As online multiplayer is a huge element of modern gaming, it’s key that game developers keep an eye on their servers, as it’s not going to be difficult for people to cheat – either through exploiting bugs and glitches, or hacking into systems with third-party software. The best way to deal with these people is up for debate.
There are certain game teams who are incredibly cruel, such as the developing team of Guild Wars 2 in 2015 (honestly, look it up – they take control of an individual’s character, strip him to his boxers, proceed to drop him off a building, then ban him permanently), and the devs of H1Z1 – if you cheat, not only are you permanently banned, but you have to email them a link of you publicly apologising on YouTube. I mean, it’s cruel but effective – you’ll quickly have people abiding by the “laws” of the game. Tyrannical? Most definitely. I’d not play a game that gave you no redemption. Other games, such as Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and Titanfall, force cheaters to play only with cheaters. Personally, it’s a decent way to deter people from cheating, if, of course, they allowed players to return to the light side.
Image: Nintendo/Rare
If it’s permanent, I mightn’t be as much a fan – because it ruins the experience of the game. I mean, however you’re punished, you’ve paid for this game. Whilst the game developers might have the final say, it’s their player base who support their ongoing success, and if they spend too much time scaring them away, you end up with a game that nobody's playing. I’ve had personal experience with temporary bans – my brother was hit with Halo: Reach’s “Banhammer” for dropping out of too many games in a row (which, I’ll be fair, wasn’t his fault - we had an awful internet connection in 2011), and within a short time, he was back in business. If games want to keep their player base whilst still having them play the game that they themselves want you to, it may be best to keep punishments temporary, allowing players to consider playing it safe, instead.
