CRank: 5Score: 99280

What Is Happening To Gamers?

I’m gonna try and keep this to the point as much as possible and based on some of the responses I’ve seen on this site this is probably gonna be a very unpopular opinion.

A couple days ago an article was posted about a gamer that lost access to all his games on psn for making extremely racist comments while playing an online game. They banned him for a month I think for hate speech. To be honest I was completely dumbfounded as to how many people actually cheered this and thought this was a good thing. When exactly did we get to this stage? Firstly let me make this completely clear, in no way, form or fashion do I support nor am I excusing what this guy did. I completely agree with there being some form of penalty and punishment for this behaviour. I myself have been on the receiving end of numerous racist slurs and have also witnessed it being done in the opposite direction (surprisingly you never see people complaining about that). So I am fully in support of this guy being banned from playing online for a month. However, I cannot and will not agree with him loosing access to all his games.

Why, why would anyone think this is a good thing? Listen, no company, not Sony, Microsoft nor Nintendo should have the right to stop someone from accessing what they paid hard earned money for over something like hate speech. Remove access to online play, sure but not access to their library. What is the big issue you may ask? It’s pretty simple, what the hell is hate speech?

Think about this. The term hate speech is such a broad term that is being weaponized right now by some very unscrupulous people, do you really want a company having the power to block you or perma-ban you from thousands of dollars that you invested due to something as vague as hate speech? There are places now where you can be arrested for calling a guy with a wig on his head a man, that’s considered hate speech. Imagine you’re playing online and you’re having a discussion with someone and you say “well, it’s my opinion that there are only two genders”. This is now considered hate speech and people have been banned from twitter and Facebook for making comments like that. Are we really going to say a guy should lose his entire library for this? Again, understand that my issue is not that he was punished, it’s the severity of the punishment for something like hate speech.

Yes he should have received punishment for his racist comments but not losing access to his entire library. A punishment that severe should only happen if you are found to be doing illegal activities on the network, not for freaking hate speech. This is wrong and to be honest it pains me that I have to be defending a bloody racist in this situation. I will not support someone who calls me the ‘n word' being banned from accessing their library. No gamer should. Ask yourself what simple, non-offensive comment you can make today that may be considered hate speech tomorrow. Would you like losing access to your account for making that comment? Blocking someone from accessing their library should only be done in the most extreme situations.

If we champion this decision now then we are going down a slippery slope that will take us into a gaming nightmare that we will all regret.

The story is too old to be commented.
isarai1436d ago

Thats what happens when you buy digital, only game restricted were digital games. Thay are entirely in the right as digital purchases are nothing more than glorified rentals, you dont own a thing, and they can do whatever they want with it.

UltraNova1436d ago (Edited 1436d ago )


Wrong time and place to bring this up, even if its true.

To the point:

Great post, true in many ways. I particularly liked your characterization - weaponizing a vague term like "Hate speech". Do we really want to end up having to think about every single word that comes out of our mouth when online? To be clear I'm not in any way defending racism. But we need to acknowledge the fact that lines on what's considered Hate speech today have been blurred.

This is a slippery slope if I ever seen one.

AnubisG1435d ago

We are already there where you have to watch everything you say like during communism or someone will alert the authorities and than you'll be in trouble. This will only get worst and people don't realize how horrifying this is.

sampsonon1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

this is the dumbest discussion I've ever heard. YES we ALL know what hate speech is. it's not vague and it's been around for a long time.

i have white friends that i never heard say racist things. maybe it's because we all grew up in a society with many cultures around us and our friends were a mixture of races. why can they not do it but others need to be told that they are being racist? or saying something antisemitic?
this is simple.

stop saying racist things online like you have the right. and just play the bloody game.

uth111435d ago

@AnubisG. - unfortunately many people won't realize how horrifying it is until they themselves get in trouble for hate speech for saying something they considered harmless, but one person took offense

djplonker1435d ago


He called people n*gger and fagg*t and sent links to white supremacy websites.

It's 100% undeniable hate speech no blurred lines if you need to be told not to call black people the n word then you probably shouldn't be talking about a serious subject and go back to putting lego up your nose.

