Deleted

its a bad idea, I never cheat in games but I can tell ill end up getting banned with the new system, it wont end well for anyone, and when the devs get overpowering, players who got game banned are gonna go running to steam support who cant do anything, its going to be a mess, steam is just going down the hole man

:O i think this rule comin bcoz gta v online cheater haha
R. I.P cheater

My biggest problem is that this is not the right time to implement something like this. Why? Because Valve's customer support is still a horrible piece of crap. I really don't get why instead of focusing on their real and huge issue they keep implementing flawed new features.

I do have some issues with this.

There is the what if the dev is a jerk issue, but also what if trolls complain to the dev about a person constantly, lying to the dev and the dev bans the person.

I don't think they should loose access to the whole game, they should just loose access to the multiplayer part. Or tell them they have been banned from the game, and after 30 days if the ban sticks the game gets removed from their library and put in the inventory with no ability to install the game.

But maybe this will help weed out the trouble makers from a game too.

this is pretty scary. next time you call someone a 'dickhead' in a game, they or their mommy complains to the developer, and then bam you get banned from playing the game just for a bit of smacktalk because most young gamers these days are over-sensitive little bitches.

This doesn't sounds right.... So now you buy a game, play it, post a bad review and the dev can decide to ban you from their games? Since they don't need proof or anything to get you banned apparently...

It's a good thing if the devs use it for getting rid of the cheaters as it's intented to be used, unfortunately i have a feeling that ban will be given for the wrong reasons by some devs....

A VITAL piece of information missing here, is whether a dev 'game-ban' only prevents them from taking part in all multiplayer within the game, or whether it locks them out of the whole product, which would be akin to rescinding someone's purchase without a refund (which is legally dubious). Provided there was a good dispute system in case of childish or manipulative devs, it wouldn't be so bad. The trouble is that all companies tend to err on the side of the profit-partner rather than the consumer, at least in the digital / game industry, plus the initial frustrations of waiting through the default auto-responders in steam support.

In one hand, the quality of multiplayer in non-VAC games would be better maintained (at the cost of a few bad eggs being assholes towards innocent people). In the other, we assure nobody can be targetted by certain bottom-feeder devs, but unprepared games by honest devs will be permanently stuck with any regular cheaters they accrue. It's a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

The link is not totally clear about what a GameBan is.
But.
There is a working example.
Dark Souls 2.
It has a so-called soft-ban system. Imperfect but working.
A 'soft-banned' person can play the game, he/she can even play the multi-player part but connects to some other server ("for cheaters"). Less people, less fun.
It looks like a nice solution ("isolation").

If this just means that a dev can make the account unable to play multiplayer in the game that's not too bad. Sorta like a super VAC-ban. If they can ban people from single player that is utter bullshit. What is the point besides to be petty?

if they ban cheaters its good, lots of cheaters and players in many games like h1z1, csgo need purged from cheaters. But! If the DEV banning someone because negative review or something.... well, you know, all the game of those DEVs should be purged from steam. Iam sure there are DEVs who will do that if they allready give forumban if you post something and they dont like it, tho those will be minor independent DEVs with shitty games.

Yeah, f cheaters. If you wanna use it - use it on your own servers.

Wow this thing has so much potential for abuse. Guess i'd better not post anything negative about a dev on their community hub, ever! Since the way it's worded it sounds like the dev does not need to provide ANY evidence of said cheating/disruption, just ask Valve to ban someone. And of course, just like with every other bad system implemented by Valve so far they take NO RESPONSIBILITY! =))

This can come in handy in alpha/beta games especially RUST. :3

I think it would be fun to create several ban categories, like "Cheating", "Harrassment", "Scam" and so on, and after a ban only let banned person interact with people who are banned under the same categories and have the same amount of bans, thus limiting their circle of contacts more and more with every ban. Yay segregation!

Devs abusing their privileges on their steam forum is a rampant occurrence, thinking they wouldn't abuse escalating admin powers is plain delusion.

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

question is, will dev's now implement systems similar to VAC, so that we have to be afraid to use mods on a higher number of games now? will games protected by those systems get marked, as it is with VAC now? or do i have to investigate 10 minutes every time i want to install a mod? preventing cheating always sounds like a good idea. but VAC is less than optimal. and i fear it won't get better with this new thing. we'll see.

first thought, now support will take 3 months
but they fought about it :)
"For more information about a game ban in a specific game, please contact the developer of that game"

goes and deletes all his negative reviews

Just in case :P

This is a bad idea because of abuse and false positives. When devs/pubs the right to blindly and blanket ban people for what ever reasons.

If they can 'detect' a cheater, why not just NOT LET THEM PLAY??? instead of banning them.

I wonder what's next on their list of crazy/stupid ideas that will get people to hate them even more. The joke about Gaben and Steam being the saviour etc is only going to run for so long, before they become worse than EA and Ubisoft.

Ok, so let's say I cheat in GTA V Online for example. Rockstar tells Steam to ban me. You're telling me I just lost out on playing single player too?!?!?!?! GTA V was a bad example because I'm sure Rockstar probably just bans you from the Social thing. But you catch my drift.

I dont like it, its scary and could be the developer's way of revenge

game devs WILL mess up with this feature

Best thing EVER! Sure devs will abuse it but also it will help stop cheaters since a dev will be more likely to be checking their game so we know they will ban anyone hacking/cheating in their game.