Another PUBG streamer has been banned, this time for taking advantage of a glitch - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=MedicWine;52561370]They're banning people (from a multiplayer game) for things that should be basic mechanics of your game. (Just implement an auto-kick/tempban system for TK?) Not the worst thing in the world, but it paints a pretty clear picture that these devs are willing to take shortcuts.[/QUOTE]They're banning people for being shitheads mostly. Like stream snipers and teamkilling "Its just a persona lol I was only pretending to be retarded." idiots. Or you know, people exploiting a massively game breaking bug.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52561390] Or you know, people exploiting a massively game breaking bug.[/QUOTE] A bug in an unfinished game that was not in any way intentionally caused by the Streamer, that they could not have known was going to happen, and that they could not have stopped occuring in the first place. They did not actively set out to cause and abuse the glitch. If he did it multiple times over several games then that might be a bit different, but part of the whole point of early access should be to find, fix and report bugs and glitches like this....but there isn't even a way to report bugs in the game, that i know of.

sounds like the glitch happened accidentally what is he supposed to do at that point? not play? because the only way that he could avoid "exploiting" would be the DC at that point

this happens like 70% of the time to me for the first 5 minutes (quite a long time when you need to rush for loot) and sometimes they never load in at all, so im just like yes im glad i crashed my pc for this

[QUOTE=Episode;52559998]Yeah, fuck that cunt for having fun. How dare you make someone upset in a video game![/QUOTE] Ok, how about the people who got killed by him? Did they have fun not knowing how they died? Heres the thing, both parties are in the wrong. He should had recorded the bug, disconnected and reported instead of using it for his advantage in a killing spree, which clearly gave him a huge advantage. The devs could have been a bit more lenient since he didn't overly abuse it, and to my knowledge, it wasn't made on purpose, like alt tabing and forcing it to happen, or was it?

I don't get it, lots of games have clauses about not purposefully exploiting bugs or glitches for personal benefit, why are people surprised that PUBG does that too?

[QUOTE=jackteam54;52560541]Yea thats true but is it really a precedent we should be setting? Of course abusing a bug is a shitty thing to do but really the better option is to just fix the bug so nobody can exploit it anymore, without any bans. I think its ridiculous that the person is expected to just drop playing the game for a bug they didnt even intentionally trigger or otherwise risk being banned. In this situation specifically, I could understand if he was purposely triggering the glitch and showing how to do it (rather than reporting it silently to the devs), but it wasnt even intentional on his end. Thats pretty much punishing the players for bug testing your early access game, which is part of the point of playing early access games.[/QUOTE] They didn't have to stop playing the game. They could have just started a new match, or restarted the game, and the bug most likely would have gone away (though, for some people, it's more consistent; it seems to mostly be caused by not having an SSD). Exiting and starting a new match right at the start of a match should be no big deal, and honestly is the cost of playing an early access game. Further, I honestly don't get where this mindset of "banning this person is punishing players for bug testing"; this is a well known bug, what exactly is there to bug test? Further, even if this was some unheard of bug, it's pretty clear from even the clip in the video (and from the full stream) that this player wasn't doing this in the name of science or whatever. Heck, [url=https://youtu.be/ldcAqLYIJH0?t=47s]the streamer even admitted he didn't do it for research purposes and he didn't after "testing" the bug then go and report it to the developers.[/url] Which, props to him for his honesty, but this was a completely justified ban of a player exploiting a bug which clearly game them an advantage purely for their own enjoyment to the detriment of other players. [QUOTE=Untouch;52561510]sounds like the glitch happened accidentally what is he supposed to do at that point? not play? because the only way that he could avoid "exploiting" would be the DC at that point[/QUOTE] Yes? Why is it such a big deal to exit and start a new match right after it started? It's not like this is something that randomly occurs after playing a match for 30 minutes; it is a bug that is present right from the start, and it would be extremely hard not to notice it is present right from the start. Further, while it appears the streamer wasn't aware of the bug (which I find odd, but anyway), they were aware they were able to see and walk through walls, which is clearly unintended and a massive advantage.

Playerunkown is a cunt.

[QUOTE=nightlord;52561450]A bug in an unfinished game that was not in any way intentionally caused by the Streamer, that they could not have known was going to happen, and that they could not have stopped occuring in the first place. They did not actively set out to cause and abuse the glitch. If he did it multiple times over several games then that might be a bit different, but part of the whole point of early access should be to find, fix and report bugs and glitches like this....but there isn't even a way to report bugs in the game, that i know of.[/QUOTE]He exploited a bug to begin with, you don't get to do that and just wave it off. Just because there is a bug doesn't mean you get to take advantage of it. It doesn't matter if he intentionally caused it or not. Most games will ban you for exploiting a bug even if you didn't cause it. In fact, virtually every game does this without exception. The responsibility is always on the player to not take advantage of something broken, even if they didn't cause it. "Hey, I didn't break that window, the storm did it, so why am I being punished for stealing the stuff on display? I didn't break in, and they should have had reinforced glass." No, you don't get away with things by saying you didn't cause part of it.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;52562951]I don't get it, lots of games have clauses about not purposefully exploiting bugs or glitches for personal benefit, why are people surprised that PUBG does that too?[/QUOTE] Because it was an accident in this scenario

Yea pretty sure it has been said before that PUBG is really weird in that it calls itself an alpha while they also use the ladder to qualify people for tournements and are also trying to sell cosmetics. If they want to be like a real game and have a competitive scene they should stop hiding behind the early access thing and own up to any game-breaking glitches. Pretty much if you are going to ban people because they are breaking the game with glitches that exist, dont call yourself an alpha or even a beta.