1435d ago
FunAndGun1435d ago Show
343_Guilty_Spark1435d ago

If I heard a white friend say racist things they wouldn't be my friend.

They know I don't have time for the BS.

UltraNova1435d ago

Small minds think alike I guess. You lot deserve all the sensoring you get, wether you deserve it or not May the hammer fall hard on your a****.

Atom6661435d ago

Ehh...Wrong time and place to talk about blurred lines. The kid responded to the ban by sending Sony customer support links to white supremacist sites. That's not to mention actively pushing his own racist bullshit to other users.

There are better examples to use in a slippery slope argument. At the end of the day, it's everyone's right to be a prick, but it's Sony's right to say that you can't be a prick on their network.

Because those digital licences are tied to a suspended account, he lost access to them. If he spent more time reading the TOS and less time on 8chan, he may have known that.

If you intend to hide online and be a little snowflake bigot, buy physical next time.

Atanasrikard1435d ago


Hate to burst your bubble Hank but even when you buy a physical copy all you are buying is the license in a different form. Terms and conditions don't change based on the method of distribution.

isarai1435d ago

Did you even bother reading the whole thing? This is exactly the time and place to bring this up. This post is not about the hate speech but rather if it's right to ban someone's access to their own games. I wouldnt say it's something i agree with (i think you should keep the games you buy even if digital) but this is what everyone agrees to when they buy digital besides a few services like GOG

StormSnooper1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

Do I like the fact that digital future is going to suck? Nope. But, I think gamers should also keep in mind that we all want to be free from racist idiots polluting the gaming habitat when we play online. So, does the punishment fit the crime? I guess it depends on how toxic this particular guy was. But from the sound of It, he deserves to get his account suspended. This is not a slippery slope, you should not get away with saying things you shouldn’t/wouldn’t say in a person’s face. Just because you are online doesn’t mean you have a license to be free from consequences of your conduct.

Chexs19901435d ago

I most likely offend people every day, because I curse a lot. However, I never direct the swearing at anyone, unless I'm pissed at them.
It's just how I grew up and the social arenas which shaped my speech patterns

DaveZero1435d ago

No we shouldn't have to watch what were allowed to say, yet people shouldn't be so hateful and damn right nasty. It's upto an individual to be right with others and some just behave in a manner that makes them such a shame on the rest. Some people live for just making others lives a misery and I would go as far as to say as its infected gaming and it makes me feel sick to be honest. I live to play games with people and enjoy that, yet these moronic brain dead people who throw racist remarks, bully or whatever they do to try get to someone, shows how more must be done to stop them.

There is no place in the world for any of it, especially gaming, just get on have fun and play your games.

Does not matter anymore if you have physical or digital if the console devs want to deny you for being a prat, then that's on that individual and it's there fault. Don't do the things online that bring on bans its that simple, you only have yourself to blame if you get your account or console locked.

I have no sympathy for anyone who is doing it, deserve all they get.

Christopher1435d ago

***To be clear I'm not in any way defending racism. But we need to acknowledge the fact that lines on what's considered Hate speech today have been blurred. ***

Eh, I have to be honest, that's not truly accurate. In most cases, hate speech is pretty easily identifiable. Calling someone a 'bundle of sticks' or the usual hard g n-word are definitely hate speech and are some of the most commonly used. This "slippery slope" people love to throw around are extreme situations when we still deal with even famous people who call others these words and think it's acceptable (see Deadmau5).

This whole slippery slope logic is in itself a slippery slope in trying to allow hate speech and do nothing about it. Perhaps you think because everyone should have to work to mute everyone who's a jerk, and that's your opinion, but it's a bad one. We're then, as a society, promoting such things rather than getting people to improve.

I will agree with you that systems are set up to mishandle issues in a manner that is severe.

Here are my issues with online handling of things today:

1. Automation: Systems that find any use of a word or phrase and ban based on its use without context. R6S has this issue where people could bait others into saying something in a database that was considered hate speech but it didn't take into consideration its use or reference.

2. Lack of cultural reference. As it is, PS Communities already have a massive list of words that are censored because in China this word means something that no one who doesn't speak it understands at all. Or this animal is a racist reference only in one part of the world, so no one can say it.

