EPTI believe there is an interview with Gabe Newell on the subject where he basically says he couldn't care less about obnoxious users. DOTA 2 has a feature where if you are obnoxious enough(either through game leaving or player feedback) it puts you in a ladder pool with other obnoxious people and leavers, while it rewards people with positive player feedback by putting them with non obnoxious people.
Forum moderation gone too far? (EA Forums) - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
I believe there is an interview with Gabe Newell on the subject where he basically says he couldn't care less about obnoxious users. DOTA 2 has a feature where if you are obnoxious enough(either through game leaving or player feedback) it puts you in a ladder pool with other obnoxious people and leavers, while it rewards people with positive player feedback by putting them with non obnoxious people. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
 | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:27 InvalidID wrote: I agree that it is a little draconian, but negative community members drive away other customers. The problem is solved by having dedicated servers. There's some asshole being a troll? Who cares, you just ban him from your group's server. Before long people who want to have a good time without assholes will find the servers where those people get banned and people who want to run around and troll will find servers where that's allowed. EA, Activision, and other companies however are trying to do away with that model because it gives them more control over their game and in their mind reduces piracy. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:20 Azzur wrote: Well, the Australian ANZ bank customers agreed to their terms and conditions when using their services. However, the class action suit against the bank has been allowed to go ahead. Thus, it is shown that there are grounds to challenge unreasonable terms in a contract (whether in the constitution or wherever). Yep, I didn't disagree with you. Just clearing up that it's not constitutional law. Contract law has for quite a while allowed challenges to unreasonable contract terms. However, it's a pretty high threshold to meet, and as with all legal matters, it all depends heavily on the specific circumstances of the situation before you, and you can't really know the result until the court makes a finding years and millions of dollars later. In any event, the truth is that some kind of class action or private individual going up against EA would be very unlikely, because it will take years to resolve in court and more money than anybody is probably willing to throw at it. Short of any regulatory body pursuing the issue (eg if there is an equivalent to the ACCC for the relevant jurisdiction under which the EULA is governed) it's pointless to argue about any legal action being taken. Legal avenues aren't always the most practical. | ||
|
Dbars
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:29 overt wrote: The problem is solved by having dedicated servers. There's some asshole being a troll? Who cares, you just ban him from your group's server. Before long people who want to have a good time without assholes will find the servers where those people get banned and people who want to run around and troll will find servers where that's allowed. EA, Activision, and other companies however are trying to do away with it because it gives them more control over their game and in their mind reduces piracy. Sure, but lets say you are a random person who buys a game from best buy. You wont know how to find some random community of well mannered people on some private server. In fact I have a great example of this. A middle aged woman at my work decided to try Call of Duty on her daughters XBOX360. She said she enjoyed the game, despite it being the first game she had ever played, but that the people on it would constantly make obscene, vulgar, and mean comments at her over the voice chat. Granted we have come to expect that from our long term experience with online gaming, but the average Joe consumer just wants to play and have fun and not be accosted by profanities, when the fault is the matchmaker systems not their own. | ||
|
FluffyBinLaden
United States527 Posts
| ||
|
DJFaqU
466 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:38 InvalidID wrote: Sure, but lets say you are a random person who buys a game from best buy. You wont know how to find some random community of well mannered people on some private server. In fact I have a great example of this. A middle aged woman at my work decided to try Call of Duty on her daughters XBOX360. She said she enjoyed the game, despite it being the first game she had ever played, but that the people on it would constantly make obscene, vulgar, and mean comments at her over the voice chat. Granted we have come to expect that from our long term experience with online gaming, but the average Joe consumer just wants to play and have fun and not be accosted by profanities, when the fault is the matchmaker systems not their own. The key word there is Xbox 360 where no dedicated servers exist. No real community exists. If you play a PC FPS game with dedicated servers you can pick and choose who you play with and where you play. It's something that companies are starting to lose out on now that Activision is removing dedicated servers from virtually every game they release and with things like EA's new Origin system. Matchmaking is a pretty shitty way to play video games because the consumer that doesn't want to hear obscene or racist things is forced to. | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
| ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:21 overt wrote: Valve? Probably one of the biggest video game companies after EA/Activision and they generally do things that are good and awesome. I can't really think of any major grievance I have with Valve. They even created Steam, which while benefiting them greatly, works fantastic and the notion of me only having to buy a game once and I can download it at any point in the future is pretty fantastic. They're at least one example of a very large video game company that generates a lot of revenue and doesn't screw over their fanbase. Money is important but so is keeping your consumer happy. The problem with gaming companies like EA and Activision is that they create policies that give them more control over their games and don't see a decrease in profits because most gamers don't care enough to stop buying their products. Just because an indie company gets big doesn't mean they'll adopt policies that punish the consumer. Valve killed CS:S (for me at least) when they did the big update which allowed people on macs to play it. It changed the game so much that I couldn't play it anymore. It also broke nearly every mod that had been created up until that point. They're motivation? Money. Mac playerbase = untapped players = people buying that couldn't before = more money. Regardless of the fact that nearly everyone I know hated it when it was in beta (the best I saw were people going "meh"), they still went ahead with it anyways. Granted Valve isn't anywhere nears EA's level, but the same rules still apply to them. All actions they do are for money, keeping their consumers happy (read: not pissed off) is just an easy way to ensure future sales. I also never said that it was a certainty that they would treat their customers badly, just that there's really nothing stopping them. | ||
|
Deimos0
Poland277 Posts
| ||
|
TheKK
Canada164 Posts
On December 06 2011 15:24 killa_robot wrote: Valve killed CS:S (for me at least) when they did the big update which allowed people on macs to play it. It changed the game so much that I couldn't play it anymore. It also broke nearly every mod that had been created up until that point. They're motivation? Money. Mac playerbase = untapped players = people buying that couldn't before = more money. Regardless of the fact that nearly everyone I know hated it when it was in beta (the best I saw were people going "meh"), they still went ahead with it anyways. Granted Valve isn't anywhere nears EA's level, but the same rules still apply to them. All actions they do are for money, keeping their consumers happy (read: not pissed off) is just an easy way to ensure future sales. I also never said that it was a certainty that they would treat their customers badly, just that there's really nothing stopping them. Really? You don't think they did that as a favor to mac users who want to be able to play CS? I bet they were getting e-mails from mac-users who wanted the game to be compatible with their OS. | ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 06 2011 00:28 strongandbig wrote: Tbh, this sounds like a bureaucratic failure. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind creating a policy like this on purpose. My guess is that somewhere in the giant EA corporate structure, someone heard about social networking and "Facebook integration" and decided to link the forum and Origin accounts without making a provision for one of those getting banned. Probably by now, no one thinks this policy is a good idea but there's probably a bunch of different corporate divisions each trying to avoid blame, so no one actually gets around to fixing it. The random bans for no reason are bad, but nothing surprising from poorly moderated forums of a large company. It's the origin account bans that make this noteworthy. This was on the first page and it seems like the most logical way to look at it. From what was said months ago by EA (but not repeated since then?) was that game bans were not supposed to be a part of the ban from the forums. It's likely that the whole ordeal was lost in piles of to-do lists. Huge oversight for EA regardless though. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
Yesterday my daughter asked what the "Piratenpartei/Pirate Party" is about. Not so easy to explain discussions about copyright law to a 8 year old, so excuse some lack of accuracy; also I am no lawyer, but I know the basic difference between different rights and terms of use, but it does not matter in that regard I think: When you buy a box of Crayons and some pieces of paper to draw a picture: do you belive the picture you made is yours? Well, certainly she does. When I buy a piece of Software - let's say MS Word - and I write a text with it: is that my text? Seems it currently is still. Let's say I buy SC2 and make a map with the editor it includes: is that map mine? No!? If I use swear words on a forum, that is provided by the same company I bought a game from, can they revoke my right to play the game I pay for? Yes!? | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
I don't see how EA expects to keep customers on their own platform when they do shit like this, especially given that many of their AAA titles like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are also available on Steam. Is it in their right to ban people from their Origin games based on Forum posts? Sure. Is it a smart move? Certainly not, when they're trying to break into the digital distribution sphere--stuff like this hurts their image when they're already not the leading brand name when it comes to digital distribution. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
| ||
