13 ms·

It's not logging into a server (MMORPG-like) that kills it for me, it's the push to link the in-game identity with a real-life identifier. It's not (in an almos

by branon 4y ago

It's not logging into a server (MMORPG-like) that kills it for me, it's the push to link the in-game identity with a real-life identifier. It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point. For the broad appeal bit, I was thinking tragedy of the commons. A critical mass of actors (good and bad alike) has got to be one of the main drivers behind such a decision. So I'm thinking the more popular a game gets, the higher the likelihood that drastic actions like this are taken, ostensibly to defend against some boogeyman or other.

mistrial9 4y ago
taking notes for Metaverse apps here
kowbell 4y ago
> It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point I’m curious what your definition of a game is?
akerl_ 4y ago
I’m not sure what definition of game you’re using, where having to validate your account with a real life identifier (which feels vague, since basically every multiplayer platform already has accounts tied to email addresses, because of course they do) makes something “not a game anymore”. But that’s not the definition that I’m aware of in use anywhere else.
- branon 4y ago
  Email addresses aren't real-life identifiers, although they could be used that way. And on the inverse, I can buy a burner phone with cash and defeat Blizzard's requirement easily. But it's pretty clear what Blizzard is going for here, since we know their platform is competitive and thus harsher on individuals viewed as bad actors. Blizzard knows full well that most people signing up to play only have one phone number, which is most certainly a real-life identifier for those players. My point is that if players feel compelled to self-censor their interactions online for fear of repercussions[0], then they are not playing a game. They are instead representing themselves as individuals on a social network with competitive/gamified attributes. Requiring phone numbers to play is just a method to gently reinforce this. To each their own - this might be exactly the type of game you like to play. But it departs pretty strongly from the classical definition of "video game" that I grew up with. [0] For example, your primary phone number being disallowed access to all Blizzard services. Maybe they go even further and request that 3rd party services ban you for off-platform violations. Moved this down to a footnote so as not to spread FUD, I'm sure they don't currently do this, nor do I expect them to. But cross-referencing phone numbers would make it very easy to start.
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    Overwatch’s only social features are in-game voice/text chat, whose purpose is primarily coordinating with your team. If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Putting something in a footnote doesn’t make it it FUD, for what it’s worth.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Why not let stupid people shout stupid things ...
      - akerl_ 4y ago
        Because it’s disruptive to the rest of us trying to play the game?
        q-big 4y ago
        Come on: also in real life stupid people say stupid things all the time.
        akerl_ 4y ago
        Yes. Is that relevant here? In-game chat isn’t bound by any requirement to support everything that stupid people can do in real life.
        q-big 4y ago
        > In-game chat isn’t bound by any requirement to support everything that stupid people can do in real life. Do you seriously claim that "not preventing" already means "supporting"?!
        4y ago
mechanical_bear 4y ago
How is that not a game anymore? It is certainly not a FUN game (cough Apex) when beset by cheaters constantly. I’ll gladly give up anonymity to make the game fun again.
- dbttdft 4y ago
- inkywatcher 4y ago
  In the case of Apex Legends, I think the experientially high incidence of cheaters and persistently active cheat manufacturers (as well as almost-cheats like using mouse and keyboard on consoles for superior aim assist) are both a compliment to the game and a side effect of battle royales. Larger lobbies and survival of the fittest equates to a higher likelihood of encountering the cheaters that exist. Even if less than 1% of players cheat, it is quite possible to encounter one during an evening of play. And it sometimes seems like the cheating comes in waves, where a new one will be wildly popular for a while before the team in charge of it catches on. All that is to say, additional identifiers might be against the hacker ethos, but hopefully not the gamer ethos.
mixedCase 4y ago
I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Doubly so when, in this case, the goal is to identify you as a person by the platform holder who needs to validate to the best of their ability that you're not a ban-evading cheater ruining other people's games. You are not personally identifying yourself to other players.
- branon 4y ago
  No, you have it exactly right. I posit that a service run by a platform-holder who has a legitimate need to validate players' identity in this manner, for these reasons, is not quite the same as the video games (even the multiplayer ones) which have existed up until now. They have built something very different. And it's great! I just think it's also important to discuss what it really is, why, and the current+future implications. I feel there should be a new term to describe this type of game. Up until now "eSports" has been used but that seems passe. Metagame perhaps? Might have sounded dumb a few years ago, but there's strong precedent now :P
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    How about we just call it a game? It’s not clear why we’d need to find a new term because you have a nostalgia for games based on their login requirements.