3. Just bad programming. PSN Communities, again, fails at this. I can type out of a full word that is not offensive in any language, but if part of it is an offensive word, even one in #2 that we have no clue about, it gets censored with '*' so much that the only solution is to use a different word and hope it's not censored or use spaces. This even happens with parts of game names.

But, all this 'it's a slippery slope' talk does is argue against the current systems but does nothing to argue for a system that is better. A system that has regional filters, a system that isn't 100% automated, and a system that takes into account context.

And I'll tell you why that system isn't made and why people should push for it, it's because it takes people to manage it and no one wants to pay for it. But they should if they want better online environments and we should tell them that rather than just say "how you are doing it is bad."

There is a toxicity issue online and it should be moderated in some manner, but the solution isn't just to accept it, IMHO. The solution is for those companies that rely so heavily on online environments to invest money in making they less toxic in a fairer manner.

It's never going to be 100% fair, that's just how it is. But it can be much better and reduce the issues of the current automated systems utilized. But I feel aiming for a 100% fair system is in of itself a slippery slope in arguing against any system at all, and I don't agree with that.

Teflon021435d ago

Nothing slippery about it. Do you know how hard it is to get a ban on psn. You have to be repeatedly harassing people. I've seen ppl get reported 20 times for the same thing. Even to the point a whole games community knows about these ppl and they'll never get banned. This guy expected to be banned so that's all she wrote. An account ban whether temporary or not disables your account. Not limit it. If he's getting mad in game saying fn n words etc. He wouldn't have been banned. This guy was going out of his way to glorify racism on psn. He should have been permanently banned and lost his games. This isn't new xbl has done this plenty, ninty and steam work similarly as well. Only time it didn't is like Wii since whatever you bought, you got installed with no license needed. But because ppl aren't honest and will pirate. They do this to protect property. You don't wanna lose your stuff, follow the tos. You don't even have to actually follow it with psn either. They don't even care to clean the network of these things unless it's mass reports.

skiggy341435d ago Show
jeki1435d ago

The slippery slope argument is a propaganda technique.

It assumes we are so stupid as to not be able to handle future situations.

We can't ban hand grenades because it's a slippery slope, we won't know what to do when someone wants to own a bolt-action rifle.

We can't ban PCP because it's a slippery slope, we won't know what to do when someone wants to smoke pot.

rainslacker1435d ago

You don't have to watch everything you say. Just be respectful. I say plenty of things I know people don't like and probably some might be offended by. But, in doing so, I don't attack others by expressing my opinion. I don't call them names, and certainly don't use extremely inflamatory descriptions of them based on superficial attributes. I may have an opinion of someone that I'll express in a way that is heated, but I call them out in a way that is specific to their actions and make a case for it.

Hate speech is not vaguely defined. Calling someone the "N" word in a derogatory way, is hate speech. Hate speech for legal means is also defined in a way that involves it requiring it be used to incite violence, so it's not supposed to be used just because some people are idiotic.

Army_of_Darkness1435d ago

Ban the guy for a month is perfectly fine... Restricting him from accessing his other games/content however, is NOT Cool. Especially if he paid for it.

WelkinCole1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

Nova that is the point. Digital games is not really yours to own an do whatever you want with. It is as Isarai said. Glorify rentals.

I agree he should not lose all his games as he already paid for them for christ sakes but this is the problem when you sign up to their terms when you purchase from them digitally. They can do whatever the F they want and we as consumers/gamers are at their mercy.

This case highlights yet again why digital is bad and why I really hate GaaS because its the next level of digital games where companies have a stronger grasp over your balls.

Physical or die.

UltraNova1435d ago

Again I do not condone online hate speech of any for or for whatever reason and I agree on digital games being the gateway of publishers total control of our purchases. But its become clear to me that the current sensoring/punishing system is often unfairly harsh and needs a lot of fine tuning.

We need to stay vigilant and protect our rights, because no publisher/corp will do that for us.

indysurfn1045d ago

Good article, they are not saying it is VAGUE. They are saying it CAN be VAGUE. For instance you can say I want 3/5 of a land, profit, contract. And it can turn out that 3/5 can be used as a racist term meaning your only 3/5 of a human. Three-Fifths Compromise.

