Developers can now ban gamers on Steam for specific games

[qubit]

This is either good or bad, depending on who's at fault. On the one hand, we all want cheaters and trolls kicked out, but on the other, we don't want people censored for pointing out genuine problems with the games or the developer and I fear that this power will get abused widely in just this way. Therefore, I don't think this is a good idea overall.

Banned by Game Developer (Game Ban)

Because nobody likes playing with cheaters.

Playing games should be fun. In order to ensure the best possible online multiplayer experience, Valve allows developers to implement their own systems that detect and permanently ban any disruptive players, such as those using cheats.

Game developers inform Valve when a disruptive player has been detected in their game, and Valve applies the game ban to the account. 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.

For more information about a game ban in a specific game, please contact the developer of that game.

http://steamcommunity.com/actions/WhatIsGameBan

 

[Disparia]

From what's given I can't see much difference from how it's been done and how it'll be done in the future. With the one that I can come up with - less work for company - then I'll go with good idea.

 

[RCoon]

Is it just me, or is Steam starting to mess with things that really shouldn't be messed with. I preferred it when they made games, provided a "lesser-evil" DRM platform for games, did the occasional epic sale, and generally make improvements to the UI experience. If somebody cheats in a game, permaban them from multiplayer. I don't think you should have the right to remove the game from their account.

Here at TPU if somebody messes up big time, we only ban them for a period of 3 months as a "cool-off" period. Works for us, perma-bans only apply to the enormous pains in the ass. I also like Riot's way of dealing with bans and punishments for being a douchebag. It's not perfect, but it works better than most. I just don't see how it's going to work, especially with games like Rust, when hacking is so rampant.

Not sure how I feel. Punishment is a necessity, but taking something off of someone permanently that they paid for... hmmm...

EDIT: If a child likes flinging peas across the room, you don't take peas away from his diet forever do you???

 

[DannibusX]

If the ban is from multiplayer for hacking then I support it, if the ban is from the game completely for any reason then I would expect a refund because that is theft.

 

[WhiteNoise]

I voted yes. Since I never get banned because I'm an honest gamer that never cheats, exploits or causes problems in any game I think the devs should be able to ban players from multiplayer titles. This is going to help get cheaters banned much faster i think. But if that banned person is not able to play the game in it's single player mode then I would be against this. Since they did pay for the game and if it does indeed have both single and multiplayer modes then they should just be banned from the multiplayer side of things. Looks to me like this is just a ban on multiplayer cheaters. I say good bye to those buttholes.

 

[qubit]

Is it just me, or is Steam starting to mess with things that really shouldn't be messed with.

That's what I was thinking too. And yeah, removing a game from someone's account is one of the worst aspects of DRM, especially if that person has paid for it. No matter how big a douchebag they are, by paying for it, they have legally earned the rights to it. Only a court of law could legally take that away from them, regardless of any small print in the contract. It would just become an unfair contract term and have no legal power.

I voted yes. Since I never get banned because I'm an honest gamer that never cheats, exploits or causes problems in any game I think the devs should be able to ban players from multiplayer titles. This is going to help get cheaters banned much faster i think. But if that banned person is not able to play the game in it's single player mode then I would be against this. Since they did pay for the game and if it does indeed have both single and multiplayer modes then they should just be banned from the multiplayer side of things. Looks to me like this is just a ban on multiplayer cheaters. I say good bye to those buttholes.

Agreed about kicking buttholes where it hurts, but what about the devs abusing this power? You can be sure they will, so this can't just be brushed under the carpet. Also the legal point I'm making with RCoon, above, needs to be addressed.

 

[64K]

I don't really have a poker in this fire because I don't play multiplayer much and the biggest reason is because of the cheaters. Give me a fair chance and I lose then so be it. Use a hack to beat me and it becomes frustration. I think it's fine to ban a player from multiplayer if they are cheating. That ruins the fun for all honest gamers. I don't think they should have the single player aspect of the game taken away though.

As far as legality goes. Steam can ban you from your entire account if you use a hack to try to get free games. As far as I know I don't own a single game on Steam. I paid for the right to play them so long as I abide by Steam's TOS but I don't own any of my 135 games on Steam. Consumer protection laws vary I guess but here in the USA I can legally sign away all of my rights except those that are guaranteed by our Constitution.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It seems to be referring to cheating specifically, so I doubt it will go as far as general criticism toward games or forum behavior. That would fall into Valve's hands, and trust me, that is something which is not exactly strictly enforced.

 

[human_error]

My concern would be false positives and the lack of appeal process in place with most developers. I think that game devs should be able to ban people from their own games, but I don't think the bans should be account wide (unless I'm reading the statement wrong and that is what they mean by an account ban [on the game]).

 

[newtekie1]

If the ban is from multiplayer for hacking then I support it, if the ban is from the game completely for any reason then I would expect a refund because that is theft.

No it isn't stealing. You are not paying for the software, you are paying fir a license to use the software in accordance with the terms of the license for that software. Cheating in mulitplayer is against the terms of the license, so the license can be revoked with no refund. A license is a legal contract, you broke the contract, you don't get your money back.

 

[manofthem]

No it isn't stealing. You are not paying for the software, you are paying fir a license to use the software in accordance with the terms of the license for that software. Cheating in mulitplayer is against the terms of the license, so the license can be revoked with no refund. A license is a legal contract, you broke the contract, you don't get your money back.

Agreed.

