sugar_in_your_tea @ sugar_in_your_tea @sh.itjust.works

Mama told me not to come.

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

14,097

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, I draw the line at the kernel.

If they want to protect against piracy (losing game IMO) or try to limit cheating, that's fine as long as it doesn't impact gameplay (i.e. I can still party SP offline) and it keeps working in 20 years when they've stopped supporting the game. If that means releasing a patch to remove server interaction when they shut the servers down, that's fine.

I am not okay with needing to install a kernel module just to play a game. That's a security risk, prevents compatibility tools like WINE from preserving the game, and makes the game more fragile (will a kernel update break the game?). That's a red line for me, and I refuse to play any game with kernel-level DRM or anti-cheat.

What do you mean? Pretty much every game on Steam is "third party." They do mention certain things on the store though, like kernel level anti-cheat or needing a third party account, though I don't know how many people check that.

Yup, LLMs are a backup if traditional search fails. A well researched blog post is way better than whatever the LLM cobbles together, though the LLM is often better than nothing.

Agree with this, but I don't supply my kids with phones at all, despite their friends having them. If there's an emergency, they can go to the office or ask their teacher. If that's not possible, the school will likely call instead (e.g. when there was a bomb threat a couple of years ago).

I have chosen to not give my kids phones, but I also think other parents should be allowed to choose differently. Everyone's circumstances are different, and I don't want the government stepping in to make parenting decisions for me, even if my decisions would be the same. That's overreach and I will absolutely oppose it.

Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it's a Microsoft hosted one.

I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them

That kind of already exists, you can buy hosting for Minecraft and other games. AFAIK, moderation isn't a part of it, but many private groups exist that run public servers and manage their own moderation. It exists already, and that should absolutely be brought up as a bill is being considered.

They retain copyright based on existing law, and trademark is irrelevant since it's defended in courts, not EULAs.

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.

The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:

We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.

Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

...

Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:

• provide alternatives to any online-only content
• make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
• gracefully degrading the client experience when there's no server

Of course, releasing server code is an option.

The expectation is:

• if it's a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
• if it's F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it's advertised
• if it's a purchased game, it should still work after support ends

That didn't restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they're expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they're done).

I argue Stop Killing Games doesn't go far enough, and if it's pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.

At my school, they only cared if you used it, and you'd be forced to put it away if caught. A lot of my friends had phones, but they weren't allowed to use them in class, and it was treated like any other gadget like a gameboy.

I don't believe in bans (kids can use them between classes), but I also believe kids shouldn't use any devices in class.

You shouldn't poll anyone, instead look at test results. If there is better focus, it'll improve learning outcomes like test scores, graduation rates, and reduces instances of cheating. IMO, if we poll anyone, it should be parents about how much assistance they give their kids (i.e. are they filling in the gaps in their education less?).

It's nice that teachers think kids are paying more attention, but that only matters if kids are learning more.

I'm absolutely in favor of schools disallowing use of phones in class, but I'm against them being banned. If kids want to use them between classes, that's fine, as long as they don't use them in class.

There are a lot of little things here and there, such as everyone seeming to know you, even in far away places, and names of random people being the same.

So it's definitely the same world, but at the start it's just unclear how it fits in.

::: spoiler Some issues I have with it

• Ganon's sealed away mummy had to exist in BOTW if TOTK is a sequel, so why didn't Calamity Ganon unleash it?
• Zelda does back in time, and reading some plot spoilers, she needs to be in two places at the same time in BOTW if it's a sequel
• everyone remembers Link in TOTK, but not in BOTW, so it must be after :::

I'm sure there are more issues as well.

The Zelda franchise isn't big on plot, so I'll treat TOTK as a separate timeline/universe from BOTW for it to make any sense.

Sure, there will be gaps. But asking the government to fill the roll of a patent results in a massive privacy breach. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

I'm surprised about the module lookup thing, since I assumed it was just syntax sugar to do from ... import .... We do the from syntax almost everywhere, but I've been replacing huge import blocks with a module import (e.g. constants) just to clean up the imports a bit and git conflicts.

Looks like I'll need to keep this in mind until we upgrade to 3.13.

How about parents just do their job and make sure their kids aren't accessing stuff they shouldn't? I'm a parent, and I'm already doing that, I don't need the government to violate my privacy in order to be a decent parent...

Yeah, I'm liking it so far, but I'm still very much in the testing phase, I don't have any "real" data in it yet.

“find your dream job”

Which is what I did: working in tech. Ever since I was a kid, I wanted to build things, but I also wanted to support a family. At first I wanted to be a carpenter, but the likelihood of making good money with that was small, so I learned to build websites and decided to make a career out of it (I actually thought about patent law, but realized SW patents don't build, but prevent things from being built).

So yeah, I'm basically doing exactly what I want, and I've avoided working for companies I hate.

That said, I've been doing the same thing for many years now, so a change of pace would be welcome, but I still want to build things. Unfortunately, LLMs are trying to take the part of like (actually building things) and is trying to replace it with designing things. I guess I could pivot to that, but seeing something built doesn't have the same satisfaction for me.

If I had enough to retire, I'd probably start an indie game studio, and I'd hire a lead designer and work on the fun algorithms myself. So my main complaint is what I work on, so I could probably be happier with a different company, but there's no perfect company and I like my current team, so I'm not particularly interested in leaving.

And for Microsoft, to get a back catalogue to ensure your subscription service remains attractive.

Really? I haven't tried that since they revamped the sharing thing. I have three accounts, one for me, my wife, and one my kids share, and they're all linked. Most of the time my kids use my account, but I can easily change that if it'll allow simultaneous play (on different games).

Thanks for the tip, I'll try it out!