[QUOTE=ThatSprite;52564207]Because it was an accident in this scenario[/QUOTE] How is it an accident? He saw that the game was glitched, he saw that he has an advantage and he abused it. He could have just left the match and started a new one and most likely wouldn't have had the bug again.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52563905]Playerunkown is a cunt.[/QUOTE] I think that became obvious the instant he named his game "Playerunkown's Battlegrounds"

:chillout: [B]WARNING: Enormously unpopular opinion[/B] Destiny getting banned for this was justified. Let me start by saying that of course it's not any player's fault that the buildings don't load sometimes. This needs to be addressed by the developers. The developer's responsibility to fix this bug is not, however, a clearance for players to abuse it. I'm really not aware how many multiplayer videogames everyone has played but in most of them, exploitation is a big no-no regardless of whether or not this was the byproduct of bad code. In many cases, this might lead to a big ban-hammer swinging your way. Consider the following: You parachute in but something is wrong: every building is lacking its walls, allowing you to see what loot/people are inside. Rather than leave immediately from this obviously altered world, let's conduct an experiment: run over someone who is inside one of these buildings. Oh shit, it worked... Alright, good experiment, let's add this to our bug report. Let us also exclaim the fact that we might get banned for this but continue not to leave the match. Maybe we should stop? No, we're going back to run over his teammate now. Very funny, a completely bewildered team of two is now kicked back to the lobby due to no fault of their own! Oh, there's another team of two huddled in an obvious building, let's run them over as well with the same result. "Haha, we're getting banned." If you cannot see/understand what is wrong with the above scenario (yes, it actually happened), I hope I never get placed in a lobby with you. If someone could [I]please[/I] explain this train of thought past "it's early access/pre-alpha so developers should allow exploitation of obvious glitches", please do.

[QUOTE=silentjubjub;52564558] If someone could [I]please[/I] explain this train of thought past "it's early access/pre-alpha so developers should allow exploitation of obvious glitches", please do.[/QUOTE] I think this is the main thrust of the argument. The point of an open alpha/beta was to originally crowdsource QA for a game so it has less bugs on release, but nowadays it has become a method for procuring a large up-front profit before the game is finished, and also as a shield for criticism of the game. Players exploiting bugs in a beta has also historically increased the chance of those bugs being fixed, so it seems contradictory that PUBG calls itself an alpha/beta while dipping its toes into the competitive scene and discouraging players from exploiting bugs. PUBG as it is should either be a testing environment or it should be treated as a released game, trying to do both at the same time is pretty anti-consumer.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;52564676]I think this is the main thrust of the argument. The point of an open alpha/beta was to originally crowdsource QA for a game so it has less bugs on release, but nowadays it has become a method for procuring a large up-front profit before the game is finished, and also as a shield for criticism of the game. Players exploiting bugs in a beta has also historically increased the chance of those bugs being fixed, so it seems contradictory that PUBG calls itself an alpha/beta while dipping its toes into the competitive scene and discouraging players from exploiting bugs.[/QUOTE] If you're testing a game and you encounter a bug, you don't then abuse the shit out of that bug, you report it and move on.

[QUOTE=simkas;52564685]If you're testing a game and you encounter a bug, you don't then abuse the shit out of that bug, you report it and move on.[/QUOTE] If people are abusing a bug then it will bring it to the developers attention quicker wouldnt it? [QUOTE=hexpunK;52564847]That's not how ethical testing works. It's the same in the malware and penetration testing industry. If you uncover any kind of vulnerability you privately disclose it to the creators and then cease to exploit it (outside of extended testing to see what else it may be capable of). You don't abuse that vulnerability for your own enjoyment or profit. If the creator of whatever you are testing fails to address said problem within a time period (I think the usual is like a month unless it's something like Heartbleed which is so security critical it received full disclosure pretty quickly) then you release it to the public. This same method should apply to game testing, if you find a bug in an early access game. Don't release it to the public if it could affect the gameplay between multiple players. Tell the dev and give them time to fix it. Destiny was kind asking for this by abusing a known bug, especially whilst streaming where there'd be video evidence of him abusing it for his own enjoyment at the expense of others. Don't want to get banned in PUBG? Don't be a raging dickhole. It's really quite simple.[/QUOTE] In the penetration testing industry vulnerabilities can have some pretty serious consequences, much more serious than in something like PUBG, so I think that this is not a good comparison. If it makes the devs fix the problem faster I think its worth 10 minutes of some poor players time. This is one reason why it is so strange that PUBG is still called an alpha, because if they didnt have a ladder that can qualify people for tournaments the only consequence of these exploits is to waste someones time.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;52564691]If people are abusing a bug then it will bring it to the developers attention quicker wouldnt it?[/QUOTE] That's not how ethical testing works. It's the same in the malware and penetration testing industry. If you uncover any kind of vulnerability you privately disclose it to the creators and then cease to exploit it (outside of extended testing to see what else it may be capable of). You don't abuse that vulnerability for your own enjoyment or profit. If the creator of whatever you are testing fails to address said problem within a time period (I think the usual is like a month unless it's something like Heartbleed which is so security critical it received full disclosure pretty quickly) then you release it to the public. This same method should apply to game testing, if you find a bug in an early access game. Don't release it to the public if it could affect the gameplay between multiple players. Tell the dev and give them time to fix it. Destiny was kind asking for this by abusing a known bug, especially whilst streaming where there'd be video evidence of him abusing it for his own enjoyment at the expense of others. Don't want to get banned in PUBG? Don't be a raging dickhole. It's really quite simple.