The sneaky thing is, your getting two sales of the same games. Like he said, ban them from playing online don't take away there games. But they are letting the person repurchase them. How convenient! $$$

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 1045d ago
jaycptza1435d ago

This is what happens when you don't read the terms of service then act like a dick and get screwed over but you deserved it

AnubisG1435d ago

To be fair, something like this should not even be in the ToS as it is crossing a line. They have no right blocking you from content you have paid for.

sampsonon1435d ago


if it's in the terms of service they have every right to do it.

i don't have a problem with this because i never say racist or hate words.
I'm just online playing and having fun.

and believe me when i say the guy won't be saying racist things online anymore lol.

Imalwaysright1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )


Sony could have the right to block the games they license to us because that's what we are paying for when we buy a game and/or block us from using their services but they shouldn't have the right to block access to games that are licensed to us by other publishers and I'm not sure if they can legally do it ToS or not.

jaycptza1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

They do have the right, just as you have the right to not go digital. The option still exist to purchase physically. The point is that your account is hosted on their platform which they control

StormSnooper1435d ago

Actually something like this is indeed necessary in the TOS because it is there to protect other people from harassing comments. You do realize that other people also paid for their copies, and deserve to be able to play them without having to deal with pricks. The TOS are there for a reason.

Atanasrikard1435d ago


I don't get this, you guys know there is a mute/block button right? I haven't looked in to it but from the sound of it, what this guy did went beyond the pale when he sent white supremacy sites or whatever to Sony customer service (though I'm not sure the point of that). Noone gets to decide what anyone else can and can not say, unless someone is calling for/inciting violence against another.

Teflon021435d ago

As a black man, last thing I want is to be profiled on the street by cops and harassed. Every race and culture fearing me if they haven't met me. Girls of races outside of mine being interested in me but won't date specifically because parents don't want them with a black man. I come home from my near slavery styled job where I get no respect. I work towards some of my goals while home (my goals in life are art related) after that, you're just trying to relax and play a game. You have ppl sending you a bunch of racist stuff and sending you some KKK style crap. You're going to be completely annoyed. Why should ANYONE of any race have to endure that? Anyone who's arguing that he should be able to access his digital content are part of the racism problem. I don't care what the tos says. People commit suicide and such off that crap. It's nothing to play with and what you're concerned about is the fact he can't play his games? If he could still play his games its not even worth banning his account. Psn allows you to do everything but paid multiplayer with a free account. All it means its he gets to change his account name. It's better than banning thw whole system and screwing anyone else who uses it. He's not only using hats speech. He's glorifying it and inciting haveful conduct by sharing that stuff. He should lose his stuff permanently.
I've known this was in the TOS from the start. Why don't you look and read what a psn game or any digital game says under the game descriptions. You have no right to complain in such a situation. Ppl love to blow specific things out of proportion. Can't believe all the dumb ass ppl here. I'll probably get a ban here for saying it. But 8 don't give a damn, every single person defending the idiot with, "wahh! Shouldn't have took his games, wahh!" are a bunch of idiots who clearly couldn't run a network properly, because what you're saying is give no real solution. You can't agree to terms then say you don't have the right to do what I agreed to. Dumb ass conversation.

StormSnooper1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

A person should not expect to say whatever he wants without suffering the consequences. A person is free to say whatever he wants, but that doesn’t mean he is free from the consequences of what he says. You are confusing freedom of speech with absolute freedom to say things without consequence. They are two different things. I’ll give you an example so you see the difference. You don’t go in public and call an old man an “old fart”. Why? You are completely free to do that because it doesn’t fall under any exceptions to freedom of speech (like incitement to violence). But you don’t do it, why? Because you are not free from the consequences of doing it, such as public disapproval, damage to your reputation, manners, public decency, getting fired by your employer who sees the act as one that demonstrates your lack of respect or human decency. That is the difference. You are still fully within your right to call someone an old fart, but these consequences are not covered under your freedom of speech. Yes?

