Rockstar bans FiveM modders - Polidicks

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439334]Of course it can, but it creates dissonance between the consumer and the company. Rockstar was never in the wrong by banning them.[/QUOTE] They might not be wrong in regards to their TOS, but it's obvious by the consumer backlash that they are in the wrong regarding the treatment of their paying customers I doubt that Rockstar will renege on this decision, but it all hinges on just how vocal and angry people are about it

[QUOTE=Naught;48439551]what hype machine? I don't own a console, so by the time it would get to me, all that hype would have already died. only reason I got it was because I had money to waste. (was like a month after release) so no, thats not true at all. unless they make some bigass apology and put out some great product, I won't be getting it, simple as that.[/QUOTE] That's fine and all, but you're the smallest minority. Even PC release had a fuckton of hype.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48439339]It's sad and all that they banned people related to FiveM project, but lets be real here, most of us will buy VI and possibly on more than 1 platform too.[/QUOTE] People won't boycott the base game, but it will be interesting to see how they implement the online component after the anger they've received. Hopefully the backlash and negative PR will outweigh whatever benefits they get from shark cards and keeping the online as it is now, fingers crossed!

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48439372]Loudest mouths are usually also the biggest fans of said series. A hardcore fan can't deny himself the game over some silly boycott.[/QUOTE] I'm a big GTA fan! I really liked GTA 5. Singleplayer was a lot of fun. Online was a bit iffy but it was fun overall on console. I don't like the way Rockstar is progressively becoming more and more unfriendly and irreverent towards its customers, so I won't be buying the next GTA game unless they shape up demonstrably because I know I'm going to get screwed again somehow. In this case, they sold me a PC game that was incompatible with hardware that exceeded the requirements (switchable graphics), customer service begged me not to request a refund and to wait for a patch, and the "patch" two months later made the game launch - and run at 11 FPS with severe graphics artifacting, and still won't offer a refund. Now they're banning innocent modders? Sorry, this isn't acceptable. Unless they stop this anti-consumer crusade I personally will not be buying the game because I'm going to feel like they're giving me the full dick and not even giving me a reacharound because they've already got my money.

[QUOTE=Killer900;48437249]Shark cards are why all the DLC is free, find something else to bitch about[/QUOTE] Oh, the gold-plated airplane that costs $140 worth of Shark Cards? People call Star Citizen a scam but defend an even scummier gouging for fake digital flying things? Yeah, I'm [B]definitely[/B] glad I didn't have to pay for that to be unlocked and purchaseable! Thanks, Rockstar! GTAO is Korean-tier F2P bullshit. And the game is so ridiculously hackable there's nothing R* is going to be able to do to stop it except a) re-engineer the networking architecture from the ground up and provide dedicated servers, or b) run a paranoid anticheat client on the user's machine, VAC-style, and rely on catching hacks that way. If they at least offered dedicated servers I'd accept them selling Shark Cards. All the DLC is for is to promote Shark Cards. So, Shark Cards make the DLC free, and the DLC is funded by Shark Cards. What you have there is a closed loop fed by suckers. [QUOTE=man with hat;48438843]By driving players away from Rockstar's multiplayer service (that relies on people [B]buying[/B] shark cards), Rockstar is [B]losing potential profit[/B] that is in the thousands of dollars because many players will abandon their service.[/QUOTE] Rockstar's doing a damn good job of driving players away by shipping an online multiplayer experience designed for consoles (which are not impossible, but difficult to hack) to PC where hacking is as simple as dragging some files into the folder containing GTAV.exe. Rockstar's driving players away by shipping a $60 game with an online experience I'd expect out of a Korean cash-shop F2P, specifically painful, tedious grinding and ridiculous prices for game currency. If the Shark Cards were even just worth triple the amount of in-game cash it wouldn't be so terrible. Rockstar's driving players away by shipping a game with such shitty net architecture that [I]other players[/I] can trigger cheating bans on you and R* [B]won't do shit about it[/B] even if you have video evidence of suddenly unlocking a ton of weapons skins at once while in a cutscene and then being instabanned. Rockstar has no one but themselves to blame. I have nothing good to say about GTAO and I actively discourage anyone I know who doesn't have GTAV from getting it unless they only want it for SP. BTW, [B]they banned the moderator of the FiveM subreddit[/B] who has ZERO involvement in making the actual mod. How did he violate the TOS again? Is there an "aiding and abetting the enemy" clause in the TOS now? GTAVI could offer to suck my dick for five years and I'm still not buying it unless R* does a complete 180 and stops treating its customers like a field of cows waiting to be milked.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48439617]That's fine and all, but you're the smallest minority. Even PC release had a fuckton of hype.[/QUOTE] okay? still proves his point wrong regardless.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439190]Well, they aren't, and I don't know what else you want me to say on the matter. They can react however they want to each and every mod, regardless of whether or not you people think it's bullshit. I think it's bullshit that my coworker can suck my boss' dick and get promoted. You wanna know what my options are? Quit, try to reason with my boss, or put up with it. Nobody here is doing any of those things. I think one guy in this thread said he was gonna try to refund the game. Good on him for doing that. The rest of you are just running around spouting "BULLSHIT" to everything as if anybody actually cares. You have your three options. Quit, try to reason with Rockstar (instead of mindlessly posting about how everything is bullshit), or put up with it.[/QUOTE] Nope. A PR hit is a PR hit. And why are peoples reactions suddenly a problem? I thought the issue is that you thought Rockstar didn't do anything wrong, and now you're implying they did but people are reacting and this is bad for some reason?

