6 ms·

Okay, have fun in your alternate reality where users host all of your data and you regularly lose characters or accounts you've spent months on because they dec

Okay, have fun in your alternate reality where users host all of your data and you regularly lose characters or accounts you've spent months on because they decide they can't be arsed to host the server that you were on anymore. After all, you can't allow users to brings their characters/accounts cross-server because that's a cheating risk. :)

deadbeeves 5y ago
I think stuu99 is off-base in several of their points, but there's no denying that certain games have been online'd purely as a means of copy protection. Diablo 3 is a great example. It's a game that's perfectly enjoyable in single player, but they specifically moved parts off onto a remote server to prevent you from giving copies to your friends. They could have just as easily (in fact, probably more so) put everything the single player mode needs in the executable and required a login for multiplayer, as was done for Diablo 2, but they didn't. Even if you have no intention of playing online, you don't have option not to connect to Blizzard.
- hedgewitch 5y ago
  Can't you use the auction house from single-player? If so, this is part of my point. This isn't some grand conspiracy to limit ownership of games. This is the kind of thing that more people want. They want the interconnectedness and that is an understated part of why gaming has been taking off as of the last decade. There are a lot of things that are designed to limit how you can use your software, but gaming is one of the places that companies genuinely don't have to do that because the features that necessitate limiting how you use said software (eg. introducing anti-cheats and forcing you to be online) is stuff that people actually want.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    I'm not saying players in general don't want those features. I'm saying companies are taking advantage of that fact in order to require connectivity. I never played Diablo 3 (because it's online-only) so I honestly don't know if the auction house is available on single player or not, but I'm going to assume that it is. OK. What if I have no interest in the auction house? What if I'm somewhat interested in it, but would much rather not be forced to connect to any service in order to play and consider not using the auction house a fair trade? It would be trivial to design the game so that it only connects when you try to use the auction house and to remain offline otherwise. In fact such an implementation is much simpler than to arbitrarily move critical components of the game onto a remote server. The only reason to do that for an optionally single player game is copy protection. So yes, people nowadays expect online features, but this is a fact that's convenient for companies. And no, it's not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is an agreement between parties to perform an illicit act. What we have here is various separate parties independently converging on the idea that eroding private property rights (namely, your ability to play the games you bought unimpeded by any external factors) ensures future profits. If you haven't seen it, I recommend Ross Scott's series on dead games, to see how destructive this practice is.
    - hedgewitch 5y ago
      I mean, I know it's convenient for companies, but there are other ways to look at this, namely that it obsoletes actual DRM and provides you with something in return, which DRM doesn't. Or, to say it another way, there are worse fates. That being said, even now, there are few genuinely single-player games that require an online connection to play. It's not a fast-growing trend by any means and, thus, not a threat. People love to bandy Diablo 3 about, but the thing is that it's the only game that they can reasonably bandy about and that was released 10 years ago in May. Or, to say it another way, if you're going to complain about something, maybe