Malf on 19/1/2018 at 18:48
But that's the overarching point you are ignoring. Cheating in gaming isn't considered a crime by criminal justice systems in the vast majority of modern civilisation.
And all law is subjective if you want to get that petty. Outside of humanity, "law" means diddly-squat.
Edit: Oh, and please prove to me that the offended parties here have lost something of monetary value by others cheating at Plunkbat. I don't know about you, but I don't buy games thinking I'm going to make money off of them, and I'm betting that most people buying Plunkbat (at least outside of China) are initially buying it to have fun. The purchase of the game does not count as a player's stake in the game's pot as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it is used to fund said pot, but once the money for the initial purchase of the game has left the player's hands, it no longer belongs to them. The developers and publishers could choose tomorrow to stop the resale of virtual goods, and the players would have no say in the matter. Would you condone punishing them for perceived loss of potential winnings?
Sulphur on 19/1/2018 at 21:42
Just so we're clear, I'm not that bothered either way about virtual gains and real-world gains via abusing the system or the style of judgement thereof - I think the current system of banning people who cheat in a game works just fine, as long as the verification of said cheaters is stringent enough, and the ban for repeat offenders is permanent. Going further than that smacks of a level of entitlement that's hard to take seriously.
However: a multiplayer game that has an entry price ought to be shepherded enough to ensure players don't have a terrible initial experience. That's where the stake is. If my first few games consisted of being wallhacked to death, I'd be well within my rights to want, at the very least, a refund of my money, yes? The money was paid with the expectation that the product allowed all players to have a trouble-free experience. If that's not the case, why would I be happy with the price of entry becoming a sunk cost towards a deeply unattractive enterprise that rulebreakers gain more from?
WingedKagouti on 25/1/2018 at 14:11
Those attacks do directly influence the potential income of Twitch (and the streamers affected) as they can disrupt what some consider an important part of the service. And Twicth is a large enough corporation to have the money to go after people like that.
Pyrian on 25/1/2018 at 16:29
So... Exactly the same in both respects.
henke on 11/4/2018 at 15:54
Just so we're clear, this isn't part of China's social credit system, it's a separate system that only applies to Tencent published games. Not sure if you knew that, but your post reads like they're the same thing.
While I'm fine with cheaters getting punished and good behaviour being rewarded on a per-game basis, having a system that carries over between different games on a platform is indeed a bit scary. Seems like it could become a permanent black mark on your record that might be hard to recover from.
About these systems that track your behaviour on a platform, youtube has already (
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797387?hl=en) had a system like it for many years. IIRC I was in bad standing a few years ago(probably because of uploading too many videos with copyrighted music), but I just checked it again and everything seems hunky-dory now.
Malf on 11/4/2018 at 15:59
My bad, I did interpret that incorrectly on the first reading. Correcting the post to make it more representative.
Jeshibu on 11/4/2018 at 17:04
Steam has something similar, with VAC bans sometimes affecting games other than the one the ban was issued for.
Pyrian on 11/4/2018 at 18:57
I am, of course, fine with cheaters' consequences following them. The shield of anonymity is a big reason why the internet is so often a cesspit.