Regardless of whether or not they broke the TOS, the TOS doesn't always hold up in court anyways

[QUOTE=proch;48439734]Nope. A PR hit is a PR hit. And why are peoples reactions suddenly a problem? I thought the issue is that you thought Rockstar didn't do anything wrong, and now you're implying they did but people are reacting and this is bad for some reason?[/QUOTE] They aren't a problem. Good for him that he wants to take action. I don't agree, but good for him. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48439674]words[/QUOTE] You're letting your emotions get in the way of judgement by victim shaming. You think Rockstar "deserves" to have this happen to them. You hate Rockstar so much that you want FiveM to take over, but when Rockstar tries to put a stop to it, you grow even angrier. You're acting like a baby without a nipple. As for the subreddit mod, I know nothing of that, and neither do you. Everything is hearsay. All we know is that people got banned. Perhaps that mod is lying and actually was working with the developers. Maybe he shares your zealous hatred of Rockstar and lies to make them look bad. [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;48439750]Regardless of whether or not they broke the TOS, the TOS doesn't always hold up in court anyways[/QUOTE] This would never even get close to court. I think this is more of a morality issue than it is a legal one.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439334]Of course it can, but it creates dissonance between the consumer and the company. Rockstar was never in the wrong by banning them. Uhh, yeah, they did. They reverse engineered the game, which the terms strictly prohibit. Try again.[/QUOTE] they did not reverse engineer the game.

[QUOTE=Naught;48439686]okay? still proves his point wrong regardless.[/QUOTE] just you wait until the trailers start rolling out :smug:

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439777]You're letting your emotions get in the way of judgement by victim shaming. You think Rockstar "deserves" to have this happen to them. You hate Rockstar so much that you want FiveM to take over, but when Rockstar tries to put a stop to it, you grow even angrier. You're acting like a baby without a nipple. As for the subreddit mod, I know nothing of that, and neither do you. Everything is hearsay. All we know is that people got banned. Perhaps that mod is lying and actually was working with the developers. Maybe he shares your zealous hatred of Rockstar and lies to make them look bad.[/QUOTE] lol, how is calling out a large game developer with awful business practices "victim shaming"? You're the one letting your emotions get involved by throwing around words like "zealous hatred". :v: But, please, do tell me how I want R* to go bankrupt over this.