Also, since you mentioned a mute button, i don’t think that the rest of us should turn the other cheek when confronted with someone who is trying to harasss us. Essentially you are saying, if you don’t like to be called by racial slurs, you need to mute the racist while everyone else can still hear him calling you by derogatory names.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1435d ago
Knushwood Butt1435d ago

Regardless of digital or not he could still be blocked from using the PSN service itself.

sampsonon1435d ago

that's what happens when you're a racist.

djplonker1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

Double post (damn mobile)

BigTrain1435d ago

"Wrong time and place to bring this up, even if its true."

I completely disagree, this is the perfect place and time to bring this up because it's truly relevant to the actual core of this issue. The actual idea of true ownership is a lie when it comes to digital content and this scenario proves it. The online ban was a sufficient consequence, the ban of access to his library is a violation of personal property but not if he "agreed" to the TOS. Yes the TOS, that is really not a true contractual agreement seeing as how there is no other option if a gamer wishes to use what they've purchased. It's really just an enforced set of rules and the act of purchasing digital content is nothing but voluntarily becoming a glorified renter for the sake of convenience until it's not convenient anymore.

Cobra9511435d ago

Not true. Almost all software comes in digital form these days. The difference here is that one company, Sony, controls your access to it. But on open platforms, once you have the software (game or otherwise), the seller, developer or platform creator can't take it away from you. The legalese may say it's a use license (as it also does on physical game releases), but we have full possession of it--so morally, ethically, and in practice, it belongs to us.

Teflon021435d ago

Cobra, you dont need to pay nothing to update games so it's not a big deal seeing ps3 games updates are still on the servers. Also, 80% of games outside some AAA have a completely playable game on the disc. They just improve it as much as possible after as it's never going to be perfect. So they just clean what they can. While I hate a million updates for a game. If you buy a disc, especially on ps, you'll have no issues with updates. So owning a disc means you own the game. But when you buy anything with software related to it. You're rights are immediately limited by the software owner. It's like a console. You realize, Sony MS, ninty can legally brick your console on purpose if you're doing specifics with it? You can't argue this topic as it's not a Sony issue. It's how it legally works everywhere. You wanna keep everything. Learn to hack or use gog on pc lol

Kumakai1435d ago

Wrong. Just because you own a disc, doesn’t mean you own the game. You purchase the right to play a copy of the game. If you violate the terms of service, they can cut off your access to servers. That means no patches, no multiplayer, no dlc, no account sign in. You can literally just play what’s on the disc locally until it needs a connection. This is true for 97% of games available to you.

dumahim1435d ago

Yep, you sign up for a service, you agree to their terms. If you decide to not only flaunt those rules, but completely not give a shit about them and shatter them at will, then the outcome to such behavior should be expected and there should be no shock or sympathy.

People talk about their own rights, but seems a lot of these people forget that it goes both ways. Sony has the same rights. So if they chose to not provide a service to a rule breaking, unapologetic racist, then that's within their rights to do so, just as much as it's the racist's right to his beliefs.

deno1435d ago

Absolutely my man. I can't see myself gaming if it all becomes digital.

Mr Marvel1427d ago (Edited 1427d ago )

There’s a 3rd gender?
I don’t know anyone who’s given birth to a gender other than Male or Female.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1045d ago
SegaGamer1436d ago

I actually agree with you. I think most people were saying that the ban was right, but losing his digital content wasn't.

TekoIie1436d ago

He didn't lose his game though. He was just denied access to the license for a month. I actually think this punishment for what the guy has admitted to is absolutely fine.

SilverDemon1435d ago

He got ban for a month. But what if the ban was for ever?
And sony shouldn't have ANY right to tell me i cant play the games i rightfully bought for a month,weak or even an hour. Not using the service? Fine, it's their service. But MY games

Seriously, first the decided the content of the games (censorship) and now when we get to play the games.
The need to be reminded they are not our parents

SamPao1435d ago

I read it was for a week

Mr_Writer851435d ago


You own a licence to play that game, when you buy that game via Sony you agree to their T&C.

I bet you can find something that says by agreeing to their T&C they reserve the right to ban you from digital titles.

He didn't have a leg to stand on. And if you don't like it? Then don't buy digital.

johndoe112111435d ago


You could be right. It may have been a week, I'm not sure but my point still stands. Doesn't matter if it was a week, month or day, the overall point is that banning someone from accessing their entire library for breaking a rule online regarding 'hate speech' is way overboard.

