Phil Spencer Wants The Gaming Industry To Implement Cross-Platform Bans

Thank you for spending $1300+ on buying the 3 consoles and games! Oh... you called a 30 yr old a "noob"? Too bad, now you are banned on the 3 consoles you paid for!

This idea sounds awful. They shouldn’t be able to ban anyone in the first place.

It could be a good idea, but not sure if the juice would be worth the squeeze. If someone is abusive on XBL then they'd be abusive on PSN as well I would wager.

The best thing would be, as he mentioned, to have the best moderation tools and practices be shared freely across many companies so moderation can be consistent.

@Johnnel They absolutely should be able to, and should use that power.

@Johnnel sometimes, abusive people on the internet should be punished for their toxicity. Maybe they will get better, or worse, after the ban. But what Phil is suggesting is the ban of a person as a whole instead of just on a particular service. It's like getting banned on Pure Xbox and also being banned on NLife and Push Square because they share the same login server.

I’m all for this.
The abuse people think it’s ok to give out online needs to stop. Anyone saying “but they’ve spent thousands and now they are banned for a little bit of banter” grow up.
Abuse online is real. We need to stamp it out.

Cheating too. Don’t cheat and don’t abuse people and you are good to go.

@Savage_Joe and I absolutely support that. Users banned on one should be banned on all. Trolls popping on to pure Xbox because they prefer PS should be banned from Push square. That would soon sort out the constant trolling and insults we see on these pages

Stop this Phil.

We haven’t even got full cross-platform play for so many games and you’re already trying to nanny it?

Just let platforms have autonomy. And stop trying to control everyone.

@Stocksy yeah, it's all fine and dandy on your end. But what if you get mass reported by someone who doesn't like you, and get banned on all the services you actually use and paid for? You will be fuming, right? And you would be in this dire process of talking to every customer support to get your accounts back, if possible.

The 2 approaches I visualize for this would be that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, which is what Phil is suggesting, but will have dire consequences; or seeing every case manually, which would take a lot of time until a resolution is made.

It’s a ridiculous stance and one I’d never support.

There is no justification for being rude or toxic to another person, regardless of if it's in person or hidden behind anonymity online. I don't see a problem with bans across platforms. Just be nice to others, simple as that.

@Stocksy give more power to big tech, just what we need in this day and age. Let them say and do anything they want to us under ‘their’ rules. It’ll end well 🤣

@PhileasFragg I think the power should be in the hands of the player. If someone feels like they are being abused online, it is simple enough to mute or block the person they feel is abusing them. No need to get the platform holder involved. Also, in the United States, this could be a question about section 230 which gives immunity for illegal activity to platforms but not publishers. Microsoft recognizes Xbox as a platform for its customers, as stated by Phil himself when he uses the term "cross-platform," but if they are banning people and selectively choosing which people get to be on their platform, then they are acting more as a publisher meaning they could be held responsible for illegal activities that occur through Xbox. I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure how correct my understanding of section 230 is and its application, but I do think it is an interesting question to ask.

If people actually bothered to read the article instead of replying to the headline, you'd see he mentions multiple measures of taking action against people who are breaking the rules.

Also I find this comment section in very poor taste, especially considering we had an article a couple of weeks ago about a woman who experienced sexist remarks on Xbox Live and now that Spencer actually want to implement changes, people are against it.

The fact that this has gotten such a negative reaction makes me think that maybe there are people here who are rude online.

After reading this better, what Phil is trying to say is that if you have a list of blocked users, you would want that list to be used across multiple services, as in blocking every person that has the same email address on the 3 services. Now this makes more sense than blocking a user to use the services. Obviously an internet wide ban would be stupid, and even suable.

This all sounds Orwellian. AI watching all conversation and determining when it should be censored is horrifying enough. A central repository of unpersons should have people stockpiling ammo.

Yeah, taking your own list between services sounds better, until you realize that means all services would have to have linked data so that some user id means something to all of them. It's really the same thing.

@LtSarge I guess you didn’t see that same woman in another video doing exactly what she was complaining about in her original tweet?

Both parties were as bad as each other in that instance.

@Fenbops What does that have to do with anything? If both parties broke the rules, then both of them will suffer the consequences. The problem is that online communication has long been minimally unregulated and people are allowed to say whatever they want without consequences. More changes need to be made, I'd even love to see these people who make these remarks be reported to the police. Just because you're online doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want!

This sounds like our boy Phil has been taking notes from China's social credit system. Getting a little power hungry there. No thanks.

Block and move along.

Between this and the Activision thing, it really is starting to sound like it is time for Phil to move on.

@LtSarge but did both sides face the consequences? Only one side was picked up and reported on by multiple gaming outlets.

Sure bring in changes, but those changes have to be fair and in todays climate I do not trust MS with the power to determine what’s fair and what’s not.

@InterceptorAlpha Yeah, this interview hasn't done Phil any favors.

@Johnnel Legally I think Xbox, and others, are more than covered by their terms of service, and if you break them then they can kick you fair and square.

