I have a growing enthusiasm for companies that consistently care for users, and conversely a callous distain for companies that don't.
I have a growing enthusiasm for companies that consistently care for users, and conversely a callous distain for companies that don't.
In fact, I can't really think of many businesses where I feel appreciated or cared for as a customer, but the few that I can are all small businesses and most of them are local to me.
When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit (especially if getting banned in multiplayer prevents you from playing single player missions), things will change.
You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
Those "lawyers" aren't nearly as clever as they seem to think they are: https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/
I wouldn't assume that. Game companies are notorious for pinching pennies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these systems were outsourced completely.
It's not a bug that a filter caught names that the merged companies now collectively do not allow in their collectively owned games.
-
The only miss here is more of a UX issue: they handled username bans the same way they handled all bans, with a shadowban.
Shadowbans are great for most infractions since you burn some time of the offender before they start again and give them little information to find loopholes with... but for something rectifiable there should be a way to nudge and explain why they're banned.
You’re right, this was a support failure, but it was also a failure of the team(s) that performed the merge.
2. Why do you think that B/A haven't spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios like this?