1435d ago
TekoIie1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )


"He got ban for a month. But what if the ban was for ever?"

He didn't get banned forever and that's a fallacy.

"And sony shouldn't have ANY right to tell me i cant play the games i rightfully bought for a month,weak or even an hour. Not using the service? Fine, it's their service. But MY games"

Im afraid you don't own those games. You've purchased a license to play those games which you've agreed can be revoked. Don't do any racist shitposting on PSN and you should be fine. I'm sure there's far more entertaining places on the web that doesn't involve putting your PSN account at risk.

Christopher1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

***But what if the ban was for ever?***

We're not dealing in hypotheticals here, only in reality.

***Seriously, first the decided the content of the games (censorship) and now when we get to play the games.***

The first is fully up to them. That's always been the case. It's the same as Valve removing games from their store that don't meet their guidelines. No different here at all.

The second is the only thing we should be discussing here.

*** The need to be reminded they are not our parents***

Nothing of this is about parenting. They are moderating. I'm not your parent when I moderate here, I'm following our Terms of Use and Guidelines. I'm not being your parent, I'm using our rules to restrict you so you will understand in the future what happens if you break the Terms of Use/Guidelines again.

Having said that, I agree that they should have only implemented an online ban and not a software access ban. I'm wondering if their system is currently set up to only ban an account in this manner and doesn't have the option to ban online access to games?

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1435d ago
djplonker1435d ago


“To further clarify the reasons for the ban hammer, I already know why as I stated in my previous email so it’s not a surprise to me that I got banned. talking about forced ‘migration’ into the West, directing other PSN users to various chans and White Nationalist content, and calling other players n*ggers and f*ggots, etc.”

You are defending this guy and his actions and saying its ok that he hurt other people but its not OK he can't play his games?

He hurt people online (his choice) because of their race (not their choice) and then he has the balls to post it online and the sad part is people are siding with him with arguments that basically boil down to I am not racist but.....

Just remember that racism and patriotism mixed with a psycho leader is how the holocaust started..... One day it was just burning jewish books the next day it was jewish men women and children.

Racists are dangerous and should always be treated as such.

Kosic1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

It's stupid people are defending him because they think it's "his game." But disregard his actions.

Kids end up killing themselves due to abuse via forums. Chat rooms and online gaming. This person is toxic and isn't something I would support and if I was his parents. He'd get a belt, slipper and what not against the side of his head to correct his b.s views.

Edit: you can easily change the subject and make the same point. Someone pays for their driving lessons, and their driving license. They keep driving badly, drunk, dangerously etc.

They then have their license removed and then the car. Would you feel sorry for the bad driver who PAID FOR THAT LICENSE? I bet most be happy that bad driver is off the road. So why is this any different?

Sono4211435d ago

You so clearly fail to see the bigger picture here, you really need to broaden your horizons and quit building up these straw man arguments. Literally no one is defending the comments he made, take your illogical outrage somewhere else. Come back when you can actually think about this critically.

Teflon021435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

Yes you are. You're inadvertently defending the actions by saying Sony's perfectly legal actions are against human rights or something. Despite agreeing to psn terms. You're not allowed to buy on psn without an account so if you have no account, you can't access that accounts content. When they use to do it on ps3, everyone was sharing games with like 5 friends. This is a outcome of irresponsible gamers. If you can't be responsible with nice things. You don't get nice things. Sony and psn are EXTREMELY lenient. For you to get bans on psn that aren't psn name related are almost unheard of because Sony doesn't go out of their way to ban people. I actually think they go out of their way to ignore these ppl unless they're doing way too much and getting too much reports. They weren't even banning a person who's sending death threats to me in msgs when I reported them. So this person is clearly doing to much. This isn't simple hate speech. It's inciting hateful conduct. That's a million times worse. Some people use the n word against black people to be racist and try belittle them. Then you have ppl like this who are trying to push the agenda that black people and homosexuals are something inferior. He can get off the Japanese man's console with that. Wish they'd brick his console as Sony has even the right to revoke the os if they wanted. You can't argue against what they did when he agreed to exactly those terms. If he didn't read it, it's his problem. The idiot knew he was going to get banned and still sent more of the hateful stuff directly to Sony and even in his reports saying he doesn't care he's a proud racist. Stfu with all that. This isn't a conversation of what is right. Enslaving and killing of other races came with racism. He wouldn't be too happy if he was on the Recieving end and I bet he would be saying white bs as a black man. F him and anyone who thinks he deserves to have licenses that are tied to a temp revoked account. Literally defending his actions. If he had access to his games he can just make more accounts, and play em online with no issues. That's not a penalization. He'd also have a new mask. Ppl who don't suffer consequences for bad actions won't ever respect the rules