Microsoft most assuredly should be banning people who are griefing and abusive. I'm paying good money to use their service and I expect them to keep out abusive people. Online gaming has a bad reputation as it is, and removing consequences from the worst people would make it ten times worse.

Yeah take out the griefers, racists, toxic, tantrum, over braggers, cheaters out of my games. You can be great but you don't have to gloat. If you want to cheat go do that offline and break the game. No need for any of this in the real world so there is no need for it in the "online" world. It's VERY easy to be a civil and polite person in the world and especially online. Go in your own party with your friends and be toxic and racist and annoying. No need to spread your hate.

@Medic_Alert The only way this would remotely be a hot take is if you're obvious to human tendency to change over time.

Your argument here isn't too dissimilar from Phil's.l, albeit slightly perverted.

"Someone was bad once? They're always bad, ban everywhere."

Vs

"Someone was good once, they're always good!“

Yea, sure, Phil did a lot of good things in the past. That doesn't mean he will continue to do so.

@InterceptorAlpha What's a little worrying about the two replies is they're complete opposites. For Activision it's (possibly rightfully so) basically "It's not our company, their executives are their board's decision, and it's not our place to get involved." Which, though some may not like that, there's truth in that and that may be the high road, to look inward and not try to use influence to "fix" outside entities. But then this response it's the opposite, "All the companies should unite in cancelling people as a single global police force."

I could sympathize with him if the foundation of his principles were a standard point of view, and not different foundations when dealing with business and the public. That's....worrying.

@LtSarge Granting large entities, government or corporate-pseudo-government, omnipotent power to effectively "remove" people will never, ever, end well. The phrase "who watches the watchmen?" is poignant as ever.

Generally the people that become enforcers are the same sucky people, or of the same sucky mindset as those that needed to be enforced. Lionized and given power over others, officially. And I put less than zero faith in letting the computers be the jurors of humanity, the one thing that may actually be even worse than the former.

Banning individuals from their own club membership is expected. But an organized system to unilaterally, universally expel people from the public sphere is disturbing on so many levels. Taken to it's logical conclusion, imagine we get into a heated argument about the politics of censorship, you say something that triggers the AI. Suddenly, you no longer exist. You can't game anymore, you can't communicate in social media anymore. You cant access buildings or transportation you used to. Nothing you do will be seen or heard. Employment will inevitably be affected. You may ore may not end up in a gutter. Nobody will care though, because you won't exist anyway, and association with you, a flagged person, will implicate others, so they steer wide of you. And whatever you originally said, may not have actually been hostile, it just flagged the censors in the bureaucracy that didn't have time or care but to rubber stamp the AI reports. Or maybe it was something OK in last year's language, but not OK in this years new truth.

Sound like an exaggeration? Sound like a dystopian chapter of CP2077? That's the gist of what China's "social credit system" (brought to you by Tencent and Ali) actually is as applied to over a billion people today. It's a happy face painted on the same policies the USSR was using half a century ago, only with total god-like omniscience the Soviets could only have dreamed of.

Imagine the KGB/Stasi with today's modern data omniscience. And even better, serving for-profit investors. Not one inch must ever be given in pushing back on that. Every inch they get it becomes miles overnight. We're really this close to men as gods.

It should be up to the player to solve this with block and report features only. It's what I do most of the cases, just block and I'm good.

"When somebody gets banned in one of our networks is there a way for us to ban them across other platforms?"

What a ludicrous statement for an American company to make. Such arrogance for Phil to think that it would be acceptable to tell steam, sony, etc who can or cant play on their platforms because microsoft says so. Truly idodic statement from someone I generally respect in the gaming industry.

This guy, for all the love people show him, hasnt got a clue.
Like all paid corporate mouth pieces, he believes his corporation should get to judge you, not just against their own systems and agreements, but others too? Trully one of the dumbest things ive ever read.

Cross platform used to be something people wanted, til they got it. If it was an option, like on some games, and not mandatory for full multiplayer experiences, like others, I'd be happy. Too much to ask, I guess.

@Johnnel Yeah the 230 issue has been a big subject of debate among Americans when it comes to big tech in this day and age. A lot of platforms seem to act as publishers, and at some point it could give class action appeal to disgruntled users.

These big tech platforms are really playing with fire here and pushing the boundaries of what could be legally acceptable.

no! those bast^^$ need to be stopped

@Xiovanni that made me laugh more that it should 😂😂😂😂

Can't wait to be banned on every platform and have hundreds of pounds of games taken from me for saying some random no no word

I am sorry but this time he hasn't got a good idea... it is against privacy 100% with 0,00000001% someone use a ban and play against one other in more platform....

@Medic_Alert agreed. Looking at the comments here so opposed to this they would be on that list. I can’t see why any normal user would be against this.

I whole heartedly back this and wish that the industry as a whole can co-operate with each other to ensure that its safe and inclusive for everyone.

Bans are not given out just because of some BS reports, they would look at any 'supporting' evidence and decide IF there was any need to take action so if you are not being abusive, not retaliating, not 'cheating' etc then you have NO reason to worry.

