sugar_in_your_tea @ sugar_in_your_tea @sh.itjust.works

Mama told me not to come.

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

14,110

Joined

2 yr. ago

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!

Cool, the app that doesn't exist on my phone will access an account I don't have. I've never used WhatsApp and I don't plan to start now.

Yeah, and it's presumptious of them to access the WhatsApp account I don't have...

Right, and it depends on what "quite off target" means. Are we talking about greens becoming purples? Or dark greens becoming bright greens? If the image is still mostly recognizable, just with poor saturation or contrast or whatever, I think it's acceptable for older software.

it would work

And that's probably enough. I don't know enough about HDR to know if it would look anything like the artist imagined, but as long as it's close enough, it's fine if it's not optimal. Having things completely break is far less than ideal.

That sounds awesome!

I chose a bit of a different life path with different rewards and caveats. I'm glad you found something that brings you joy. :)

Exactly. I have something like 10-20 "complete" games because they either give 100% completion for rolling credits or I really enjoyed the game and ended up completing the achievements anyway. Of the rest, I've probably rolled credits on 80% of my "played" games, because sometimes I just lose interest before I reach the end, while still enjoying my time w/ it.

Games should be fun, and if they stop being fun, move on.

No, the Steam life is not to play games, but to buy them.