Jup…same here. every day i come to this forum just to see if dace announces a change in the anti cheat so i can finally start playing again. but thats in vain i guess.
EA/DICEs no name and shame policy predates GDPR by years. It is a weak excuse. Other gaming compaines doing business in the UK don’t have this same forum policy and aren’t suffering financial loss from this regulation.
The real reason that policy was created is to prevent EA from having to deal with backlash for those claiming to be falsely accused, and all the forum bickering. As far as I understand, all the moderators are entirely volunteer and unpaid. There are only so many free cycles available to police forums. Probably also why this megathread returned, after the “close all the cheat threads” was becoming unsustainable.
I do believe that EA/DICE are horribly negligent when it comes to anticheat efforts in Battlefield. But, I don’t believe they intentionally instituted this policy to protect cheaters. It just ended up being a convenient side-effect of their a bad policy. In that a measureable slice of sales is from PC players who cheat.
Nothing in this thread will improve the situation. EA will never do more than a boilerplate repsonse. There will not be any discussion with anyone of consequence at EA. The only way to get them to change course is to not buy their games and make it clear why.
Well, here is my quick rant. Played Wake Island yesterday and of course there is not 1 not 2 but 3 blatant cheaters. 2 on the opposite team and one on mine. Anyway recorded a bunch of gamplay and reported them to DICE,used the gameplay as evidence. BTW, visit my youtube channel if you can. What i cant believe is he was rank near 60. How could fairfight not catch him by now? I mean this guy(s) was ,well, rage hacking. 200+ kills to 5-10 deaths(deaths only from tanks and planes.
I think you are getting things mixed up here. I personally believe the reasons that:
A: Forum name and shame
&
B: Public Banlists
not being things that are there due to 2 different sets of reasons.
**(A)**I don’t see is a thing because it would fill up the forum with accusations - mob mentality causing the forum to be judge jury and executioner / guilty until proven innocent, there will be valid threads but also plenty of people who don’t know how to spot cheaters will hang out to dry innocent people. It would make the forum harder to navigate and find proper discussions on and it would be a more negative experience overall. Lastly, there is little point in naming and shaming people on the forum, the Terms of Service people use the reports from Origin and whatever internal tools they might have to gather information about who to look into, they don’t look at the forum and it kinda makes sense as the forum would be a horrible place to collect such information.
I was not talking about the forum when I talked about GDPR and Banlists - something I hoped would be obvious since I didn’t mention the forum.
(B) I think would be hard to implement partly due to GDPR because of the reasons already listed.
Carbonic, I think you need to read GDPR in detail in place of listening exclusively to Dice.
First : GDPR applies to all companies but it is only applicable to EU residents. So if we are putting the real name of a non-eu residents in forum → no gdpr issue.
Second : GDPR is about PII. It means Personal Identifiable Information.
Here is the legal definition :
*Personally identifiable information (PII) is information that, when used alone or with other relevant data, can identify an individual. PII may contain direct identifiers (e.g., passport information) that can identify a person uniquely, or quasi-identifiers (e.g., race) that can be combined with other quasi-identifiers (e.g., date of birth) to successfully recognize an individual.
*So putting a pseudo is not PII because we don’t have the ability to see real name behind that pseudo. We can only see information provided freely by the person. And all forums have sent reminder to enlisted persons to ask them to give they consent due to GDPR.
If we put a gamertag in a sreenshot, forum viewer cannot identify the person, we don’t know who is behing the GT.
Third: EA has to sent to everybody more than one year ago a document asking explicitely to customer if they are ok that ea use their personal info. This was requested by GDPR and ea did it because they have to do it legally. They are in alignment with the law and has the right to use PII data to manage their platform. Tracking cheaters is part of the platform management.
So really, in this case GDPR is an easy excuse to use so they can cover themselves under this law.
That certainly begs the question of why OTHER games will notify when the players are banned. Do those laws somehow apply to keep EA from publishing names, but they somehow allow other companies to list the names of banned hackers?
For example, why isn’t PUBG getting in trouble for listing their banned players?
https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/pubg-mobile-releases-a-new-list-of-banned-players-heres-why-pubg-has-given-a-10-year-ban-to-these-players/479962
Is PUBG immune to this “International data protection” and “privacy laws” that somehow stifle EA from letting us know who is banned?
This much is true, but the cheats basically don’t matter in single player games, unless I am missing something.
Just a few comments:
-
I already said that I believe public banlists could be implemented in a GDPR safe way - the whole point of mentioning GDPR was that it changes what way combatting cheaters might be the most effective when you think about how much anti-cheating measures you get for your money. I made some arguments that automatic detection and prevention might be more effective.
-
I have not been listening to DICE. Do you see them talking about GDPR in here or anywhere else? No. They also don’t talk to me in private about it.
-
It doesn’t matter that GDPR only applies to the users of EU residents. Similar laws in other countries are on their way and besides, it’s too much work, time and money to treat data differently depending on user location - implementing changes for all users is what most international consumer companies like EA have done.
-
PII is the American term, in Europe we just call it personal information or personal data and it covers a broader range of information than PII. The US legal definition makes little sense in EU law. The EU definition includes online identifiers which would include ones EA username.
Yeah that’s pretty cool (although the giant image with huge white background and margins are a bit much :p)
Since this is an official EA/Dice thread, is it too much to ask to see some replies from someone who is not an unpaid moderator? EA/Dice made this thread for a reason (one would assume). The reason must be to give the community the impression that EA/Dice are acknowledging the issue, without actually doing anything about it.
So, just a feeble PR ploy. I really wish hackers found an efficient way to use their cheats on consoles, then maybe EA/Dice would start caring.
They would only care if games were pirated too. Working system would be there within a week. Because this about money, and money only.
i found a youtuber that hacking, by the way everyday i found a hacker, and i dont unterstand why ea alowed a youtuber to hack. maybe its better to allow he this, for more cosumers but this is the wrong way
Literally every game i play has a blatant rage cheater in it. May as well uninstall this garbage at this point since this company clearly doesnt take it seriously. Never buying anything EA or Dice touch ever again
They wouldn’t. However, if games were pirated too, then they would care. A working anti-cheating system would be there within a week. Because this is about money. And money only. Cheaters pays too, so they would lose many paying customers if they banned them for cheating.
I do truly feel sorry for you. You’re pretty much delusional. I’ll make sure to mention your name to EA, though.
Oh, do explain.
- I said public banlists were problematic due to privacy and data protection laws
- You then point out that Pubg made a public ban list, so laws like GDPR should not be a valid reason to not do them.
- I then point out that the banlist you chose as an example has been taken down due to concerns with international privacy and data protection laws, pretty much validating my concern.Please do tell me which part of this is delusional.
thanks dice for patch 5.2.2 with the best anticheat system in the games world