3 ms·

> I expect reproducible binaries produced by a controlled toolchain from a responsible developer. I would estimate the number of videogames published for Windo

> I expect reproducible binaries produced by a controlled toolchain from a responsible developer. I would estimate the number of videogames published for Windows PCs matching all of these critera to be roughly 0.

pengaru 3y ago
It's not like windows game developers are universally incompetent. They have their source so they can reproduce their binaries at will. They understand the risks of malware and how embarrassing it would be to unwittingly ship some, so they should know better than to be shipping releases built using their personal machine they also browse the web with. For Rockstar to be shipping pirated cracked binaries as their own demonstrates a profound lack of responsibility and professionalism as software developers. But I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of windows game developers being careless/sloppy in general too.
- incrudible 3y ago
  Reproducible builds and controlled toolchains are not really things you are going to realistically have, shipping games for Windows - even in 2023. That does not necessarily mean the final build is coming out of Mikes office PC, however.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    You're taking what I said to mean a very pedantic definition of "reproducible builds" that even Linux distros largely only aspire to achieve. By reproducible I meant they can recreate their binaries from source code, not necessarily bit-for-bit. There's zero reason to ship a Warez group's cracked version of a game when you're the copyright holder in possession of the source and ability to simply build an executable without the copy protection crap the crack is bypassing. It's pathetic on Rockstar's part.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      The game is old and recreating the tool chain required to rebuild the game might be a massive work investment. It probably is even less save, because the builds differ and perhaps behave differently and you might even need a full QA cycle. The likelyhood of an old crack working more flawlessly is higher.
    - incrudible 3y ago
      > a very pedantic definition of "reproducible builds" That's not a pedantic definition, that is the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds > simply build an executable One does not "simply" build an executable of a ten year old game codebase on a modern system. Of course it might be worth putting the build system - by which I literally mean the hardware and software - in storage. Realistically though, with all the churn happening in the games industry, studios getting closed/moved right after the game ships, it's often just not happening, especially if the game is not a big success. > It's pathetic on Rockstar's part It's actually exactly the kind of "fuck the police" attitude that I expect from the studio responsible for a game like GTA. Groups like Razor1911 also have their own ethics, they're doing a good job, creating a version of the game that is better than the one that actually shipped.
      - pengaru 3y ago
        > That's not a pedantic definition, that is the definition. Right, of the term I quoted when saying you're pedantically applying the definition of a phrase I didn't even use. I had originally said reproducible binaries, which meant to say they have the source, and can modify + recompile the damn thing. "Reproducible builds" is an industry term with a specific meaning, and I didn't say that.

pengaru 3y ago

It's not like windows game developers are universally incompetent. They have their source so they can reproduce their binaries at will. They understand the risks of malware and how embarrassing it would be to unwittingly ship some, so they should know better than to be shipping releases built using their personal machine they also browse the web with. For Rockstar to be shipping pirated cracked binaries as their own demonstrates a profound lack of responsibility and professionalism as software developers. But I'm sure there's a non-zero amount of windows game developers being careless/sloppy in general too.

incrudible 3y ago
Reproducible builds and controlled toolchains are not really things you are going to realistically have, shipping games for Windows - even in 2023. That does not necessarily mean the final build is coming out of Mikes office PC, however.
- pengaru 3y ago
  You're taking what I said to mean a very pedantic definition of "reproducible builds" that even Linux distros largely only aspire to achieve. By reproducible I meant they can recreate their binaries from source code, not necessarily bit-for-bit. There's zero reason to ship a Warez group's cracked version of a game when you're the copyright holder in possession of the source and ability to simply build an executable without the copy protection crap the crack is bypassing. It's pathetic on Rockstar's part.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    The game is old and recreating the tool chain required to rebuild the game might be a massive work investment. It probably is even less save, because the builds differ and perhaps behave differently and you might even need a full QA cycle. The likelyhood of an old crack working more flawlessly is higher.
  - incrudible 3y ago
    > a very pedantic definition of "reproducible builds" That's not a pedantic definition, that is the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds > simply build an executable One does not "simply" build an executable of a ten year old game codebase on a modern system. Of course it might be worth putting the build system - by which I literally mean the hardware and software - in storage. Realistically though, with all the churn happening in the games industry, studios getting closed/moved right after the game ships, it's often just not happening, especially if the game is not a big success. > It's pathetic on Rockstar's part It's actually exactly the kind of "fuck the police" attitude that I expect from the studio responsible for a game like GTA. Groups like Razor1911 also have their own ethics, they're doing a good job, creating a version of the game that is better than the one that actually shipped.
    - pengaru 3y ago
      > That's not a pedantic definition, that is the definition. Right, of the term I quoted when saying you're pedantically applying the definition of a phrase I didn't even use. I had originally said reproducible binaries, which meant to say they have the source, and can modify + recompile the damn thing. "Reproducible builds" is an industry term with a specific meaning, and I didn't say that.