L'accueil
Just days after Ubisoft brought Rainbow Six Siege servers back online following a late-December security incident, players are now reporting sudden bans allegedly tied to another hack. With “67-day bans” spreading across social media, the community is asking the obvious question: is this a new breach, or fallout from a system that never fully stopped bleeding?
Why mass bans are especially scary in competitive shooters
Rainbow Six Siege is no stranger to turbulence, but the latest reports feel uniquely disruptive. Players claim they’ve been hit with bans lasting 67 days, and many are linking the wave to another hacking incident affecting Siege’s multiplayer ecosystem. The timing is what makes this story land like a flashbang: Ubisoft only recently restored Siege servers after taking them offline on December 27, following an earlier hacking attempt. Whether we’re looking at a new attack or lingering exposure from the previous incident remains unclear, and that uncertainty is fueling the community’s anxiety.
In any competitive shooter, bans are not just a slap on the wrist—they’re a reputation event. Siege’s ranked grind, seasonal progression, and long-term account value mean that even a temporary ban can feel like a major loss, especially if players believe they were incorrectly flagged. The phrase “67-day ban” is also oddly specific, which has led some fans to speculate about automated enforcement rules, compromised backend systems, or exploit-driven behavior that triggers anti-cheat or moderation pipelines.
It’s worth separating what’s confirmed from what’s claimed. Right now, the strongest signal is player reporting: screenshots, anecdotes, and threads describing similar outcomes. That doesn’t automatically prove a hack, but it does point to a shared experience that deserves a clear response. In these moments, silence becomes its own kind of headline. If bans are legitimate, Ubisoft needs to explain the criteria and reassure players that enforcement is accurate. If bans are erroneous—or if attackers are manipulating systems to get innocent accounts penalized—then speed matters even more, because every hour amplifies distrust.
There’s also the live-service reality: when servers go dark due to security concerns, players accept the inconvenience because the trade-off is safety. But when servers come back and the community still feels exposed, confidence takes a real hit. Siege is built on high-stakes fairness: one match can hinge on tiny information advantages, and competitive integrity is the product. Anything that undermines the legitimacy of bans or matchmaking threatens the core loop that keeps players logging in.
The next move should be straightforward: a status update that addresses whether this is a new incident, what systems are affected, and what players should do if they believe they were wrongly banned. Even “we’re investigating and here’s our timeline for updates” helps. Siege has survived plenty of storms. The question now is whether Ubisoft can stabilize the ship before players decide to abandon it for calmer waters.
In any competitive shooter, bans are not just a slap on the wrist—they’re a reputation event. Siege’s ranked grind, seasonal progression, and long-term account value mean that even a temporary ban can feel like a major loss, especially if players believe they were incorrectly flagged. The phrase “67-day ban” is also oddly specific, which has led some fans to speculate about automated enforcement rules, compromised backend systems, or exploit-driven behavior that triggers anti-cheat or moderation pipelines.
It’s worth separating what’s confirmed from what’s claimed. Right now, the strongest signal is player reporting: screenshots, anecdotes, and threads describing similar outcomes. That doesn’t automatically prove a hack, but it does point to a shared experience that deserves a clear response. In these moments, silence becomes its own kind of headline. If bans are legitimate, Ubisoft needs to explain the criteria and reassure players that enforcement is accurate. If bans are erroneous—or if attackers are manipulating systems to get innocent accounts penalized—then speed matters even more, because every hour amplifies distrust.
There’s also the live-service reality: when servers go dark due to security concerns, players accept the inconvenience because the trade-off is safety. But when servers come back and the community still feels exposed, confidence takes a real hit. Siege is built on high-stakes fairness: one match can hinge on tiny information advantages, and competitive integrity is the product. Anything that undermines the legitimacy of bans or matchmaking threatens the core loop that keeps players logging in.
The next move should be straightforward: a status update that addresses whether this is a new incident, what systems are affected, and what players should do if they believe they were wrongly banned. Even “we’re investigating and here’s our timeline for updates” helps. Siege has survived plenty of storms. The question now is whether Ubisoft can stabilize the ship before players decide to abandon it for calmer waters.
