FWIW one of the main reasons my (woman) SO plays overwatch is that the abuse controls tend to yield tangible results.
As for geography, I'm from Brazil. It's been my experience that people from 3rd world countries tend to have a thicker skin when it comes to online interactions compared to a number of people from 1st world countries, so that would explain what the poster above said.
I can understand some part of this. Shit talking is not automatically abusive. But if you’re playing, and someone says “bitch you suck stop playing” repeatedly, I really can’t blame you for not playing anymore. This is not as cultural as it is psychological IMHO: if you’re distracted from the game you won’t enjoy it.
This image explains part of the problem when it comes to matchmaking, but it applies to other aspects of the game. https://i.imgur.com/0OA7fIt.png Companies like Valve understand that the best way for them to exist is to be a neutral platform that has some very basic rules, but then groups of people come together and create their own servers with more appropriate rules for that group. Some servers will have harsh moderation, some will have nearly none, others will be somewhere in between. Individuals can then find the servers they like best and everyone is happy.
Companies like Blizzard don't understand this and so they push for the view that they think will make the most people happy (at the expense of others), which is to prevent people from acting in ways that they deem are abusive. I disagree with what they think is abusive and so I'll just stop playing their game since they don't want me there.
> It shouldn't be the developer's place either.
Of course it should! It's up to the developer to create the atmosphere they envision for their game, whether that's a "wild wild west" or a heavily moderated environment. I think it's perfectly acceptable that Blizzard doesn't let you do the shit-talking you want, just like I think it's perfectly acceptable that you don't want to play the game because of it.
It's interesting that you use Valve as your example, though, because I've played a lot of Dota 2 (and DotA: Allstars before that), and that's by far the most toxic gaming community I have ever encountered, which is the biggest reason I don't still play it—otherwise, the game itself is fantastic. For someone like me who likes the gameplay but couldn't care less about the social aspect, even minor shit-talking can be draining when it happens every. single. game. So it goes the other way, too: clearly Valve doesn't care as much about players like me, so I will stop playing the game.
The Overwatch developers ranged from preventing people from saying "gg ez" at the end of a match to saying that they would scour people's social media accounts and ban them from the game if they deemed it the right move. Just way too many instances where they signaled that they were very ban happy and that they deemed all sorts of things that I think are normal as abuse or harassment.
>Do you feel that it was over-controlled?
Yes.
>Did you take offense by beeing controlled at all?
Yes. I don't like an environment where I can get banned if someone doesn't like my trash talk. It goes further than that though because these kinds of signals from developers shape the way the community behaves and expects other people to behave and IMO this particular direction is one I'm always unhappy with. Contrast this to the way Valve handles their communities which is very hands off. I prefer that a lot more to the way Blizzard generally does it.
> Have you been reprimanded due to those controls?
No.
Not a terribly meaningful phrase on the whole.... china’s doing well these days, but you’re only going to feel that if you happen to be in the middle or upper class, for example.
The Cold War ended 20 years ago though, and since then the term started to mean “poor/backwards” countries.
Now in the case if Brazil, you’re post-industrialized country with the worlds 9th largest economy.
You simply don’t fit any definition of the “third world”.
People don't ask people who've just had a heart attack to take food poisoning seriously. But food poisoning still deserves the attention of people who can afford to care.
I, like all reasonable people, welcome women who want to play in these waters. The argument can be made that women deserve extra sensitivity, because they are more emotionally fragile and less able to handle shit talking, but that strikes me as incredibly sexist so I don't hold that belief.