Maybe you’re not coming across them regularly but they’re well known outside the corporate world - not to the extent of Microsoft but it’s not the last time they’ll be in the spotlight.
Indeed, not regularly. I only had the pleasure of hearing about them when I had a job that mandated it. They are explicitly targeted at business users.
They literally just urgently requested that everyone update windows 10 and 11 the other day because they found a zero day. Cloudstrike is only unknown if you don’t pay attention to anything privacy related.
Drag picked up Helldivers recently, which uses a KLA. Drag’s had no problems with it. But drag’s dragon also downloaded it, and it completely borked its computer. The voltage regulator chip for the CPU failed, and its computer started crashing on completely different games, even after uninstalling Helldivers.
Drag uses person-independent pronouns, which are conjugated and inflected the same way in all grammatical persons. When drag uses drag’s pronouns, they’re first person. And to answer your question, drag has a pet dragon. We’re engaged to be married. It’s @HonouraryDragon
Thanks. A lot of people lived through the “singular they” controversy, where conjugation was a big issue, yet they never fully understood the conclusion that conjugation in English depends on the pronoun, not on the inflection. Latin has different rules, of course, but we’re not speaking Latin. A lot of people are still upset about that fact after all these centuries. They’re usually the kind of people who think the Romans were the good guys, and the Goths who spoke a precursor to English were evil. Fun fact: Adolf Hitler hated Gothic script. He called it “Jewish letters”. It’s funny how Germany changed sides over the whole issue. One minute Germany is sacking Rome, and the next they’re the home of the Holy Roman Empire. The whole “Third Reich” thing was an attempt at claiming a lineage descended from Rome. And of course England and the US spent a long time establishing themselves as the inheritors of Rome too. That’s probably why there’s so many old people who want English to be Latin.
If you like the cheesy story, Saints Row the Third is wacky awesome fun. It’s not 100 hours so you’d have to replay it, but you could do that co-op with a couple of friends. There’s nothing quite like bailing out of your fighter jet wearing a hotdog costume and then blowing up half a city block with your rocket launcher on the way down.
Vampire Survivors is a good candidate too, regularly introducing new characters and weapon combos and weird secrets for pretty non-stop dopamine. Maybe you could get 100 hours with the expansions but that seems like a stretch.
Honorable mention to Forza Horizon 4, it’s everything Burnout Paradise wished it could be and had a smile on my face nearly the entire time. Although there were a few spots where I set the difficulty too high and/or didn’t tune up my car and lost races, so that was less fun, but kind of my own fault. Well over 100 hours on this one, but the base game has only come down to $12 and won’t be sold after today!
Was always wary of getting into the Saints Row series because I always like to start with part 1, no matter how different it is and if it was a different set of people making it. But doing this on PC is not as simple as meeting a steam purchase and I already have had plenty to play, so I was reluctant to get into yet another series with more than 2 installments. I’ll see what I feel like later. I’m fairly used to configuring games to work, but I take a lot of time with it.
I’ve already decided to check vampire survivors…
I’m extremely wary of what the state of Forza horizon 4 will be if servers go down—I usually, almost entirely rather, avoid live service and anything with needless dependencies for that reason. It seems the FH4 servers will still be on for years, but even then it is possible that when servers are taken offline, it’ll be before I play it… or play it adequately.
Example: I wanted to start Divinity Original Sin 1 in late 2021. I instead started it in 2024, and have done about a quarter of it only before leaving it alone for a bit. This happens a lot depending on what I’m occupied with in general—and doing all of the classic Divinity games, and not really liking most of them aside from Beyond Divinity which I found decent and Act 1 only of Divinity 2 (the action game) very good, also played a part in that. While there’s no matter of playing the earlier entries, I am going to get a lot busier soon so it seems to be a problem.
For SR3, just do it, it’s a really well-made game and runs great and you don’t need any prior knowledge except to know that it’s kind of a GTA parody. I don’t think SR1 was even ported to PC, and SR2 is pretty buggy and unstable on modern machines (though fun aside from that). SR4 supposed to be pretty great (same engine as 3 I think) but I haven’t played it.
