4 ms·

If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "comp

If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "company going out of business" or "gaming shutting down forever"), this would almost undoubtedly elicit the need for better-defined rules and substantiation of claims when bans occur.

t0suj4 4y ago
If random bans get more common the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients if not players packing up and leaving for a competitor. Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
- RulerOf 4y ago
  >the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook. >Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed. >In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-business-model-lexmarks-anti-competitive-legacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...

4 ms·

If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "comp

by amatecha 4y ago

t0suj4 4y ago
If random bans get more common the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients if not players packing up and leaving for a competitor. Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
- RulerOf 4y ago
  >the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook. >Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed. >In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-business-model-lexmarks-anti-competitive-legacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...