Clunkyd1435d ago

I agree they shouldn't restrict gamers from playing their games, but I'm sure glad it happened to a racist. LMAO

NotoriousWhiz1435d ago

1) He should not have lost access to his games. That is a bit over reaching.
2) There is nothing vague about hate speech.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1435d ago
Xaevi1435d ago

Generations of hate being weaved into human kinds very existence, and people still get outrage over racists. People hate, you're no different. So the guy's a racist a-hole, you disagree, get over it. No he doesn't deserve to have what he bought taken away for such a stupid reason. The point here is you don't own anything you buy digitally and that's an issue everyone should have since so many keep spouting that digital is the future.

djplonker1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

I love how you define racism and hate as separate things.

It's not OK to judge someone by the colour of their skin and its totally fine he get punished for his dumb and dangerous opinions that actually have relevance in the real world and could mean someone getting killed because of the crap he spews.

But oh no poor guy can't play his pooter games, it's one less shit head thinking they are tough because he can hide behind anonymity to deal with online and I hope Sony keeps it up.

Sono4211435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

"It's not OK to judge someone by the colour of their skin" ugh... no one is saying it is okay. I'm pretty sure he's saying hate is hate. Racist hate is no better or worse than any other kind of hate. But if you truly have problems with judging people by the color of their skin you should have problems with colleges who constantly judge applicants by the color of their skin or places like the BBC who said in the future they hope to have their company be made up of 20% black 20% asian 20% white 20% hispanic and 20% whatever.... making it clear they are using race as a primary factor for new hires..

You know you called him a "sh*t head"... sounding pretty hateful here.. maybe sony should take your games away? I mean you're okay with them doing so if a person is being hateful right?

I feel the need to explicitly state i'm making a point with that last comment, I don't actually care if you bash the racist... just showing the flaw in your logic.

Valkron11435d ago Show
nicsaysdie1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

Here's the thing about digital and hate and digital hate. People that say that kinda stuff online are cowards. He'll always be a coward just like everyone like him. As far as sony's removing access to his digital games. That's probably his fault for not setting his account properly. If his ps4 is set with his profile as primary, then even being banned from the network should not have resulted in him losing access to content he downloaded to his system. Otherwise the system has to be able to verify the license key by signing online to psn. If one is banned from PSN, one can't sign on to verify license key. Stop trying to demonize Sony over something an Internet butt hole brought on themselves. It's simple, set up your ps4 profile correctly, and most importantly DON'T BE A RACIST! Otherwise you deserve to lose access to the licenses you've purchased which any company has the right to revoke at any time, for any reason. It says so in their ToS.

Christopher1435d ago

***People hate, you're no different.***

Yeah, I am different. Very. Maybe you're no different, but don't speak for others.

***So the guy's a racist a-hole, you disagree, get over it.***

No. Racism is bad and people need to learn to respect people for their differences, not hate them for it.

***No he doesn't deserve to have what he bought taken away for such a stupid reason.***

Being racist isn't a 'stupid reason' for being moderated. I do agree it was too much, but it's not a stupid reason.

It sounds to me like you're fine with racism, which is a truly weird flex to have.

1435d ago
Hungryalpaca1435d ago

It’s not so much being fine with racism but hiding it only has it fester and get worse. That’s how extremism starts.

Numerous neo nazis and kkk members have seen the error of their ways through dialogue, discussion and friendship.

Yes. Racism is bad. Shunning them and forcing them underground makes those people worse.