[QUOTE=ashrobhoy;48439801]they did not reverse engineer the game.[/QUOTE] Yes, they did. How do you think you work out the internals of client -> server communication? Guessing? [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48439811]lol, how is calling out a large game developer with awful business practices "victim shaming"? You're the one letting your emotions get involved by throwing around words like "zealous hatred". :v: But, please, do tell me how I want R* to go bankrupt over this.[/QUOTE] Because you're placing blame on Rockstar. In this whole situation, they are a victim. I certainly hope you know what it means to be a victim. Their profits have been damaged as a result of FiveM.

[Quote]BTW, they banned the moderator of the subreddit who has ZERO involvement in the actual mod. How did he violate the TOS again?[/quote] It's shit like this and the weak excuse about piracy that suggest this is an arbitrary decision meant to protect interests related to R*'s monetized online component and any competition that threatens it, to the expense of pc gamers and the degree of freedom they value. It's obvious at that point why some consumers feel targeted, wary of any future action, and like R*'s detached interests threaten why they bought GTA for the PC in the first place. This is probably made worse by the fact the relationship seemingly started off on the wrong foot by the game taking so long to port, R* having an awful anti-cheat track record that ended up making more transgressions against pc third party mod culture as well as caught innocent people in the crossfire, and the online component having a grind-y pseudo-mmo multiplayer that would inevitably feature the PC community trying to bring back what they did to San Andreas 10 years ago. I'm not sure what man in hat or whatever doesn't get about this, and if he actually does then as far as I can tell he just wants to buck the trend by pretending R* is just enforcing the TOS, or otherwise generally being obtuse about the wider issue at hand when GTA came to PC. Don't feed the troll.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439854]Because you're placing blame on Rockstar. In this whole situation, they are a victim. I certainly hope you know what it means to be a victim. [B]Their profits have been damaged as a result of FiveM.[/B][/QUOTE] [CITATION FUCKING REQUIRED]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48439860][CITATION FUCKING REQUIRED][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=man with hat;48438843]By driving players away from Rockstar's multiplayer service (that relies on people [B]buying[/B] shark cards), Rockstar is [B]losing potential profit[/B] that is in the thousands of dollars because many players will abandon their service.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Jsm;48436012]Apart from breaking the EULA / agreements that you agree to when you install the game..[/QUOTE] In US court, those agreements are non-binding.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439854]Yes, they did. How do you think you work out the internals of client -> server communication? Guessing? Because you're placing blame on Rockstar. In this whole situation, they are a victim. I certainly hope you know what it means to be a victim. Their profits have been damaged as a result of FiveM.[/QUOTE] there client>server communication is all their code. none of rockstars.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439112]Modding is against the terms.[/QUOTE] They banned more than just modders. They banned someone who was just a community manager or the like, who was not responsible for development at all. You know, not actually breaking the ToS.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439876]potential profits[/QUOTE] It's funny because if it happens, it's because consumers chose what they saw as a better value. But more importantly there's no reason to believe if not given the choice they'd spend money on shark cards. They're two different choices.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48438843]Rockstar is [B]losing potential profit[/B] that is in the thousands of dollars because many players will abandon their service.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=man with hat;48439854]Their profits have been damaged as a result of FiveM.[/QUOTE] Uhhhhhhhh on what planet does pointing to your own statement count as citing supporting evidence to your claims? That's the weakest comeback you could possibly come back with except to start trolling me or posting pictures of postal's ass. [B]DEMONSTRATE[/B] that Rockstar's profits have been hurt by FiveM's existence. Saying it's so doesn't make it true.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439876][/QUOTE] Potential profit is literally a garbage term used in the copyright industry as an excuse to enact stronger anti-consumer measures.

