Support NeoGAF

[Barakov]

None. Whatever large corporations want to do to consumers is fine.

Sarcasm noted.

Common sense that a banned account is, you know, banned and will no longer be able to download anything.
The question is what behavior justifies cutting off a person from ALL their purchases. Including offline single player games.

Makes sense. The danger that all your stuff being taking away due to some vague language that they may or may not implement is a real danger. Probably, should have added a 'yet' to my post. It sounds like the language in the TOS has been there for awhile and we haven't heard about a rash of people losing access to their stuff, so I still don't think it's time to act like the sky is falling.

 

[iconmaster]

Here’s an example from Steam, it’s especially troubling because

they wouldn’t tell him what rule had been broken, and Steam’s support service refused to respond to his tickets after initially confirming the ban.

The question asked by Rock, Paper, Shotgun could be asked of all these platform owners:

Does Valve think it reasonable to permanently withhold access to a customer’s purchases without offering the appropriate refund?

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Sarcasm noted.

Makes sense. The danger that all your stuff being taking away due to some vague language that they may or may not implement is a real danger. Probably, should have added a 'yet' to my post. It sounds like the language in the TOS has been there for awhile and we haven't heard about a rash of people losing access to their stuff, so I still don't think it's time to act like the sky is falling.

Absolutely, we should continually remain vigilant when it comes to this sort of thing no matter which company it is.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I won't be affected unless curse words get you in quite the pickle. Loosing access to liscense is going too far IMO.

I for one look forward to the day when we are all living in the Equilibrium movie. Certain muppets seem to be cheering on that bleak future too, like it’s a good thing.

Pretty much this. It's a social media mass hysteria that reminiscent of the Salem witch trials

 

[DESTROYA]

Well I'm not american so I'm okay thank you, and second well...if you buy anything Microsoft or Xbox you kind of deserve it so...

What exactly do you mean?Anyway........
Every few months I get reminded why I don’t play online games but if you do they should be rated M and should be at least 18 years old to play.
Still thats no excuse for being an ass but at least you don’t get some raging player yelling at a kid because he killed him or her. (I’m still trying to figure out why parents let there kids play online games that are not age appropriate but that’s another story for another time)
Like most reasonable people have said cutting all forms of online game communication from the offender is the right move not outright losing the license and not being able to play anymore .

 

[JimboJones]

I dunno, losing licenses as an extreme punishment for extremely shit behaviour could help curtail some asshats, if they have hundred of £€$ at risk it might make them question if it's worth doing.

Losing voice communications is kinda like a little wrist slap, they could just create a temporary account and pay for a month or two until the bans lifted.

I doubt we would ever see it used for simple swearing and the like.
Maybe if the individual is extremely vitriolic even after voice/communication bans, there is video evidence, it's posted on social media maybe then the service provider might just think they aren't worth having as part of their ecosystem and make an example out of them.

I think it will probably be kept for those involved in system level tampering, like online cheating or involved in pirating games though.

The apocalyptic scenario of someone saying "fart" and being banned and stripped of all games isn't coming guys.
Even Nintendo with the super heavily moderated miiverse didn't go that far.

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

Even Nintendo with the super heavily moderated miiverse didn't go that far.

Its hard to ban someone on switch when you need to call someone on skype or phone to have voice chat.

 

[JimboJones]

Its hard to ban someone on switch when you need to call someone on skype or phone to have voice chat.

I thought it was clear I was talking about text chat. Plus miiverse was never available on Switch.

WiiU did have a video chat app (wasn't very good mind but it was there), quite a few online games featured voice chat too.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Well I'm not american so I'm okay thank you, and second well...if you buy anything Microsoft or Xbox you kind of deserve it so...

So you don't buy anything Sony either? Or on Steam, etc?

 

[bitbydeath]

So you don't buy anything Sony either? Or on Steam, etc?

Please stop spreading fud, this was already proven to not be true as per Sony’s specific statements in their TOS.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Please stop spreading fud, this was already proven to not be true as per Sony’s specific statements in their TOS.

No it wasn't. Just because you want to pretend that Sony’s TOS doesn't include it doesn't change anything. You never bothered to define "most severe behavior." So who does? What if their definition doesn't match mine, etc, etc, fart.

Also unlike Xbox, PlayStation doesn’t require you to be online to play your games.

Since you are completely pulling this out of your ass let me help you.

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/using-xbox-one-offline

When your Xbox is offline you can:

• Watch TV (though you need to be online for OneGuide listings)
• Sign in to your profile (if you've signed in online before)
• Change console settings (except for profile and family settings; content controls remain in place while offline)
• Play games (provided you've set this as your home Xbox or have a game disc)
• Save game clips and screenshots
• Earn achievements (however, there's limited offline space for game captures and achievements, so you should go online every so often to sync them)

Feel free to let me know how I have misinterpreted "play games" in this scenario.

 

[bluestar15]

If you're reported on Xbox live for being offensive in a party chat, how can Microsoft prove that you did it? Does someone just have to get reported enough to get the ban hammer? I know someone who got a temp ban for bad language, but he didn't know what he said to get the ban.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

People can't stop being idiots online

It really is easy, use some common sense.

