13 ms·

It usually doesn't take a lot of work for engineers to do some brainstorming around who will be affected and send a direct email letting users know what's up. T

• incongruity 4y ago
  I feel as though the list of companies that consistently care for users is shrinking by the day. In fact, I can't really think of many businesses where I feel appreciated or cared for as a customer, but the few that I can are all small businesses and most of them are local to me.
  • ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Why would they care, if people still give them money, when they get banned, instead of demanding a refund, they search for workarounds, and even after that, they buy a new games when it's released. When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit (especially if getting banned in multiplayer prevents you from playing single player missions), things will change.
    • pannSun 4y ago
      > When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
      • bacchusracine 4y ago
        >You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past. Those "lawyers" aren't nearly as clever as they seem to think they are: https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/ https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/
• chefandy 4y ago
  This is fundamentally a support and UX problem, not a dev failure. Big production user management and authentication systems can get pretty complicated and trying to figure out every weird edge case when combining them is not low-effort by any measure. "What if someone's username wasn't caught in their profanity filter but gets caught by ours" seems like a pretty rare edge case in a huge pool of big problems to solve. Their shortcoming was not giving their users proper guidance on how to address the inevitable kinks that pop up.
  • stedaniels 4y ago
    Anecdotally, having worked on identity management systems, and merged a number of them, this hasn’t ever seemed like an edge case for me. It’s pretty high up on the list. I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself.
    • RussianCow 4y ago
      > I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself. I wouldn't assume that. Game companies are notorious for pinching pennies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these systems were outsourced completely.
    • BoorishBears 4y ago
      You seem to be confusing when two systems don't mutually support certain names due to technical limitations, with what happened here. It's not a bug that a filter caught names that the merged companies now collectively do not allow in their collectively owned games. - The only miss here is more of a UX issue: they handled username bans the same way they handled all bans, with a shadowban. Shadowbans are great for most infractions since you burn some time of the offender before they start again and give them little information to find loopholes with... but for something rectifiable there should be a way to nudge and explain why they're banned.
    • chefandy 4y ago
      I think it's really easy to say that without knowing anything about what they actually did.
• oneoff786 4y ago
  The correct answer is a notification in the game every time you try to play. Not an email saying you’re secretly banned.