2015-08-08

[WP] You receive a msg from one of your friends, "Hello. I'm conducting a psychological experiment. Reply with a YES to participate." You go ahead with it and a few weeks later, you get another msg, "The experiment is now over. Thank you for your participation."

[WP] You receive a msg from one of your friends, "Hello. I'm conducting a psychological experiment. Reply with a YES to participate." You go ahead with it and a few weeks later, you get another msg, "The experiment is now over. Thank you for your participation."

Rockstar can apparently ban people from playing any game integrated with R* Social Club, single-player content included. What does this mean for the 'ownership' of games?

Rockstar can apparently ban people from playing any game integrated with R* Social Club, single-player content included. What does this mean for the 'ownership' of games?The original thread detailing this can be found over here, but these are the parts that really stood out:


At least I can still play single player...

Nope.avi. You need to log into social club to get to the "play offline" bit. I have had my single player experience taken away from me too, £40 down the drain!

...

I asked myself, "no... I cannot be banned from playing Max Payne as well...". Yep.

Lucky me, I haven't linked Max Payne with my account yet. I could just create a new account, right?. Look at that playtime, I haven't even played FiveMinutes of it.

I can't play any Rockstar game that works with the social club. Ever.


Simply put, Rockstar has the ability to permanently ban people from playing any title that's integrated with Social Club, including single player content. I've occasionally seen people express concern over whether we actually own games the games we buy, and to me this seems to be proving that we're just 'licensing' them.

What does /r/Games think of this? Of course, multiplayer bans are generally acceptable, but should devs be allowed to ban access to single-player content as well? Furthermore, what does this say about the issue of licensing vs. ownership of games, considering that this impacts physical copies as well?
Rockstar can apparently ban people from playing any game integrated with R* Social Club, single-player content included. What does this mean for the 'ownership' of games?

The original thread detailing this can be found over here, but these are the parts that really stood out:

At least I can still play single player...

.avi. You need to log into social club to get to the "play offline" bit. I have had my single player experience taken away from me too, £40 down the drain!

...

I asked myself, "no... I cannot be banned from playing Max Payne as well...". Yep.

Lucky me, I haven't linked Max Payne with my account yet. I could just create a new account, right?. Look at that playtime, I haven't even played FiveMinutes of it.

I can't play any Rockstar game that works with the social club. Ever.

Simply put, Rockstar has the ability to permanently ban people from playing any title that's integrated with Social Club, including single player content. I've occasionally seen people express concern over whether we actually own games the games we buy, and to me this seems to be proving that we're just 'licensing' them.

What does /sub/games think of this? Of course, multiplayer bans are generally acceptable, but should devs be allowed to ban access to single-player content as well? Furthermore, what does this say about the issue of licensing vs. ownership of games, considering that this impacts physical copies as well?

Try one of these subthreads