 

[Journey]

Is there a section that says they will refund you the money? Because they were pretty good with Xbox Fitness and other services they shut down, gave everyone back their money. This is just legal jargon to cover their assess against lawsuits for when they ban people from Xbox Live, they can see people suing them for not being able to play the games they purchased on the Xbox Live service, Game Pass or free GWG, but doesn't mean they can't take their money from purchased licenses (Which doesn't apply to free GWG or Game Pass) and go play somewhere else.

 

[Fuz]

Does Valve think it reasonable to permanently withhold access to a customer’s purchases without offering the appropriate refund?

THey probably they think it is, but it's not legal in many countries. Thankfully.

One of the reasons I detest steam-like launchers/marketplaces and "gaming as a service".

 

[bitbydeath]

No it wasn't. Just because you want to pretend that Sony’s TOS doesn't include it doesn't change anything. You never bothered to define "most severe behavior." So who does? What if their definition doesn't match mine, etc, etc, fart.

Are you really trying to argue that severe behaviour is the same as non-severe behaviour just because you can’t draw a line?

Since you are completely pulling this out of your ass let me help you.

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/using-xbox-one-offline

When your Xbox is offline you can:

• Watch TV (though you need to be online for OneGuide listings)
• Sign in to your profile (if you've signed in online before)
• Change console settings (except for profile and family settings; content controls remain in place while offline)
• Play games (provided you've set this as your home Xbox or have a game disc)
• Save game clips and screenshots
• Earn achievements (however, there's limited offline space for game captures and achievements, so you should go online every so often to sync them)

Feel free to let me know how I have misinterpreted "play games" in this scenario.

GAF has received hundreds of these types of threads-

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/xbox-one-nothing-is-working-offline.1325230/

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Did you really not read this thread at all? The problem isn't my ability to draw a line, it is who in these companies draws the line and how do they define it? Both have very vague language. I appreciate that you are in denial but it's not a hard concept to grasp.

I will see your single cited thread from a couple of years ago and raise you one from the front page today:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/lock...-i-used-a-fake-birthday-10-years-ago.1437690/

So where does this fall in the "most severe" spectrum? You guys just want to pretend MS is satan incarnate when everyone has had this stuff in their TOS.

 

[bitbydeath]

Did you really not read this thread at all? The problem isn't my ability to draw a line, it is who in these companies draws the line and how do they define it? Both have very vague language. I appreciate that you are in denial but it's not a hard concept to grasp.

I will see your single cited thread from a couple of years ago and raise you one from the front page today:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/lock...-i-used-a-fake-birthday-10-years-ago.1437690/

So where does this fall in the "most severe" spectrum? You guys just want to pretend MS is satan incarnate when everyone has had this stuff in their TOS.

MS states they will ban people for swearing, Sony states they will ban people for severe behaviour, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that swearing is not severe behaviour.

Furthermore your link you posted is not a ban from Sony, it was someone who made up a DOB they no longer remember which they require to access their account.

Now what is with the ‘us vs them’ attitude in your posts? Why do you resort to name calling and not just respond nicely?

 

[VectorVictor]

So where does this fall in the "most severe" spectrum? You guys just want to pretend MS is satan incarnate when everyone has had this stuff in their TOS.

SoZardoz, c'mon, you're not going to win any debates on this with the SDF--yes, you're correct in your assessment, but their fanboyism makes them blind to the truth of the matter. This is something that is impacting all Games as Service/Online platforms, and until the rights of customers are respected and provided for by the governments in question, all companies--Sony, Microsoft, EA, Valve--will be able to restrict your access at-will and not have to provide reasons for that restriction.

MS states they will ban people for swearing, Sony states they will ban people for severe behaviour, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that swearing is not severe behaviour.

Which part of Sony's EULA defines what is and is not "severe behavior"? I don't see anything that defines that term specifically. While you and I would understand that swearing (for the most part) wouldn't be severe behavior, if it isn't clearly defined in the EULA, then Sony can define it however they damn well please, whenever they damn well please.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

MS states they will ban people for swearing, Sony states they will ban people for severe behaviour, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that swearing is not severe behaviour.

Furthermore your link you posted is not a ban from Sony, it was someone who made up a DOB they no longer remember which they require to access their account.

Now what is with the ‘us vs them’ attitude in your posts? Why do you resort to name calling and not just respond nicely?

Where have I called you a name? You don't seem to understand that one person's definition of "severe behavior" can vary wildly from another's. I don't think it takes a "rocket scientist" to figure out that MS isn't going to go around banning everyone who swears on XBL or I'm guessing at least half of the users (including me) would already be banned.

This all goes back to the vague terms "offense language" and "most severe behavior" that are certainly left that way by the corresponding companies to give them legal wiggle room. I think both should have more concrete terms laid out in what should qualify for a ban however I am not shouting that this is the end of free speech because of it (which is how this thread began).

If you can't see the blatant similarities in their TOS then I don't know what to tell you. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.

There's a reason this thread absolutely died after the edit--MOST people realized they could no longer use it to shit on MS without sounding like massive fanboys/hypocrites because this sort of thing is widespread in service TOS. Congrats on bucking the trend?