However, you could argue that some are banned unfairly, banned for not even cheating (what @human_error called false positive), and that wouldn't fall under violating the tos.

And since a license is mentioned, it must be mentioned in the tos that cheating in multi a violation with the corresponding result of having the game removed from their account for this to be legit.

All in all, I can't say I disagree with this. I don't game much anymore and have never cheated so people like me don't have much to worry about.

 

[Mussels]

This is a good change.

Look at what happens with EA - someone got banned from their forum, and lost all their paid games on that EA account. At least this way you can be falsely reported for cheating (or a false positive from an automated system, remember that programs like FRAPS have caused that in the past) and you only have to risk one game, and argue with one dev.

 

[Easo]

I can already see this going horribly wrong.
This WILL be abused.

 

[NC37]

If the ban is from multiplayer for hacking then I support it, if the ban is from the game completely for any reason then I would expect a refund because that is theft.

I've seen idiots like this who come into a multiplayer game then treat people like filth and then cry refund because they got their butts banned. They deserve what they get. Purchasing a multiplayer game should not give you the right to behave like some sick depraved lunatic that would be shot on sight in real life. That sets a bad example for everything. People could go around exploiting it left and right to constantly get free games.

 

[qubit]

Well, that's interesting. I see that the Yes votes are now running away with it at 11 votes and the No votes at 5, with just 2 don't knows.

Well, I guess those Yes voters might just reconsider when a developer has banned them unfairly for the reasons that I described. The more I think about it, the more I'm against it due to natural developer self interest leading to abuse. Here's another opinion piece on why this is a bad idea that you might like to read, which articulates this point nicely:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ng-banning-keys-over-to-game-developers.shtml

Also, we're all talking about on here of gamers being unable to access their paid for games at all due to a ban. However, read that Valve statement carefully and you'll see that it doesn't actually say this. It does mention cheaters in multiplayer at the start, but then doesn't clarify at all whether they mean banned from the game in its entirety, or just the multiplayer component. Therefore, I think it means the multiplayer component only, but it really should be clarified. I can't see how it can be legal to just ban a user from using software that they've paid for, even if it's "just a licence to use it" under the terms of a contract.

I do wonder if this ambiguity is actually by design, rather than just bad wording and I wouldn't be surprised if Valve clarify this point in a revision to this statement.

 

[newtekie1]

I can already see this going horribly wrong.
This WILL be abused.

How? If a developer started abusing this they'll just make a bad name for themselves.

 

[Mussels]

How? If a developer started abusing this they'll just make a bad name for themselves.

exactly. devs cant really abuse it without massive backlash, but it saves consumers asses whether they've been abusing the system or not.

 

[qubit]

How? If a developer started abusing this they'll just make a bad name for themselves.

I think it would help to a fair degree, but I doubt it's a complete answer at preventing abuse. It's similar in concept to where businesses in particular areas, say financial, need formal regulation as well as well as market and consumer feedback processes to keep them in line. There also needs to be some sort of appeals system with Valve, which they're washing their hands of problems here by not having one.

To be fair, I doubt there's a 100% answer to this problem anyway and I certainly don't have it.

While I'm thinking about it, do you think a rating system similar to Heat integrated into the Steam platform might help? @Mussels you too buddy, what do you think about such a rating system?

 

[AsRock]

Not sure, i guess it depends on the proof against the so called cheater, back when GTA 4 was released i was using a so called cheat mod to which allowed invisibility but all so allowed you to be able kick people of the game if you were the one who started the server.

All so had a cool feature which allowed to add ramps to the game too lol.

The people who made the game should be the ones sorting it out this is just another place steam is putting it's nose were it's not needed. Steam cannot even handle server list correctly which fileplanet did so much better for Arma 3 never mind giving them the power to ban people.

Maybe if Steam warned the player before a possible ban so the player could prove his\her case before nuking their game that they payed for.

 

[Easo]

How? If a developer started abusing this they'll just make a bad name for themselves.

I have seen posts full of chat transcripts, screenshots and even videos, where abuse various failures, lies and abuses from developers were displayed, but users posting them were banned.
Sure, there was shouting and such afterwards, but nothing major realy happened. I fail to see what will be different here. Some developer will ban someone especially annoying, and... what? Few voices against devs? Eh...

 

[Frag_Maniac]

exactly. devs cant really abuse it without massive backlash, but it saves consumers asses whether they've been abusing the system or not.

Well, since there's a lot of cheat filters that are not 100% accurate, seems the way to go is to back them with a good appeal system so the accused can at least have a chance to present their case. Things like a significant amount of hours logged on certain servers and/or with certain friends whom can verify they've had no such problems with you should matter.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

*reads all comments*

I liked how Crytek made the multi-player and and single-player components different with Crysis Warheaad and Crysis Wars.

 

[yogurt_21]

I have seen posts full of chat transcripts, screenshots and even videos, where abuse various failures, lies and abuses from developers were displayed, but users posting them were banned.
Sure, there was shouting and such afterwards, but nothing major realy happened. I fail to see what will be different here. Some developer will ban someone especially annoying, and... what? Few voices against devs? Eh...

Yes because that totally sounds like a game I want to continue playing. If there's really that much abuse I'm not really seeing a downside to being banned from that game. It would totally suck to be banned from steam altogether in that case which is what this change avoids.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The older I get the more I believe that the Internet has ruined video games.

 

[qubit]

The older I get the more I believe that the Internet has ruined video games.

Oh, you cynic you.