The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact
-
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can't combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don't care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games
Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It's not a necessary evil, it's just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you've already lost.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yeah, because the choices they have now is working great for quality games...
-
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games
Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It's not a necessary evil, it's just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you've already lost.
Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that's required to make an attack.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Backpedaling to "defending creators" - that's a bold move, Cotton.
-
It doesn't, that's why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that's readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.
On the other hand, if you're not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That's faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.
There's no requirement that the open source code released after EoL has to be pretty or maintained, just functional to meet legal requirements. Using other 3rd party code would be a hurdle to get over I suppose. It would definitely take a different approach to design, but after the initial shock of changing, it wouldn't be more difficult to do long term.
-
Because you can buy other people's code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.
The thing is either that license model changes, or those other companies selling the code cease to exist when nobody buys something they can't use.
-
True. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attack predatory behavior when we see it. If they want to sell me something, I need to own it, and that means I get to use it after they've stopped supporting it.
When I pay to see a film in a theater, I don't own the film. I don't get to watch the film again after it leaves the theater.
While I pay to see a concert, a play, or a musical, I don't own those performances. I don't get to see them again. They generally aren't recorded (Although that is changing in some limited cases.)
I do think a game dying is terrible and I do think games should be clearly labeled (so people can make an education decision if they want to rent the game).
-
When I pay to see a film in a theater, I don't own the film. I don't get to watch the film again after it leaves the theater.
While I pay to see a concert, a play, or a musical, I don't own those performances. I don't get to see them again. They generally aren't recorded (Although that is changing in some limited cases.)
I do think a game dying is terrible and I do think games should be clearly labeled (so people can make an education decision if they want to rent the game).
This isn't paying to see a concert, play, or musical. This is buying a book for amazon's e-reader, and them not allowing you to read the book anymore when they put out the book's sequel.
-
Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.
Saying to "just open source it" does not make sense.
What do you do about:
- proprietary codecs
- proprietary software that just does not exist as open source
- the fact you need a copy of the game engine to actually build the game from sources
- assets that have been bought on asset stores. Do the people who make those for a living not have a right to continue to make a living?
Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable
Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.
Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have "a server" but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some "servers" are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.
This initiative all comes down to the definition of "reasonable". What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This has nothing to do with open source.
Nothing.
Open source has zero relevance.
None whatsoever.
Nada.
Their licensing will change so that it doesn't restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can't be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That's it.
Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don't want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.
-
If that's their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).
What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn't retroactive), studios can plan ahead.
It's just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.
Yeah, I agree. We have been hosting servers at friend houses with consumer (mostly our own gaming PCs) forever.
The risk involved exists, but it's far from the threat they make it be.
-
This isn't paying to see a concert, play, or musical. This is buying a book for amazon's e-reader, and them not allowing you to read the book anymore when they put out the book's sequel.
Or buying a physical book where they printed it with ink that fades after 2 years so it is no longer readable.
-
Bold of you to assume such spec or docs exist. Usually it's all cowboyed and tightly coupled, with no planning for reuse.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.
The point is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.
-
They still will, this will just limit their ability to force you to move to the next one once the servers shut down.
Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.
-
FPS games with community servers coming back is my dream
Only server browser, no matchmaking.
-
Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.
Honestly I'd even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.
-
When I pay to see a film in a theater, I don't own the film. I don't get to watch the film again after it leaves the theater.
While I pay to see a concert, a play, or a musical, I don't own those performances. I don't get to see them again. They generally aren't recorded (Although that is changing in some limited cases.)
I do think a game dying is terrible and I do think games should be clearly labeled (so people can make an education decision if they want to rent the game).
Sure, you're paying for a performance when you watch a film or play at a theater. If I pay to watch a video game tournament, I'm likewise paying for a performance, not the game.
When you buy a film (DVD, Bluray, or Digital Copy) or a recording of a play performance, you own that copy and can watch it as often as you want for as many years into the future as you want. What we're saying is that video games should work the same way, if I buy a game, I should be able to play it whenever I want at any point in the future. That's it, it's the same thing as with a film.
-
Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.
They should be compelled to either make those cosmetics available for everyone or have some technical means to prove ownership (e.g. blockchain or cryptographically signed file). You can't lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh no?! It developer's choices vs purchaser's options. Who will win, it's a mystery only time can solve. Just kidding, we all know who the courts will side with, as it is never "the people".
-
The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.
I don't think it applies to offline games at all.
Only applicable if they run the servers themselves, not if they let others run their own servers.