FH4 has a healthy playerbase and I’m pretty confident it’ll still be worth playing over the next year. However beyond that as the community slowly dwindles it will eventually become less fun with fewer people doing Forzathons or seasonal co-ops or using the auctions, even if the servers are still running.
I had just come off of FFX while running through all the FF games that I could. With FF12, I got to a point where I had a solid amount of freedom and did a bunch of side quests and stuff. Then the next portion of the story takes you to this mountain, and I thought, ah cool, this looks like “new base” material. They lay out new information about the plot and then the next stop is to assault an air ship.
Kick ass, I think. This is probably roughly the story equivalent of the assault on Bevelle from FFX, you go in, fight your way through, a cinematic happens and the thrust of the story changes, new info drops, motivations change and are renewed just like in FFX.
Nope. You get to the boss on that ship, it’s some dude you have little to no investment in fighting. You kick his ass, he transforms, easy fight, and the game just ends.
I sat in actual open mouthed disbelief. There was no way the game ended there, at what I felt was dramatically and game time wise to be the obvious mid point. And yet, there the credits rolled.
I haven’t played since the original release, but I vaguely remember feeling the same way. If I remember correctly you get to the boss and he is practically like who are you guys. I felt so let down there was no build up between the boss and your characters.
And then Square repeated it with FFXV. Whole time I was like why do I care about this villain? Apparently you had to play some side game or read a story to understand why you were meant to care.
With the decision that we needed to play the Kingdom Hearts mobile game to fully understand KH3, I’m starting to not like Square telling us we need to play so many different games to get how KH plot was
Going back a ways here with Castlevania: Symphony of The Night. It seems like a fairly fleshed out game as it is when you get to the “final” boss but then you read a guide and find out “ending A” is only half of the game
I feel it should be added that this is one use of anti-cheat, but it also gets used on noncompetitive single player games, too.
Usually if a game has micro-transactions, but also to “protect our IP” as has been seen with a number of older non-MTX single player games recently being retrofitted with it.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand why people have a problem with a female protagonist. I’m a girl and my fave games ever all involve playing as male protagonists. One of the core essences of playing videogames is escapism, to be someone that you’re not, I don’t see what’s immersion breaking about it. I’ve seen the trailer and I’m hyped!
It’s been time. Game companies have no right to access that level of any system I paid for. If they want to use kernal level anti-cheat on their consoles, that’s on them. But my computer? Absolutely not. They don’t have a right to that, when I bought the computer I didn’t agree to that in a EULA or TOS, and they do not make it apparent that their games carry this level of anti-cheat at sale.
It’s so easy to look up what kind of anti cheat games use.
You can’t eat the cake and have it too.
They don’t have a right to install anything without your consent. However. You pressed the “Install” button. And you boxed in “I understand” and clicked “I agree”.
That doesn’t really track here. My reasoning is simple. They are requiring access to something they didn’t initially make public or allow an informed decision on, and they did that on purpose. While I don’t currently own or buy games that have kernel level anti-cheat, that doesn’t make the obfuscation any better.
I actually have not pressed the install button, nor have I pressed the purchase button. However, I also want you to look up the phrase “eat cake and have it to” and figure out what you mean. I’m buying the cake. I’m buying the fork to eat the cake. Neither the cake company nor the fork company should be able to tell me what to do with the product from the other company. You don’t have to agree with my stance, but understand that this is the argument that I am making.
People need to take responsibility of their own machines.
While they might not hold out a sign that says “KERNEL LEVEL ANTI CHEAT”. There is information available to make an informed decision.
Your cake and fork argument makes no sense at all. The game company isn’t telling you what you can and can’t do with your hardware. But they are telling you what you will be installing. It’s there if you know where to look. And if you don’t know where to look. You have the combined knowledge of the world at your fingertips for guidance.
I don’t know what you do. But when I buy a cake. I look at the ingredients to see what and how much it contains of various things. If I don’t like what I see, I won’t be buying it. Because I certainly won’t be eating it.
And I’m also not going to buy a plastic fork to eat it with. See how I made that decision. The cake company didn’t make me buy a certain fork, and the fork company didn’t make me buy a certain cake. I decide.
It’s ultimately your responsibility to understand what you are installing. Information is available.