you'd better keep your references up to date. Most games these days are on Steam. You can trivially make any game that uses only Steam's DRM playable without Steam and even trivially remove SteamStub. That emulator that I mentioned even lets you play "online" with friends via P2P, sans Steam or any third-party server. Is it entirely legal? No, but neither is making old games that forced you to keep the CD in the drive that new computers no longer have playable without the CD. Or, to say it another way, if you're so committed to that ideal, why aren't you doing what you can to make it possible to stay committed to that ideal?
      - deadbeeves 5y ago
        >People love to bandy Diablo 3 about, but the thing is that it's the only game that they can reasonably bandy about and that was released 10 years ago in May. Hardly. Diablo 3 is probably the most famous example (partly because it's so popular, partly because it's direct predecessor didn't have an always-online requirement), but hardly the only one. Google "online only single player game" and you're bound to find a list. >making old games that forced you to keep the CD in the drive that new computers no longer have playable without the CD. If I have a disc or any other physical item I can at least take measures to protect it. I could conceivably put the console with the disc inside it in a closet, come back in thirty years, and play the game. I could back it up and wait for someone to make an emulator for the console. If the game needs a remote server to be up to run, there is nothing I can do to ensure I can continue playing the game in the future (other than painstakingly reverse-engineer the server). That's difference between owning something and not: control.
- stuu99 5y ago
  >I think stuu99 is off-base in several of their point Then you're going to have to answer: why did we lose dedicated servers in fps and LAN in modern games like starcraft 2, and many others. Things that used to come inside the game, Descent 1-3, Warcraft 1-3, Diablo 1-2, quake 1-3 Doom 1-3. All those games had multiplayer built into their exe's. So you have a lot of explainig to do why multiplayer networking has been ripped out of games like Transformers FoC (an unreal engine game) https://imgur.com/oWeY5Ps https://imgur.com/oWeY5Ps And games like Ridge racer unbounded https://steamcommunity.com/app/202310/discussions/0/612823460260673772/ https://steamcommunity.com/app/202310/discussions/0/61282346... Games from pre-steam era, multiplayer still work because they were embedded inside the exe. So you have a lot of explaining to do claiming "your mmo's" are special and I'm wrong, the easiest explanation is mmo's are just stolen PC games and they've been ripping out networking code once they realized you were computer illiterate/irrational to an insane degree in 97 with the advent of ultima online, lineage, everquest, guild war 1, asherons call and wow. FoC is an unreal engine game, so why would we need to sign in to a remote computer to play multiplayer, when unreal 1, UT2003, UT2004, didn't require that? Or could it be those were all honestly coded local applications before the mmo-backend apocalypse infected all of gaming.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    You're responding to an argument I did not make. I specifically agreed with you that certain games have been crippled as a means of copy protection. Please try to read more carefully.
    - stuu99 5y ago
      - deadbeeves 5y ago
        >You suggested there is a place for client server games Sorry, but I simply did not say that. >So the only way to keep ownership over your PC is not to buy any client-server software (no mmo's, no steam, no overwatch, etc). Why? Because client-server apps are the ultimate security risk If you believe that, why are you using a web browser and posting on Hacker News? At the networking level there's no fundamental difference between using an online forum and playing an MMO. Did you audit your web browser and HN's code?
stuu99 5y ago