[QUOTE=ashrobhoy;48439894]there client>server communication is all their code. none of rockstars.[/QUOTE] [quote]re·verse en·gi·neer·ing noun the reproduction of another manufacturer's product following detailed examination of its construction or composition.[/quote] If you were actually acquainted with programming you'd know that. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48439895]They banned more than just modders. They banned someone who was just a community manager or the like, who was not responsible for development at all. You know, not actually breaking the ToS.[/QUOTE] [quote]Perhaps that mod is lying and actually was working with the developers.[/quote] All aboard the bandwagon. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48439913]Uhhhhhhhh on what planet does pointing to your own statement count as citing supporting evidence to your claims? That's the weakest comeback you could possibly come back with except to start trolling me or posting pictures of postal's ass. [B]DEMONSTRATE[/B] that Rockstar's profits have been hurt by FiveM's existence. Saying it's so doesn't make it true.[/QUOTE] It's common sense. Have you ever taken an economics class or are you oblivious to the concept of potential profit? Yes or no, are you saying that FiveM is not damaging Rockstar's potential profits?

-snip-

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439926]All aboard the bandwagon.[/QUOTE] Nice attempt to invalidate legitimate arguments being made against you. [QUOTE=man with hat;48439926]It's common sense. Have you ever taken an economics class or are you oblivious to the concept of potential profit? Yes or no, are you saying that FiveM is not damaging Rockstar's potential profits?[/QUOTE] Are you a gimmick? Why are you avoiding supporting your arguments? Why are you attacking me now? Why aren't you responding to what I'm saying instead of getting defensive over a corporation that has made more than enough profit in [I]day-1[/I] GTA V sales alone to supply dedicated servers for 20 years? Po' widdle wockstah isn't getting to force anti-consumer extortion down players' throats, waaaah, make them stop daddy You're using the same logic as the RIAA, one downloaded song = one lost sale, and this is demonstrably untrue. I will [B]never[/B] buy Shark Cards because R* is not giving me anything remotely acceptable in value for my dollar. Capitalism 101, R* is supplying and there's no demand. There's a demand for what R* [B]isn't[/B] supplying, and they're attempting to stab it dead so it doesn't threaten them, which is a classic example of monopolistic protectionism. You claim to have taken an economics class in high school and you fail to get this.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48439926]All aboard the bandwagon.[/QUOTE] I bet he was actually hacking Rockstar's internal servers with his badass 1337 ddos skills.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48439963]Nice attempt to invalidate legitimate arguments being made against you. Are you a gimmick? Why are you avoiding supporting your arguments? Why are you attacking me now? Why aren't you responding to what I'm saying instead of getting defensive over a corporation that has made more than enough profit in GTA V sales to supply dedicated servers for 20 years? You're using the same logic as the RIAA, one downloaded song = one lost sale, and this is demonstrably untrue. I will [B]never[/B] buy Shark Cards because R* is not giving me anything remotely acceptable in value for my dollar. Capitalism 101, R* is supplying and there's no demand. There's a demand for what R* [B]isn't[/B] supplying, and they're attempting to stab it dead so it doesn't threaten them, which is a classic example of monopolistic protectionism. You claim to have taken an economics class in high school and you fail to get this.[/QUOTE] I think I'm supporting my arguments just fine, and if you think asking if you've taken an economics class is a personal attack, I must say I disagree. You obviously don't understand what potential profit is. The key word in the term potential profit is the word [B][I]potential[/I][/B]. Never did I even imply that every person using FiveM is someone that would be buying shark cards. They potentially would buy shark cards, but now it's very unlikely that they will. Right now all you're post is saying is that Rockstar doesn't deserve to profit because they already have enough money.

[QUOTE=man with hat;48440000]I think I'm supporting my arguments just fine[/QUOTE] Well, I'm done here. :v:

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;48439802]just you wait until the trailers start rolling out :smug:[/QUOTE] theres a difference between being hyped for a game at one point then having to wait 2 years for it to come out

Again, in US courts those ToS agreements and the like are non-binding. Same with European courts. Further; [B][I]potential sales[/I][/B] have never been fully studied because there is too much bias/statistical issues with studying piracy and lost sales. The Newsroom had the best quote: "I don't know how much we're losing [I]BUT I WANT IT.[/I]"