Valve now lets developers permanently ban Steam users from a game

[UnmotivatedZombie]

I can imagine developers will have to jump through quite some hoops in order to be approved for this system.

Overall, I think it's a great system, though.

The issue is that they could ban people for holding controversial views. it can be abused.

[nasKo]

 

I can imagine developers will have to jump through quite some hoops in order to be approved for this system.

Overall, I think it's a great system, though.

The issue is that they could ban people for holding controversial views. it can be abused.

 

I have my doubts about that becoming a major issue with the system.

 

Chances are, small time developers won't even be able to qualify

[Rathlord]

Considering some of the absolutely horrific ways I've seen developers interact with their customers on the Steam forums, I don't have a shred of doubt that if those devs were to get ahold of this system they would certainly abuse it. One might hope that Valve would curate the devs that got access to this feature, but given their aversion to curating... anything... that might not be something we can count on.

 

As a consumer, I just try to avoid those devs in the first place.  That's probably the safest line of defense we'll have against abuse of this system.

[nasKo]

One might hope that Valve would curate the devs that got access to this feature, but given their aversion to curating... anything... that might not be something we can count on.

Considering developers have to be approved by Valve to use the system, that's as close to curating as it'll get, I guess.

[Rathlord]

 

One might hope that Valve would curate the devs that got access to this feature, but given their aversion to curating... anything... that might not be something we can count on.

Considering developers have to be approved by Valve to use the system, that's as close to curating as it'll get, I guess.

 

 

Aye. We'll just have to wait and see what they do. Since there's some flexibility regarding exactly what features are blocked off (all online content, item trading, public servers, etc.) it may be that the only approval they have to get is approval for what parts of the game are locked. But yah, we'll hafta see what they do!

[Dudeman325]

Further, while in many titles they may not be "taking the game away," in some they very much will be. Any MMO or MOBA, for example, as well as several other genres (L4D, et al.) are solely multiplayer experiences. If the dev happens to ban you, you have lost that purchase entirely.

 

Tl;dr I think it will be good for multiplayer communities but I'm terrified of what it means for consumer rights and game ownership.

MMOs have been issuing full-game bans ever since MMOs existed. I don't think there would be anything to worry about as far as "consumer rights" backlash is concerned, as the precedent has been set for a decently long time already.

[Rathlord]

 

Further, while in many titles they may not be "taking the game away," in some they very much will be. Any MMO or MOBA, for example, as well as several other genres (L4D, et al.) are solely multiplayer experiences. If the dev happens to ban you, you have lost that purchase entirely.

 

Tl;dr I think it will be good for multiplayer communities but I'm terrified of what it means for consumer rights and game ownership.

MMOs have been issuing full-game bans ever since MMOs existed. I don't think there would be anything to worry about as far as "consumer rights" backlash is concerned, as the precedent has been set for a decently long time already.

 

 

While it's true that some MMO's will issue account bans, many won't 99% of the time (eg Eve Online). Further, there are plenty of hybrid genres now that don't involve direct bans but could still lose full functionality without online connectivity. There's been precedent for MMO's, but their Terms of Use have been fairly scummy in the last few years anyways. Just makes me a bit worried to see Valve stepping directly into it.

[Impetiso]

A silly question: why don't just use steam ID to ban from servers?

[nasKo]

A silly question: why don't just use steam ID to ban from servers?

The point of this implementation was to show game bans on the offender's profile.

Not sure if you play CS:GO but there are two ways to be banned from playing their ranked MP:

1) VAC ban - Automated Anti-Cheat system

2) Overwatch ban - users review reported player demos and decide if said players were griefing/cheating

Developers always had ways to ban players from their MP games (no matter if they used VAC or not). Now Valve gives them the opportunity to display said (permanent) bans on profiles.

What people are suddenly afraid of has been going on for years and is the point of anti-cheat systems.

This "new" thing simply means that game bans caused by the developers anti-cheat measures from non-Valve games can now be shown on profiles and that devs have can use Valve's infrastructure for this. Nothing more, really.

Other methods of banning are still there. Be it server sided ID bans or other Anti Cheats.

Chances are, small time devs won't be able to use this.

I can see this being a thing for popular multiplayer games, much like CoD, Killing Floor, etc

[Kam Solastor]

For a system such as this, I might suggest a similar set of rules like the FCC has on broadcasters (Sorry, I took a law class recently, but it seemed appropriate).

 

Essentially, there would be three steps when considering it:

 

First, a official warning, detailing, specifically, what the player was doing, and when, and how it is inappropriate - and this is not 'inappropriate' such as, teamkilling a teammate for lulz; this would be more along the lines of a person, through several multiplayer games spewing hateful racial slurs, utalizing some kind of proven hack or detrimental glitch opposing other players (utalizing 'normal' glitches or 'bugfeatures' would be much less severe).