There are 'Terms of Service' that EVERYONE has to agree to - whether you actually read them or not, you still agreed to abide by those terms and if you 'don't' follow them, they are within their 'legal' right to 'ban' you for breaching their terms of service. Its like a Company can fire you for breaching any terms of service that you signed when you accepted their Contract.

If you cannot keep to the 'terms of service' you agreed to adhere to, then I have NO sympathy and couldn't care less how much money you have 'invested', that's your own fault and now have to live with the consequences. It would have to be 'serious' to get a 'permanent' ban - some may only be an 'hour' to let people calm down and think about their actions...

Retaliation, as in they started it, isn't an 'excuse' to be abusive back either!!

@BAMozzy wishing the gaming industry to be inclusive for everyone and wishing for people to be banned from all platforms seems like a contradiction.

Sure microsoft has the right to ban people that they determine to have broken their rules but they cannot expect their rules to carry over to other companies platforms. For instance could a hypothetical Chinese platform expect Microsoft to ban someone for supporting Taiwan independence because that was a violation of that hypothetical platforms rules?

@Somebody Not at all- I don't WANT people banned from all platforms and if everyone abides by the 'terms of service', then NO-ONE would get banned and it would be inclusive and safe for all.

As a Parent, I wouldn't want my kids at a School that does not address 'abuse', bullying, racism, sexism etc and if that means Suspending and/or expelling kids because they cannot play well with others, then I'm all for that.

As a member of 'society', you have to abide by the 'rules' or face consequences. Those that can't abide by the rules can end up being 'banned' from society and to enforce that, we have prisons. In the US, they have a 3 strike rule, break the law 3 times and you are 'banned' from society.

EVERYONE should feel safe, should not be abused, subjected to racism, sexism, threats etc and if that happened in the society, the 'abuser' would face criminal charges that can result in their 'freedom' being removed.

All INCLUSIVE means that no-one is banned without due cause - that means that they are welcome regardless of Skin Colour, Gender, Sexuality etc and that others should also be 'welcoming'. That doesn't mean it 'includes' all those who are abusive and breaking the 'terms of service'

Regardless of whether its 'online' (gaming, social media etc), society, employment (Look at Blizzard/Activision for an example of 'BAD' practice where 'abuse', sexism etc exists), School, Sports etc there are 'rules' and only those that think that the 'rules' don't apply to them should be 'banned'.

That's not against 'inclusivity', that's because they (the abuser) have proven not to comply to the rules, that's because they were abusive, they broke the terms of service. MS/Sony etc let them join online and part of that was 'agreeing' to abide by those rules which are very similar. Its breaching those 'similar' rules across platforms that platform holders should have the power to ensure. Sony doesn't allow 'abuse' on their platform either and can ban PS users for being abusive and just because that PS user is playing 'cross-platform' doesn't mean they should be able to get away with abusing gamers because the abused just so happens to be on a 'different' platform.

As for the Taiwan example, then I doubt MS would ban someone for that as it doesn't contravene their rules. The thing is, its not about political allegiances - its about stamping out abuse. I'm sure that each platform will have their own 'terms of service' that should have the 'same' all inclusive but anti-abusive stance so being able to 'ban' someone for breaching the 'same' rules should be an option.

I'd have no issue with Sony (or MS) banning an Xbox (or PS) fanboy for being abusive to players on the other platform thinking that MS (or Sony) gamers can't stop or report them.

To get to a permanent 'ban', there has to be 'supporting' evidence - either the voice chat or text chat and a 'history'. There are numerous options open - from a warning, an hour ban, to a week, month or year before a permanent ban is the only recourse.

@BAMozzy you're using society as an all encompassing thing when there are many societies in each State, country, region etc. In america there are federal, state, and city laws.
There are association rules in certain apartment, townhomes etc. So even within america there are very few people that are subject to the exact same set of rules.

It is illegal in Russia to criticize their government. As an American I can be critical of the russian government. Aside from barring me from entering russia, there is nothing they can do about me being critical of them. Phil Spencer's comment would be like saying Russia should be able to force American authorities to put me in jail.

In cross play Microsoft would not be able to ban a sony or pc player. That would be up to the platform of the player or the game itself.

The most effective and fair way would be to continue to give players the usual options to mute or block a player if they do not want to interact with someone.

@Savage_Joe We just don't have the information. He's arguing that if you're banned on Xbox for being abusive, you should be banned from all cross-play networks as well. How many individuals are being banned from Xbox for no reason? How long will such 'unjust' bans last? Is it possible that people are being targeted, and Xbox is banning them without a review? If so, how many are there? You're just expressing concerns based on nothing more than supposition without any of that information and more questioning. There is no such thing as a perfect system, but if there isn't a systemic issue with Xbox and the same due process is followed with Nintendo and PS, there is no issue. Your rights are unaffected because you're most likely a toxic player who has been rightfully banned. If any of the above need apply then further fixes and reviews are needed before it's implemented.