You did not read what I wrote in my response and it shows. I have taken responsibility for my machine. I don’t buy games with kernal level anti-cheat. I specifically view them as an attack vector for malware. They started the cake vs fork argument and my response was directly related to them using such a poor expression for the context of the conversation we were having and therefore it took that to its logical conclusion based on the argument they made.
Since you didn’t read and decided to downvote I am choosing to not discuss this with you further, having vetted the ingredients of your cake. Have a good day.
I’m using the “you” in the colloquial sense, i see that wasn’t apparent to you. (You as in you the singular individual)
I understand you are against kernel level anti cheat. That’s ok. That’s an opinion. But your argument that it’s some kind of secret which games have it or not, is not a matter of opinion. It’s verifiable. And It’s just not true. It’s not a secret. You can easily find out if you want to.
You can make the argument that platforms should make publishers divulge that information on the games page. And I say sure, why not.
But it always will be your responsibility to make sure you know what you’re installing.
Unfortunately. It is an armsrace against cheaters. And 1 single cheater can easily ruin the entire experience for hundreds of players. I understand why games might want it. I hope they can find more clever ways of detecting cheats without it.
As a final word. Lemmy is a big place. It’s utterly ridiculous of you to assume I’m the one who downvoted.
You agree to that in the EULA/TOS of the game you want to play (and how legally binding that is is anyone’s guess). You just never read it (because nobody does).
The reality is that it is just another layer of risk. You are or are not choosing to install software on your personal computer that may or may not increase your risk level. It is no different than going to that website that makes your GPU spin up real hard or grabbing something from itch that is actually malware and so forth. Its why people increasingly suggest having a dedicated device for taxes and anything else private.
Personally? I understand the benefits to kernel level anti-cheat and, while we have no data as consumers, it is clearly effective considering the state of games today versus games in the 00s and publishers are willing to allocate funds for it. I still firmly believe that there are better methods that involve analysis of player behavior but I also understand the compute costs of that will be insane.
But also? I don’t want that shit on my computer (not that it would work because… Linux). So I choose not to play the games that require it. It means I miss out on some games but the good news is that there are way more games out there than I can ever play.
All that said: I increasingly think the end state is going to be competitive multiplayer games being console exclusive due to a mix of exclusivity rights and having a walled garden ecosystem that actually CAN be controlled.
We literally have a cloudstrike report giving direct examples of how bad it is potentially as a vector for malware. Additionally it doesn’t solve the problem it aims to solve, as reported by several outlets because it doesn’t stop hardware level cheating, just potentially stops scripts. So you could absolutely enable cheats through a device like a keyboard and mouse or controller and the Anti-cheat does nothing.
Additionally though, I am not buying products with kernel level Anti-cheat and that is intentional, so I am not agreeing to the TOS or EULA of those games. If you add to this the fact that some games retroactively added kernel level anti-cheat, it’s bogus to assume that people are in the know or that they agreed to such things in the original TOS or EULA. Steam only recently made developers list kernel level anti-cheat on store pages for their game.
Also, kernel level anti-cheat in single player games is just ridiculous and invasive.
First: The crowdstrike issue had little to nothing to do with any kernel level hooks. The issue was one of software engineering and deployment. It could just as easily have… taken out an entire country by triggering false positives that prevent systems from connecting to the network.
Second: You’ll ALSO note that even after… taking out an entire country businesses still use crowdstrike. Because it is that damned good at its job.
Third: Yes, Current anti-cheat solutions are less than effective at hardware based hacks. It is lamost like there is a reason that the Delta Force (?) game made a big deal about banning people for thumb drives. That kind of scanning and testing is coming.
Fourth: Crowdstrike is not something you install on your personal device (unless your job’s IT department are idiots). It is something you install on company owned devices.
Additionally though, I am not buying products with kernel level Anti-cheat and that is intentional, so I am not agreeing to the TOS or EULA of those games.
Cool. I am also not. So no “rights” are being violated.
AMD had a graphics driver blocked because kernel level Anti-cheat flagged it as a cheat program. Genshin Impact’s anti-cheat was literally used to stop anti-virus programs running on people’s computers and mass deploy ransomware, and the gaming industry as a whole is extremely lax about the security of their users. Several companies anti-cheat have been flagged by anti-virus software as malicious.