 

After this initial warning has gone out,  if continued reports of this player doing the same inappropriate actions came in, they would get a notice saying they are actively being 'looked at' by the administrators of the game for continued inappropriate action, and the player will be officially warned as such.

 

If, while being watched in this probationary period the player still continues in the inappropriate action, they would then be eligable for the permanent ban, on a case by case basis.

 

During all of this, there should be clear and easy steps and lines of communication to ensure players can reasonably argue their case, and speak in their defense. Additionally, I would say that in cases of MMOs or other multiplayer-based games similar to that, a permanent ban is NOT ALLOWED. Temporary bans (say, a day, a week, up to a month) would be far more effective at keeping both the peace, and allowing people to not have wasted money

 

I have to say, I agree vehemontly with all of the concerns of the rights of gamers - with Valve's current ToS, we gamers already have too little legal ground for what we're paying money for. Many of us have hundreds of dollars of games that we only get the rights to play - and though everything seems fine now, there are many cases of Valve's Customer Service failing miserably to even address issues - what would happen if game developers suddenly took a nasty turn against gamers once they have our money? Yes, this probably would not happen - but it only takes one time to ruin everything.

 

TL;DR: I have to say, it might be a good idea, but so far, for the most part, we've been getting by without throwing perma bans around. If this was implemented, there must, in my opinion, be heavy restrictions on it's use, to support gamers rights. As the case even with the Constitution, I would rather we have too much freedom, than not enough.

[Jatta Pake]

None of this goes far enough for me. I believe video game cheaters should be prosecuted. Let them drop a few grand on lawyers in the States, or sit in a Polish prison cell for awhile. Ohio makes cheating a first degree Misdemeanor although I'm not aware of anyone ever getting arrested for cheating in a MMO. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2915.05

 

But they should.

 

Society doesn't tolerate thugs marching into a baseball stadium interrupting play or stealing from church ladies at Bingo night. Someone cheating at darts in a bar will usually get bounced by a bar owner. Probably with a swift kick to the nuts. Or the cops drag them out for disturbing the peace. How is ruining gameplay for potentially millions of other paying people less of a problem? Why are tax paying business owners saddled with the cost of protecting themselves?

 

We don't tolerate antisocial behavior in public. Video games are public entertainment places, and we should not tolerate antisocial behavior there either.

 

Vote Jatta Pake 2016.

 

*drops mic*

[nasKo]

Additionally, I would say that in cases of MMOs or other multiplayer-based games similar to that, a permanent ban is NOT ALLOWED. Temporary bans (say, a day, a week, up to a month) would be far more effective at keeping both the peace, and allowing people to not have wasted money

[...]

TL;DR: I have to say, it might be a good idea, but so far, for the most part, we've been getting by without throwing perma bans around. If this was implemented, there must, in my opinion, be heavy restrictions on it's use, to support gamers rights. As the case even with the Constitution, I would rather we have too much freedom, than not enough.

I'd agree if this was about toxicities like it'd include racism.

Ultimatively this isn't about keeping toxicity out of games, though.

It's primarily aimed at cheating and you absolutely should be permanently banned from playing those if you've been evidently cheating.

And no, we have not been getting by without permanent bans.

Be it good ol Punkbuster banning your GUID because you cheated in CS, RtCW, CoD, or BF or VAC banning you from the CS series game of your choice, CoD MW 2 & 3 or Dungeon Defenders. Mind you, people who were banned by PB or VAC were and still are able to launch games they were banned on. They are just not allowed to play on AC-protected servers. The percentage of people contuing to play on those is extremely minuscule.

Temporary bans are no answer to cheating in games, at all. Especially since they are often enough highly competetive.

And even permanent bans are not preventing people from cheating. In my last 10 CS:GO matches I've had 3 spinbotters currently still not banned in addition to the 7 people who got VAC/Overwatch banned recently, some of which I didn't even suspect of cheating. That's at least 10 people cheating in an obvious way out of 50 on a fairly high level of the game's ranking system. This has been the state of the game for a while (though often not as extreme as in my example).

So I don't see temporary bans fixing anything if permanent bans aren't already helping.

People wasting money in order to cheat at a video game should not be given special attention in perspective of "consumer rights protection" than those paying for a game and having their experience shat on by cheaters.

[Kittysong]

There are those out there that just buy games to troll and hack attack other gamers, I can see this being very useful in dealing with those type of players (not that they would stop doing it, just that we would see less of the because of the ban).

 

At the same time i can see that there is chance of abuse from some devs, but those devs won't last long when people find out about it. (since people are less likely to buy a game if they bully the players).

 

 

 On a side note, Indie Stone is one of my favorite developers and the pz community is awesome!

I'm so glad i get to be a part of the alpha.