The problem is theft of a product that has been purchased. For example, say Tesla were to say we’ll just take back the car without permission if someone complains about it online, that’s a crime: theft. The reason for the crime is irrelevant, if someone has paid for a product you don’t get to retroactively say “nah we’re taking back the thing you paid for, and we aren’t going to return your money”. If you’re offering a contractual service you can halt, but generally have to return at least the prorated amount you have received for services you are no longer offering.

A game company can always just block the credit card details (not just the number) from buying the game again, there’s a limit to the number of CCs that a person is going to be able to use.

Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing.

> A game company can always just block the credit card details (not just the number) from buying the game again, there’s a limit to the number of CCs that a person is going to be able to use.

Gift cards exist. Companies can't block people from buying a game effectively, otherwise cheating wouldn't be a problem anymore as most cheaters are repeat offenders.

> The problem is theft of a product that has been purchased.

While it may be true that taking back a physical product without permission is considered theft, companies have the right to enforce their terms and conditions. In the case of a game company, if a player is found to be cheating, they have violated the terms and conditions and the company has the right to revoke their access to the game. This is not theft because the player has not fulfilled their end of the contract by following the rules of the game. The player has never "bought a game", they bought a software which allowed them to accept terms and conditions to play online.

Also just to be clear, I fucking hate Activision and haven't given them money for years already. I'm talking more generally about the practice of game bans.

Revoking access to digital services is as much theft as piracy is - it's not.

> Of course the reality is, cheaters are paying to buy the game again when they get caught, so there’s no actual incentive for activision to actually stop cheaters, just to make them pay again. Which is why they ban the single player mode as well - it’s in their interests to encourage repurchasing

You've gone off the deep end into conspiracy theory land here i think.

You are misusing the term "conspiracy theory", there is no conspiracy alleged here, just that a single company is behaving shadily given the incentives.

The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.

> there is no conspiracy alleged here, just that a single company is behaving shadily given the incentives.

This is the equivalent of "I'm just saying"

> The trend toward dismissing anything one disagrees with as a "conspiracy theory" is going to rob the term of any meaning.

No, I'm not dismissing anything I disagree with. I'm dismissing the idea that activision ban cheaters from their single player games to encourage cheaters to repurchase as a conspiracy theory.

It isn't an conspiracy theory because no conspiracy was alleged.

Something can be incorrect without being a conspiracy theory. Criticize the assertion about why activison bans cheaters all you like, but don't do it by calling it something it isn't just to smear the idea.