deadbeeves 5y ago

I think stuu99 is off-base in several of their points, but there's no denying that certain games have been online'd purely as a means of copy protection. Diablo 3 is a great example. It's a game that's perfectly enjoyable in single player, but they specifically moved parts off onto a remote server to prevent you from giving copies to your friends. They could have just as easily (in fact, probably more so) put everything the single player mode needs in the executable and required a login for multiplayer, as was done for Diablo 2, but they didn't. Even if you have no intention of playing online, you don't have option not to connect to Blizzard.

hedgewitch 5y ago
Can't you use the auction house from single-player? If so, this is part of my point. This isn't some grand conspiracy to limit ownership of games. This is the kind of thing that more people want. They want the interconnectedness and that is an understated part of why gaming has been taking off as of the last decade. There are a lot of things that are designed to limit how you can use your software, but gaming is one of the places that companies genuinely don't have to do that because the features that necessitate limiting how you use said software (eg. introducing anti-cheats and forcing you to be online) is stuff that people actually want.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  I'm not saying players in general don't want those features. I'm saying companies are taking advantage of that fact in order to require connectivity. I never played Diablo 3 (because it's online-only) so I honestly don't know if the auction house is available on single player or not, but I'm going to assume that it is. OK. What if I have no interest in the auction house? What if I'm somewhat interested in it, but would much rather not be forced to connect to any service in order to play and consider not using the auction house a fair trade? It would be trivial to design the game so that it only connects when you try to use the auction house and to remain offline otherwise. In fact such an implementation is much simpler than to arbitrarily move critical components of the game onto a remote server. The only reason to do that for an optionally single player game is copy protection. So yes, people nowadays expect online features, but this is a fact that's convenient for companies. And no, it's not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is an agreement between parties to perform an illicit act. What we have here is various separate parties independently converging on the idea that eroding private property rights (namely, your ability to play the games you bought unimpeded by any external factors) ensures future profits. If you haven't seen it, I recommend Ross Scott's series on dead games, to see how destructive this practice is.
  - hedgewitch 5y ago
    I mean, I know it's convenient for companies, but there are other ways to look at this, namely that it obsoletes actual DRM and provides you with something in return, which DRM doesn't. Or, to say it another way, there are worse fates. That being said, even now, there are few genuinely single-player games that require an online connection to play. It's not a fast-growing trend by any means and, thus, not a threat. People love to bandy Diablo 3 about, but the thing is that it's the only game that they can reasonably bandy about and that was released 10 years ago in May. Or, to say it another way, if you're going to complain about something, maybe you'd better keep your references up to date. Most games these days are on Steam. You can trivially make any game that uses only Steam's DRM playable without Steam and even trivially remove SteamStub. That emulator that I mentioned even lets you play "online" with friends via P2P, sans Steam or any third-party server. Is it entirely legal? No, but neither is making old games that forced you to keep the CD in the drive that new computers no longer have playable without the CD. Or, to say it another way, if you're so committed to that ideal, why aren't you doing what you can to make it possible to stay committed to that ideal?
    - deadbeeves 5y ago
      >People love to bandy Diablo 3 about, but the thing is that it's the only game that they can reasonably bandy about and that was released 10 years ago in May. Hardly. Diablo 3 is probably the most famous example (partly because it's so popular, partly because it's direct predecessor didn't have an always-online requirement), but hardly the only one. Google "online only single player game" and you're bound to find a list. >making old games that forced you to keep the CD in the drive that new computers no longer have playable without the CD. If I have a disc or any other physical item I can at least take measures to protect it. I could conceivably put the console with the disc inside it in a closet, come back in thirty years, and play the game. I could back it up and wait for someone to make an emulator for the console. If the game needs a remote server to be up to run, there is nothing I can do to ensure I can continue playing the game in the future (other than painstakingly reverse-engineer the server). That's difference between owning something and not: control.
stuu99 5y ago
>I think stuu99 is off-base in several of their point Then you're going to have to answer: why did we lose dedicated servers in fps and LAN in modern games like starcraft 2, and many others. Things that used to come inside the game, Descent 1-3, Warcraft 1-3, Diablo 1-2, quake 1-3 Doom 1-3. All those games had multiplayer built into their exe's. So you have a lot of explainig to do why multiplayer networking has been ripped out of games like Transformers FoC (an unreal engine game) https://imgur.com/oWeY5Ps https://imgur.com/oWeY5Ps And games like Ridge racer unbounded https://steamcommunity.com/app/202310/discussions/0/612823460260673772/ https://steamcommunity.com/app/202310/discussions/0/61282346... Games from pre-steam era, multiplayer still work because they were embedded inside the exe. So you have a lot of explaining to do claiming "your mmo's" are special and I'm wrong, the easiest explanation is mmo's are just stolen PC games and they've been ripping out networking code once they realized you were computer illiterate/irrational to an insane degree in 97 with the advent of ultima online, lineage, everquest, guild war 1, asherons call and wow. FoC is an unreal engine game, so why would we need to sign in to a remote computer to play multiplayer, when unreal 1, UT2003, UT2004, didn't require that? Or could it be those were all honestly coded local applications before the mmo-backend apocalypse infected all of gaming.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  You're responding to an argument I did not make. I specifically agreed with you that certain games have been crippled as a means of copy protection. Please try to read more carefully.
  - stuu99 5y ago
    - deadbeeves 5y ago
      >You suggested there is a place for client server games Sorry, but I simply did not say that. >So the only way to keep ownership over your PC is not to buy any client-server software (no mmo's, no steam, no overwatch, etc). Why? Because client-server apps are the ultimate security risk If you believe that, why are you using a web browser and posting on Hacker News? At the networking level there's no fundamental difference between using an online forum and playing an MMO. Did you audit your web browser and HN's code?

stuu99 5y ago