There are layers to the kernel level anti-cheat business too and people still do buy games with kernel level anti-cheat. The fact that that kind of scanning is coming isn’t acceptable which is the point. I choose not to spend my money at companies that enable this kind of crap in their games. That’s not enough. It should be facing opposition from every quarter specifically because it is not only invasive, but also only raises the barrier to entry at the detriment to user’s security, and which is likely to cause the same boom that things like the campaign against piracy did in the 80’s/90’s. People didn’t know they could cheat so easily and now they do. Congratulations this has done the opposite of what is intended.
Anti-viruses flag a lot of things. It is called a False Positive (or sometimes a “Someone didn’t pay us for an exception” Positive but…). It has nothing to do with something hooking into a kernel or just being a program you run in userspace.
Genshin Impact’s anti-cheat was literally used to stop anti-virus programs running on people’s computers and mass deploy ransomware,
and the gaming industry as a whole is extremely lax about the security of their users.
THAT I do not disagree with in the slightest. Which is why I am glad that most studios outsource anti-cheat because they are not at all qualified to handle it themselves.
. I choose not to spend my money at companies that enable this kind of crap in their games.
I mean this in the most inflammatory and blunt way imaginable:
Nobody gives a shit about you. Nobody gives a shit about me either.
We are two people. We don’t fucking matter. What matters is the people who play every single Riot game ever made for thousands of hours each. THEY spend money.
Like I said before: it is about accepting risk. Knowingly or unknowingly, it doesn’t matter any more than telling your parents that you must have gotten a virus from that pokemon cheat code rather than the hardcore pornography that came in exe form for some reason.
You don’t want to compromise your security more than you already do. Cool. Most people playing these games are fine with that if it reduces the odds that they have their free time ruined for them by aimbots and wallhacks. And… clearly there is merit to this approach if studios are willing to pay for it.
Because, at the end of the day? We’ve been through this. Back then it was DRM. DRM was bad and DRM was horrible and EVERYONE had a super obscure russian (?) cd rom drive that Starforce would brick. And the same arguments of “ideologically this is bad and it could ruin things for a very small percentage of people” came up. And the answer was always “I refuse to buy anything”
And… everyone else DID buy things. The genuinely bad shit like starforce went away in favor of activation model DRMs (which continues to this day) but also… alternatives were actually presented. Steam is basically a variation of GOO (which is also basically what GoG does) but Steam has the added benefit of people being scared shitless of getting caught by Uncle Gabe and having their account taken away.
And that is what we need here. Not asinine requests for politicians who understand nothing to solve this for us. We need actual alternatives that work better AND are less invasive.
As an aside: I increasingly notice that you say very inflammatory things based on a misunderstanding or misconception of the thing you are criticizing. That is a bad habit in general but it is a REALLY bad thing when it comes to cybersecurity (which this basically is). Because it gives you a false sense of security when you think you are following best practices but are actually spewing nonsense and ignoring all your other risk vectors.
What is your argument here? Is it that Anti-cheat is good? Is it that Anti-cheat is necessary? Is it that it’s bad but you feel my information is incorrect? Because you’re all over the place. “I’ll raise you” is you literally saying, malware can be spread without anti-cheat at kernel level so anti-cheat at kernel level is okay? And it’s not relevant to the conversation because it’s not about whether or not some threat actor can use other means to compromise a system or several thousand of them.
Like. Even if you feel you needed to add context you actually seem to be intentionally using inflammatory language in order to in some way try to discredit not my reasoning but my stance that Anti-cheat is invasive and should in fact see opposition.
My argument is that refusing to buy isn’t going to fix the problem and I thought that was obvious from what I said, but apparently not. So, the question originally was "is it time to take a stand (not as individuals, but as a group) against kernel level anti-cheat. And my answer is that it’s been time and bad things keep happening and have the potential to keep happening because of it, and no it doesn’t matter if it’s only a handful of users, especially if those users are rocking $3K worth of parts in a gaming rig.
