• Epzillon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, someone should get banned from cheating. I can see why this happen though, since the account playing does not own the game the account which has the game linked gets banned instead. If the account cheating has the game they are instead playing on their copy and that gets banned instead (i assume).

    However the ban should be linked to the account and not the copy of the game. I do not understand why this isnt the case. Maybe because someone could just make a new account and link that to play on instead, therefor never having to buy more than one copy of the game while cheating.

    • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, it’s most likely to prevent someone from using the family feature to get away with cheating.

      As it stands now, if you get caught cheating you must create a new account and repurchase the game. So the main deterrent is the full cost of a game.

      With the steam family function you could potentially create 5 new accounts per year, and simply remove them when they get caught cheating. The only deterrent would be the wait period.

      So I agree with their decision. The downside is that you must trust someone before adding them to your family. If your cheating son gets you kicked off counterstrike, then just remove him from your family. They’re never too old to drop off at the fire station.

      • Epzillon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is indeed the appropriate reaction to being banned on counter strike. Joke aside you could just lock the entire functionality of adding an account to your family if someone got caught cheating though.