Gaming News

Robert ninja

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the club or FA owned all the stadiums and all the footballs they would, which would be a more comparable situation to overwatch.

Under that analogy you essentially purchase a stadium and not a football... and all other players throw the ball between their own stadiums to yours. And nowhere in the TOS at the time of purchase did it outline any rules that they can suddenly demolish your stadium for things you did outside of it such as using a bleedin' emoji they don't like on a platform they don't own. Can't believe people are apologists for this malarkey. Combine this with 3 layers the draconian DRM and the future of AAA gaming looks Orwellian.

Mickeroo

Robert ninja wrote: »

Under that analogy you essentially purchase a stadium and not a football... and all other players throw the ball between their own stadiums to yours. And nowhere in the TOS at the time of purchase did it outline any rules that they can suddenly demolish your stadium for things you did outside of it such as using a bleedin' emoji they don't like on a platform they don't own. Can't believe people are apologists for this malarkey. Combine this with 3 layers the draconian DRM and the future of AAA gaming looks Orwellian.

Not an apologist, you're just being overly hyperbolic and straw manning. When you buy a copy of overwatch and set up a blizzard account you aren't buying a football to kick around your field you're buying access to Blizzard's field and their football. You play by their rules or you don't play. That's the reality whether I agree with it or not.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Not an apologist, you're just being overly hyperbolic and straw manning. When you buy a copy of overwatch and set up a blizzard account you aren't buying a football to kick around your field you're buying access to Blizzard's field and their football. You play by their rules or you don't play. That's the reality whether I agree with it or not.

I think the point is that if Blizzard should not be allowed to ban you from a game for something you did on a platform that they have nothing to do with. If you use an Emoji on Twitch and Blizzard block you access to Overwatch as a result then serious questions need to asked. I worked in a ToS team for some time and we would never look to sanction someone based on something they said or did elsewhere, didn't matter how toxic or vile it was. It had nothing to do with us unless it happened on our platform or in of the company products. There may actually be legal implications here and it's something that Blizzard may regret in the long run.

Robert ninja

Mickeroo wrote: »

You play by their rules or you don't play. That's the reality whether I agree with it or not.

And that's the problem, their rules aren't clear and they change on a whim or to whatever is a sensitive topic to certain people at a time... allowing them to essentially lock you out of your purchase for any reason they want at all. If the TOS said "You can't use this Emoji, under any context, or the license will be void" or something that affect, it would be fine. I actually read the EULA for every game I purchase so I know how broard the terms are sometimes but I'm pretty sure they don't extend to that kind of bollocks.

Anyway, this just shows why proprietary servers are inferior to user maintained ones. Most companies don't even bother to release a user server package when their game is commercially dead and it's up to fans to work something out. Oh well, I support very little of this kind of business practice.

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the point is that if Blizzard should not be allowed to ban you from a game for something you did on a platform that they have nothing to do with. If you use an Emoji on Twitch and Blizzard block you access to Overwatch as a result then serious questions need to asked. I worked in a ToS team for some time and we would never look to sanction someone based on something they said or did elsewhere, didn't matter how toxic or vile it was. It had nothing to do with us unless it happened on our platform or in of the company products. There may actually be legal implications here and it's something that Blizzard may regret in the long run.

Have they actually tried to do it to someone who isn't playing the game professionally though? I would fully agree it isn't on to sanction regular people playing the game for something they did outside of the game but in the case of a professional, well they're being treated no differently to any other professional who operates in the public eye.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the point is that if Blizzard should not be allowed to ban you from a game for something you did on a platform that they have nothing to do with. If you use an Emoji on Twitch and Blizzard block you access to Overwatch as a result then serious questions need to asked. I worked in a ToS team for some time and we would never look to sanction someone based on something they said or did elsewhere, didn't matter how toxic or vile it was. It had nothing to do with us unless it happened on our platform or in of the company products. There may actually be legal implications here and it's something that Blizzard may regret in the long run.

It's guys that have signed contracts and are making money from playing Overwatch isn't it? Am I reading this wrong?

So if that player does something that Blizzard thinks reflects badly on their product aren't they going to take action? If you don't like the terms of the contract to earn money from Blizzard then don't sign the contract and don't get money from them would seem to be the simple solution and then you're free to call people fags in your Twitch streams or whatever it is that is getting people in trouble.

Robert ninja

Mickeroo wrote: »

Have they actually tried to do it to someone who isn't playing the game professionally though?

Yes
https://youtu.be/5P1Md792fF8?t=157

2m37s

Mickeroo

You either misunderstand what he's saying or you're trying to make out he's saying something he's not. They're talking about tracking down accounts that are shown exhibiting toxic behaviour in the game that's shared on social media So they only way someone could get done for being a racist on twitter by Blizzard is if they share a video of themselves being racist in a game of Overwatch on twitter (or someone else shares a video of them).

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Have they actually tried to do it to someone who isn't playing the game professionally though? I would fully agree it isn't on to sanction regular people playing the game for something they did outside of the game but in the case of a professional, well they're being treated no differently to any other professional who operates in the public eye.

But they are being treated differently, using an emoji on an unrelated service would not see a footballer get banned from playing the game. Sure he may get a slap on the wrist from his club and if it was bad enough they may let him go but he would be free to play for another team. From some of the reports, it's not actually clear if the action was something which was prohibited in the contract or something that Blizzard decided.

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's guys that have signed contracts and are making money from playing Overwatch isn't it? Am I reading this wrong?

