4 ms·

It's copy protection. You can't run a hacked server that ignores license state or hacking bans if you have no access to the server software. They disguise it u

It's copy protection. You can't run a hacked server that ignores license state or hacking bans if you have no access to the server software. They disguise it under a claim of convenience, a feature that you match against similar-experience players, but you're right, it's ultimately an antifeature. Gamers put up with a lot of crap, between exploited ring0 DRM, platform exclusives, the loss of consumer rights (like refunds and resale) and crappy ports from consoles. I don't understand how they get away with it. I might just be old, but I've changed my entire purchasing game strategy to ignore games that fall foul of these things.

oneplane 4y ago
That used to be the case, now it's asset protection because the only way people will pay for skins, hats, virtual shoes, and pink guns is if you can't load arbitrary assets. If a server says: load whatever skin you want... well, why would you pay for it? This is also why modding got killed off, you can't sell people stuff if someone else will make better assets for free and just puts them up for download. Even if integrity or security was a big issue, that's been solved since quake 3 and ut99 with integrity checks and server-side load controls (ironically, the same ones that are now used in locked-down games to make selling different coloured virtual shirts a thing).
thomastjeffery 4y ago
That, and planned-obselescence. I'm sure that EA would love to kill Battlefield 4. But it will never die, because players can run and moderate dedicated servers. Battlefield 1 (newer than 4), on the other hand, died years ago. Battlefield 5 is practically the same game, arguably worse, yet was able to steal most of 1's player base because support (and moderation) were effectively dropped by EA during the release of 5. Anti-cheat is the newest (and deadliest) iteration of this pattern. CoD Warzone is free to play, so long as you run it on Windows, and not in a VM. Worst of all, this means the burden of moderation has been moved to anti-cheat itself, even though any experienced forum moderator can tell you that moderation itself is based on social interaction, not technical behavior.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  While I'm sure both copy protection and planned obsolescence are considerations, I think most of us neglect the bigger elephant in the room: Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore. Times change, gamers might have been tinkerers and hobbyists who accepted needing to mess with their software and perhaps even hardware (memory address allocations, anyone?!), but that was 30 to 40 years ago. We're in the 21st century now, more than 1/5th of the way to the 22nd, and gaming has become mainstream. Gamers today just want to play games, messing with the computer (what's a computer?) is above their pay grade. Games today route multiplayer through their own matchmaking servers because Player-2-Player matchmaking /fucking sucks/, it's janky under ideal circumstances let alone normal. Gamers today don't want to deal with network shenanigans, they just want to play; so devs and publishers oblige by handling more things on their end simplifying the experience. Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore. The gamers of 30 to 40 years ago have moved on to messing with "home labs" and Raspberry Pis and 3D printing and shitposting on HN.
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    You say that but for games that allow self-hosting there is a rich tinkerer community. Look at Minecraft for example.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    Tinkering gamers aren't the audience anymore. More importantly, their audience isn't the audience anymore. After all, it was never a hugely significant number of tinkerers that were important, it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them. That just isn't the business model anymore.
    - vladvasiliu 4y ago
      > it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them. Could it be that said audience depended on the tinkerers to help with settings things up, but since games "just work" now, the middleman has been cut?
    - thefz 4y ago
ronsor 4y ago
Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them. The top examples are EA and Blizzard. I'm unsure whether to attribute it to simple addiction, misplaced brand loyalty, or something else. With regard to the DRM and anti-cheats that ironically make your system even less secure, a lot of gamers are so scared of cheaters that they'll put up with anything.
- account42 4y ago
  > Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them. How does that make gamers special - aren't most mainstream products optimized for profit at the expense of quality?
hulitu 4y ago
> It's copy protection. This is always the official explanation. It is just pure greed.
Psychoshy_bc1q 4y ago
instead of shitty, addictive and expensive trash i play chess

oneplane 4y ago

That used to be the case, now it's asset protection because the only way people will pay for skins, hats, virtual shoes, and pink guns is if you can't load arbitrary assets. If a server says: load whatever skin you want... well, why would you pay for it? This is also why modding got killed off, you can't sell people stuff if someone else will make better assets for free and just puts them up for download. Even if integrity or security was a big issue, that's been solved since quake 3 and ut99 with integrity checks and server-side load controls (ironically, the same ones that are now used in locked-down games to make selling different coloured virtual shirts a thing).

thomastjeffery 4y ago

That, and planned-obselescence. I'm sure that EA would love to kill Battlefield 4. But it will never die, because players can run and moderate dedicated servers. Battlefield 1 (newer than 4), on the other hand, died years ago. Battlefield 5 is practically the same game, arguably worse, yet was able to steal most of 1's player base because support (and moderation) were effectively dropped by EA during the release of 5. Anti-cheat is the newest (and deadliest) iteration of this pattern. CoD Warzone is free to play, so long as you run it on Windows, and not in a VM. Worst of all, this means the burden of moderation has been moved to anti-cheat itself, even though any experienced forum moderator can tell you that moderation itself is based on social interaction, not technical behavior.

Dalewyn 4y ago
While I'm sure both copy protection and planned obsolescence are considerations, I think most of us neglect the bigger elephant in the room: Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore. Times change, gamers might have been tinkerers and hobbyists who accepted needing to mess with their software and perhaps even hardware (memory address allocations, anyone?!), but that was 30 to 40 years ago. We're in the 21st century now, more than 1/5th of the way to the 22nd, and gaming has become mainstream. Gamers today just want to play games, messing with the computer (what's a computer?) is above their pay grade. Games today route multiplayer through their own matchmaking servers because Player-2-Player matchmaking /fucking sucks/, it's janky under ideal circumstances let alone normal. Gamers today don't want to deal with network shenanigans, they just want to play; so devs and publishers oblige by handling more things on their end simplifying the experience. Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore. The gamers of 30 to 40 years ago have moved on to messing with "home labs" and Raspberry Pis and 3D printing and shitposting on HN.
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  You say that but for games that allow self-hosting there is a rich tinkerer community. Look at Minecraft for example.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Tinkering gamers aren't the audience anymore. More importantly, their audience isn't the audience anymore. After all, it was never a hugely significant number of tinkerers that were important, it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them. That just isn't the business model anymore.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    > it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them. Could it be that said audience depended on the tinkerers to help with settings things up, but since games "just work" now, the middleman has been cut?
  - thefz 4y ago

ronsor 4y ago

Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them. The top examples are EA and Blizzard. I'm unsure whether to attribute it to simple addiction, misplaced brand loyalty, or something else. With regard to the DRM and anti-cheats that ironically make your system even less secure, a lot of gamers are so scared of cheaters that they'll put up with anything.

account42 4y ago
> Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them. How does that make gamers special - aren't most mainstream products optimized for profit at the expense of quality?

hulitu 4y ago

> It's copy protection. This is always the official explanation. It is just pure greed.

Psychoshy_bc1q 4y ago

instead of shitty, addictive and expensive trash i play chess