by branon 4y ago

mistrial9 4y ago

taking notes for Metaverse apps here

kowbell 4y ago

> It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point I’m curious what your definition of a game is?

akerl_ 4y ago

I’m not sure what definition of game you’re using, where having to validate your account with a real life identifier (which feels vague, since basically every multiplayer platform already has accounts tied to email addresses, because of course they do) makes something “not a game anymore”. But that’s not the definition that I’m aware of in use anywhere else.

branon 4y ago
Email addresses aren't real-life identifiers, although they could be used that way. And on the inverse, I can buy a burner phone with cash and defeat Blizzard's requirement easily. But it's pretty clear what Blizzard is going for here, since we know their platform is competitive and thus harsher on individuals viewed as bad actors. Blizzard knows full well that most people signing up to play only have one phone number, which is most certainly a real-life identifier for those players. My point is that if players feel compelled to self-censor their interactions online for fear of repercussions[0], then they are not playing a game. They are instead representing themselves as individuals on a social network with competitive/gamified attributes. Requiring phone numbers to play is just a method to gently reinforce this. To each their own - this might be exactly the type of game you like to play. But it departs pretty strongly from the classical definition of "video game" that I grew up with. [0] For example, your primary phone number being disallowed access to all Blizzard services. Maybe they go even further and request that 3rd party services ban you for off-platform violations. Moved this down to a footnote so as not to spread FUD, I'm sure they don't currently do this, nor do I expect them to. But cross-referencing phone numbers would make it very easy to start.
- akerl_ 4y ago
  Overwatch’s only social features are in-game voice/text chat, whose purpose is primarily coordinating with your team. If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Putting something in a footnote doesn’t make it it FUD, for what it’s worth.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Why not let stupid people shout stupid things ...
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      Because it’s disruptive to the rest of us trying to play the game?
      - q-big 4y ago
        Come on: also in real life stupid people say stupid things all the time.
        akerl_ 4y ago
        Yes. Is that relevant here? In-game chat isn’t bound by any requirement to support everything that stupid people can do in real life.
        q-big 4y ago
        > In-game chat isn’t bound by any requirement to support everything that stupid people can do in real life. Do you seriously claim that "not preventing" already means "supporting"?!
        4y ago

mechanical_bear 4y ago

How is that not a game anymore? It is certainly not a FUN game (cough Apex) when beset by cheaters constantly. I’ll gladly give up anonymity to make the game fun again.

dbttdft 4y ago
inkywatcher 4y ago
In the case of Apex Legends, I think the experientially high incidence of cheaters and persistently active cheat manufacturers (as well as almost-cheats like using mouse and keyboard on consoles for superior aim assist) are both a compliment to the game and a side effect of battle royales. Larger lobbies and survival of the fittest equates to a higher likelihood of encountering the cheaters that exist. Even if less than 1% of players cheat, it is quite possible to encounter one during an evening of play. And it sometimes seems like the cheating comes in waves, where a new one will be wildly popular for a while before the team in charge of it catches on. All that is to say, additional identifiers might be against the hacker ethos, but hopefully not the gamer ethos.

mixedCase 4y ago

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Doubly so when, in this case, the goal is to identify you as a person by the platform holder who needs to validate to the best of their ability that you're not a ban-evading cheater ruining other people's games. You are not personally identifying yourself to other players.

branon 4y ago
No, you have it exactly right. I posit that a service run by a platform-holder who has a legitimate need to validate players' identity in this manner, for these reasons, is not quite the same as the video games (even the multiplayer ones) which have existed up until now. They have built something very different. And it's great! I just think it's also important to discuss what it really is, why, and the current+future implications. I feel there should be a new term to describe this type of game. Up until now "eSports" has been used but that seems passe. Metagame perhaps? Might have sounded dumb a few years ago, but there's strong precedent now :P
- akerl_ 4y ago
  How about we just call it a game? It’s not clear why we’d need to find a new term because you have a nostalgia for games based on their login requirements.