So if that player does something that Blizzard thinks reflects badly on their product aren't they going to take action? If you don't like the terms of the contract to earn money from Blizzard then don't sign the contract and don't get money from them would seem to be the simple solution and then you're free to call people fags in your Twitch streams or whatever it is that is getting people in trouble.

Surely using an emoji that is freely available for use on a platform unreleated to and not considered a ToS violation on that platform should not breach your contract on a totally separate one. Maybe if he was on some Nazi site posting Holocauste memes they may have a case but not here.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely using an emoji that is freely available for use on a platform unreleated to and not considered a ToS violation on that platform should not breach your contract on a totally separate one. Maybe if he was on some Nazi site posting Holocauste memes they may have a case but not here.

While the article oneangrygamer tries to make out it is purely down to the emoji that got xQc fined, Blizzard said he was also using disparaging language against other League casters and players. -

I don't suppose anyone knows what context any of this language or the emojis were being used?

Robert ninja

Mickeroo wrote: »

if they share a video of themselves being racist

The criteria of which is entirely up to Blizzard. Considering all they need is an Emoji to deem your racist, practically any content with voice & text attached they can spin as an excuse to say you're expressing X behaviour, and then do whatever they want. Also, it's obvious that Blizzard are looking to police everything, even off their platform. They even used it as an excuse to say why updates are delayed. You can argue they're not until the cows come home, or until you get banned for breathing in racist way.

J. Marston

That XQC guy is a massive twat and fully deserved his punishments.

Digital Solitude

kunst nugget wrote: »

While the article oneangrygamer tries to make out it is purely down to the emoji that got xQc fined, Blizzard said he was also using disparaging language against other League casters and players. -

I don't suppose anyone knows what context any of this language or the emojis were being used?

Afaik the emoji is spammed whenever a black person appears onscreen in an OWL game, which is where the connotations are from.

The language was homophobic abuse, aimed at a gay player on the other team iirc. He's gone on homophobic rants while streaming the game too.

kunst nugget

Robert ninja wrote: »

They don't get banned from playing football in their own home or have their football burst by the manufacturer for speaking in ways they don't approve of.

Are Blizzard coming to people's houses and taking their gaming PC's and consoles from them and stopping them playing video-games?!?! The dirty bastards…

Retr0gamer

I see it as being kicked out of a pub. The owner has the right to refuse admission. If you act like a duck and get kicked out don't try and play the victim card.

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I see it as being kicked out of a pub. The owner has the right to refuse admission. If you act like a duck and get kicked out don't try and play the victim card.

Except he wasn't in said pub, he was in a Chinese in another town.

Billy86

Varik wrote: »

Except he wasn't in said pub, he was in a Chinese in another town.

From what I'm seeing here it appears he was in the pub, but was also boasting about it in the Chinese later on as well?

kunst nugget

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I see it as being kicked out of a pub. The owner has the right to refuse admission. If you act like a duck and get kicked out don't try and play the victim card.

Robert ninja

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are Blizzard coming to people's houses and taking their gaming PC's and consoles from them and stopping them playing video-games?!?! The dirty bastards…

Don't patronise me. They disable your game remotely and you know it.

kunst nugget

Robert ninja wrote: »

Don't patronise me. They disable your game remotely and you know it.

Doesn't stop you using your console or gaming PC though, does it…

johnny_ultimate

I've always found not being an asshole, cheater or other bane of multiplayer games to be a perfectly easy and indeed quite effective way to not get banned from online services

Robert ninja

kunst nugget wrote: »

Doesn't stop you using your console or gaming PC though, does it…

It doesn't stop my blender from working, either. Are you drunk?

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've always found not being an asshole, cheater or other bane of multiplayer games to be a perfectly easy and indeed quite effective way to not get banned from online services

That sounds like political correctness gone maaaaaaad!

kunst nugget

Robert ninja wrote: »

It doesn't stop my blender from working, either. Are you drunk?

You're hysterically trying to claim that Blizzard trying to stop dicks being dicks on their game is the equivalent of a soccer player not being allowed to play with a football ever again. That's not the case. xQc can still play video games if he chooses. He's just not going to be playing Overwatch…

johnny_ultimate

kunst nugget wrote: »

That sounds like political correctness gone maaaaaaad!

Onepolitegamer.com

Robert ninja

kunst nugget wrote: »

soccer player not being allowed to play with a football ever again

Nobody in the whole thread said that Blizzard are deactivating non-blizzard games.

Digital Solitude

kunst nugget wrote: »

You're hysterically trying to claim that Blizzard trying to stop dicks being dicks on their game is the equivalent of a soccer player not being allowed to play with a football ever again. That's not the case. xQc can still play video games if he chooses. He's just not going to be playing Overwatch…

He hasn't even been banned, just suspended from a few league games. The team he plays for went ahead and lengthened his ban anyways

Mr Crispy

Edit: Actually, it's not worth it.

K.O.Kiki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've always found not being an asshole, cheater or other bane of multiplayer games to be a perfectly easy and indeed quite effective way to not get banned from online services

While that may be, I'm just not comfortable with a company disabling a product I paid for - any reason they deem.
Especially when it comes to false-positives.

Grumpypants

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

While that may be, I'm just not comfortable with a company disabling a product I paid for - any reason they deem.
Especially when it comes to false-positives.

Nobodies game was disabled. They can't do that. The disk still works. They blocked access to their servers.