Xaevi1435d ago

I accept racism, I accept hate. No I don't think it's fine, but I don't allow it to bother me. I just think that people are trying too hard to make it go away, and it won't go away, ever. I like to think that I'm a pretty passive person, but I'd be lying if I said I don't hate something. I've grown to be accepting, so I don't feel the need to act on my hate. Of course that's up to the individual to grow, but I won't waste my time forcing them to.

rainslacker1435d ago

If people don't want that, then they shouldn't agree to the terms of service. leaving racism out of the conversation, if people really want ownership, then they have to stop agreeing to buying things that they don't want. But, if they do want them, then for the time being, they have to play by the rules of the service in question.

Lets put it into context. Lets say you buy a year long membership to a gym. After a month, you get pissed off at another person and become verbally abusive towards them. The management there tells you to never come back, and don't refund your money. Is that right? I say yes, because you broke the rules of good behavior at the gym which are usually in the contract you sign when you sign up for such things.

I know people talk about rights and what not, but in this case, playing games is a privilege. Consumer has rights, yes, but they sign those rights away when they sign up for the service, and when they buy every individual game. In the case of digital purchases, you actually have no rights of ownership, so nothing is actually being taken away from you.

If you own physical games, then yes, Sony would be in the wrong to come into your home and take those games from you. But, even there, they do have the right to restrict the use of that software by banning your console. However, I don't know of any instance where they've done that outside of modded consoles, and you still physically own the medium the game comes on, so you can still play it if you wanted.

The biggest consumer right that's being ignored is that the consumer has the right to not agree to the terms, and instead assumes that their rights are implied because of what they want. But the reality of the situation is that the rights are explicitly defined, and people want to complain about that definition after the fact, and in this case, come across as defending racism or improper behavior to try and make their argument for a better cause. Unfortunately, outside instances like this, the topic is usually more fan boy, and in the all digital debate, it just becomes more about how digital is the future or whatever the current arguments are for the glorious future.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1435d ago
BioDead1435d ago

This is ONE of the reasons why I don't ever play any online games. I always play alone or with a friend, but not publicly in some random online game. I hate them, because the people there in general and because of something like this could happen to me. English isn't my first language and what if I say something wrong and I got perma-ban or whatever there is and get cut off my content? People are assholes, especially online and they can report me even if I haven't even done anything wrong.

LoveSpuds1435d ago

This is ridiculous, whether English is your first language or not, you know full well what is acceptable language and what isn't; and that's the same for everyone else.

If you are a normal person who behaves in a normal manner, you have nothing to worry about. If you resort to name calling then you are being a pathetic man baby and going further still, if you start dropping racist epithets then you are being a complete scumbag.

If you play games and just chat normally to other gamers and respect others, you have no chance of being banned.

Of course, not everyone behaves so if you don't want to be exposed to this kind of aggressive behaviour then sadly, yes, generally you basically need to avoid playing online in certain games.

Imalwaysright1435d ago

Yeah no, not really. I'm portuguese and in portuguese the word "negro" is the most respectful way of saying that someone is black but in english spoken countries is a word that is considered offensive by some people. There are cultural differences that could lead to someone being banned and it already happened

LoveSpuds1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )


Way to pick an edge case squire, anyone with any common sense can safely navigate an online games lobby without offending people by using racist or offensive language. We all know, by the time we reach our teens, what is acceptable and what isnt, Biodead is not at risk of accidentally getting banned for being accidentally racist, you are clutching at straws here.

Incidentally, this exact situation cropped up in football here in the UK a few years back when Louis Suarez referred to an opponent by using the word 'negro' in a particularly bruising game. It's all about intent also, why would you even bring up the ethnicity of your opponent in an argument during a game of footy unless it was derogatory? (I say this as a Liverpool FC fan -Suarez played for Liverpool at the time - and someone who dislikes the player he called 'negro', but again, it's hard to explain why, after being takled by Evra, Saurez felt the need to comment on Evra's ethnicity).

doritos1435d ago Show
Imalwaysright1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

The point I was trying to make is that even if you are respectful you could still be banned because not everyone speaks english or knows that in english speaking countries " negro" is a derogatory term and btw this happened more times

As for Suarez his "crime" was to express himself in his own language and I even remember people demanding that he apologized. I don't know about him but I would NEVER apologize for being portuguese.