 

[bitbydeath]

SoZardoz, c'mon, you're not going to win any debates on this with the SDF--yes, you're correct in your assessment, but their fanboyism makes them blind to the truth of the matter. This is something that is impacting all Games as Service/Online platforms, and until the rights of customers are respected and provided for by the governments in question, all companies--Sony, Microsoft, EA, Valve--will be able to restrict your access at-will and not have to provide reasons for that restriction.



Which part of Sony's EULA defines what is and is not "severe behavior"? I don't see anything that defines that term specifically. While you and I would understand that swearing (for the most part) wouldn't be severe behavior, if it isn't clearly defined in the EULA, then Sony can define it however they damn well please, whenever they damn well please.

More name calling? You guys sure know how to be civil, is this how you talk to people in real life?

To answer your question the clue is in the word ‘severe’ which basically means really bad behaviour. You shouldn’t need it written out what really bad behaviour is.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

More name calling? You guys sure know how to be civil, is this how you talk to people in real life?

To answer your question the clue is in the word ‘severe’ which basically means really bad behaviour. You shouldn’t need it written out what really bad behaviour is.

Did you not read the first 5 pages or so of name calling/talking down to in here (aka fuckistan, too cool for school, etc)? Now you are offended by your own lack of understanding basic facts?

You are reaching peak levels of lack of self-awareness. So further define "really bad behavior" for me. Better yet, give me Sony’s version because that's what we really need. I'll wait...

 

[bitbydeath]

Where have I called you a name? You don't seem to understand that one person's definition of "severe behavior" can vary wildly from another's. I don't think it takes a "rocket scientist" to figure out that MS isn't going to go around banning everyone who swears on XBL or I'm guessing at least half of the users (including me) would already be banned.

This all goes back to the vague terms "offense language" and "most severe behavior" that are certainly left that way by the corresponding companies to give them legal wiggle room. I think both should have more concrete terms laid out in what should qualify for a ban however I am not shouting that this is the end of free speech because of it (which is how this thread began).

If you can't see the blatant similarities in their TOS then I don't know what to tell you. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.

There's a reason this thread absolutely died after the edit--MOST people realized they could no longer use it to shit on MS without sounding like massive fanboys/hypocrites because this sort of thing is widespread in service TOS. Congrats on bucking the trend?

You are reaching peak levels of lack of self-awareness. So further define "really bad behavior" for me. Better yet, give me Sony’s version because that's what we really need. I'll wait...

Don’t be dense please, of course you know what really bad behaviour is and you know swearing does not fall anywhere close to this realm.

Your previous post I’ve quoted you state MS will not ban based on swearing so you agree it is not severe yet it is written in their ToS that they have the right to do so.

This is the part your neglecting, the difference between the two and what the whole OP is about.

 

[VectorVictor]

More name calling? You guys sure know how to be civil, is this how you talk to people in real life?

To answer your question the clue is in the word ‘severe’ which basically means really bad behaviour. You shouldn’t need it written out what really bad behaviour is.

When people are being willfully obtuse and are clutching to the pearls and saying "not my console", yes.

This dovetails into your inability to understand the problem that "severe behavior" without specific definitions and examples of what constitutes can cause. "Severe behavior" in the EULA leaves it up to Sony to define what "severe behavior" is, and that definition can change based on whomever is handing out the perma-bans.

For example:

• Sony reviewer #1 can be a devout Christian, and a reported comment that paints Christians in a negative light could be construed as "severe behavior" simply because it offended something considered dear to the reviewer
• Sony reviewer #2 may not be a Christian and sees no problem with the same reported comment.

That inconsistency in moderation is protected by the vague definition of "severe behavior" in Sony's EULA, and something we consider innocuous may not be considered as such by someone else depending on who the arbiter is.

This is why I feel it's vital as consumers for all of these platforms (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Origin, Steam, GOG.com) that we have EULAs that:

• Require in-game text or voice chat users to be 18 years or older (in USA--this can vary based off of age of majority in your country) and verify this with a nominal charge to a credit card.
• Specify in detail what is considered an offense against the EULA and can result in a ban (e.g. foul language, derogatory communication, cyberbullying, talkin' bad about someone's momma)
• Provide examples to back up those definitions (e.g. Gamer A told Gamer B that "your mom is like the town bicycle--everyone has had a ride.")
• Provide a documented process and dedicated channel for consumers that are banned to contest their ban and discuss the issue directly with the company in a timely fashion (e.g. three business days).
• Provide the means to either (or do both):
  • Receive refunds for licenses purchased that can no longer be used (based on current price of the games--not original paid price)
  • Have licenses transferred to another account that is can sign in to online services, but is otherwise restricted from communicating or participating online (so as to have continued access to purchased online content)

I may have missed something here, but we need to come together and have a detailed plan of what we as gamers expect these companies to do. Otherwise, they'll continue to run over gamers.

 

[Mr. Grumpy]

This has come close to being locked on more than one occasion but it just seems to be beyond repair now which is a shame as it's a relatively important topic.

The issue at the moment is that it reads like it's just people standing in a room and shouting at each other.