans? yes we wont have to wait long until jim sterling gets banned

[whitedragon101]

Totally on the fence on this one. Could be fine to stop cheaters ,or an Orwellian attack on free speech. or both

[outwar6010]

I see no way that this will be abused.../s

[aidanjt]

Why should they give a refund to people that are banned for cheating in their games?

Because they arbitrarily disable a feature which was advertised as a product feature. It's no longer fit for purpose.

They don't give refunds to players that stop playing because they are unhappy with the number of cheats playing the game.

The difference is, that was their personal choice. The feature is still there for them.

[Tabbykatze]

The only acceptable time an attack on free speech by banning a player from their game over a bad review is if their comments and review are slanderous. Realistically you'd have the right to sue if you were banned because you gave an amicable bad review.

People are still forgetting the developer doesn't control the ban, the valve team does. The devs simply point and hide behind valve saying that the person over there is a nasty man but it's still up to valve to enforce it.

[crossy]

The only acceptable time an attack on free speech by banning a player from their game over a bad review is if their comments and review are slanderous. Realistically you'd have the right to sue if you were banned because you gave an amicable bad review.

People are still forgetting the developer doesn't control the ban, the valve team does. The devs simply point and hide behind valve saying that the person over there is a nasty man but it's still up to valve to enforce it.

I'm going to agree with what you say above. Remember that Valve are treading a "glass staircase" with this - if they tread lightly then everyone's happy and we all get along, on the other hand be heavy-footed and you're likely to end up in the basement looking like an idiot!

End of the day, it's not in Valve's interest to go swinging the ban-hammer like a Highland Games contestant. They need punters to use their system and if word gets around that they (Valve) are being heavy-handed/unfair then people will upsticks and leave.

There's a flipside to this though - if a dev is reporting too many people as "cheaters" then doesn't it reflect badly on them? Either their title is too easily "gamed" or they're being jerks. So maybe this "anti-cheater" setup - if done right - is also a way to weed out unscrupulous or plain incompetent devs too.

[jag272]

There's a flipside to this though - if a dev is reporting too many people as "cheaters" then doesn't it reflect badly on them? Either their title is too easily "gamed" or they're being jerks. So maybe this "anti-cheater" setup - if done right - is also a way to weed out unscrupulous or plain incompetent devs too.

Same thing applies to the whole critic censorship thing too as I mentioned in my post previously. They could ban the likes of Totalbiscuit/Jim Sterling and to a lesser extent (due to having many accounts) bigger sites like IGN/PCGamer but ultimately, all that achieves is that the critics who have been banned from the game and are now unable to create any sort of response to the game will simply announce that the particular dev is banning critics which is in itself shady.

Chances are nobody will be stupid enough to abuse it, its just a little dark gem in the system that some people may stumble upon and try to abuse.

[kalniel]

There's a flipside to this though - if a dev is reporting too many people as "cheaters" then doesn't it reflect badly on them? Either their title is too easily "gamed" or they're being jerks.

I don't agree with the 'too easily gamed' or 'cheaters are only using a feature in the game' type comments - just because something can be used in a particular way doesn't mean you have every right to. Cars are weapons - just because I can do a great deal of harm with one doesn't mean I'm OK to. Down that road lies a loss of consumer freedom and control - I'd rather cars (and games) gave us the responsibility that comes with freedom of us and allowed us to just agree to their correct use rather than being forced.

[MercutioUK]

If used legitimately to ban cheats, I'd be very happy to see the rights to access the game gone too, without refund. Otherwise, what's the deterrent? Cheat goes and buys it again (with the refund) and carries on as before.

I'd rather the system let quite a few folks slip through the net but solid cases have access to the games online parts removed forever. There's no real need for it you get to a point where people's only entertainment is causing others issues and grief, if it wasn't online it would be seen as being a sociopath.

Have the terms of all games re-written to "proven cheating will result in access to the game being removed" and wait for the ban waves.

A lot of folks seem to go at it with impunity. There's already 0.0054 second completions of the flying school sections in GTA5. That's... pretty clear?

[MercutioUK]

Any "oh yeah, they'd totally ban you for criticism" folks need to realise that the immediate backlash from the community for that would sink most developers who tried it. They can remove access to the game but they can't censor critics everywhere. Strongarm tactics would quickly bite back (who hasn't seen an article about "hotel charge people £xxx for bad reviews" for example?).

[Saracen]

.... Realistically you'd have the right to sue if you were banned because you gave an amicable bad review.

.....

And even if the "right" to sue exists, how "realistic" is it financially, especially if the gamer lives on one continent, and the company they wish to sue is in a jurisdiction on another?

Realistic in theory, maybe, but unless the banned gamer is pretty wealthy, not so much in practice.

[jigger]

The game developer is solely responsible for the decision to apply a game ban. Valve only enforces the game ban as instructed by the game developer.

LOL.

Dev, Ban that guy
Steam, OK!
User, Why did you ban me?
Steam, We don't know!