You’re suggesting that a security issue that is wholly ignored by both the public and the government as well as the industry that should be regulated is going to be fixed not by regulating it with laws and that’s extremely confusing give. The fact that we know it’s not how this works and “Uncle Gabe” has already implemented a solution and that solution is to make it apparent that games have kernel level anti-cheat so some of us are more informed. Because some random corp is going to do a better job than the government at regulating the industry.
I’m not sure why you think that’s what’s going to happen or even how you might believe it’s any less of a pipe dream than these companies (Microsoft included) doing the right thing and safeguarding the data they are allowing access to. Anti-cheat at kernel level is running all the time regardless of whether you’re playing the game that has it or not. It’s not just one singular program. It’s all different ones because there’s not any regulation in this space to speak of. And companies don’t want there to be. Valve is not strong enough in this space to make this go away by themselves.
People say crazy things about how powerful Valve has become in the PC gaming space. But while they have consumers generally on their side, Microsoft is older and has been in the space longer, and is definitely more powerful (money, connections, longevity of the business etc), and they have no real intentions of doing away with kernel level access for anti-cheat despite what few articles there were suggesting otherwise just after the crowdstrike fiasco.
You’re right that corps don’t care about individuals. But they care about the masses because we’re the ones they exploit for money. That’s literally why any type of organized opposition from millions of people is successful at making any changes at all. So again, what point are you making here?
Is your intent to educate? Is it to say that I’m wrong for saying we should organize against Anti-cheat at kernel level? Is it that you think you have a better idea of how this works, and what changes should be implemented? Are you for keeping Anti-cheat because you feel it serves a purpose?
The point is that you are constantly spewing largely unrelated nonsense that mostly just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. But you are Righteous so anyone who points this out is clearly a bad person so let’s whip out the ad hominem.
Because I see you working toward the same conclusions I increasingly see people make: You don’t know what should be done and you don’t care what it does to the game industry. You just want politicians to make laws to make the things you don’t like go away.
And… I really don’t understand how ANYONE can be privileged enough to think that is a good idea. Especially when the people who DO feel strongly enough to maybe educate themselves on a topic refuse to. But hey, 50-60 year old politicians who just want a handy from the nearest lobbyist are sure to act in good faith and make a great solution, right?
Again, this is the DRM wars. We lost. Used games are not a thing in the PC space and are rapidly fading in the console space. But what we did get was a removal of the genuinely bad DRM models (Starforce) and the more egregious activation models (formerly Securom, now Denuvo) are increasingly restricted to A-AAA releases. And that didn’t happen because people got angry on a message board and thought about asking jack thompson to draft a bill for them.
It happened because there was actual discussion between devs and consumers. I don’t like that EVERYTHING activates to an account with Valve (even if I like valve) but it is a really good middle ground that provides utility to all sides.
Rather than people throwing up complete nonsense that has nothing to do with the technology they claim to be against while also coming right off a studio being sent to the shadow realm harder than a themed deck user because of… a bad beta and character designs that weren’t sexy enough.
Anti-viruses flag a lot of things. It is called a False Positive (or sometimes a “Someone didn’t pay us for an exception” Positive but…). It has nothing to do with something hooking into a kernel or just being a program you run in userspace.<<
A layman who doesn’t know why the program was flagged and doesnt necessarily know the name of the Anti-cheat program or just hits delete all (which is probably thousands and thousands of people), you’re telling me you wouldn’t be extremely upset if a game you spent $60+ on suddenly wouldn’t start or your account go auto banned because the anti-cheat software has been deleted by an antivirus program by mistake?
Genshin Impact’s anti-cheat was literally used to stop anti-virus programs running on people’s computers and mass deploy ransomware,<<
You have failed once again to establish what this has to do with the original complaint, which is that kernel level anti-cheat allowed this security breach vector. And it has everything to do with the quoted text just below this from one of my previous comments:
and the gaming industry as a whole is extremely lax about the security of their users.<<
I choose not to spend my money at companies that enable this kind of crap in their games.<<
I mean this in the most inflammatory and blunt way imaginable:
Nobody gives a shit about you. Nobody gives a shit about me either.<<
We are two people. We don’t fucking matter. What matters is the people who play every single Riot game ever made for thousands of hours each. THEY spend money.<<
This doesn’t explain regulating industries. It doesn’t explain why so many companies (including game development companies) spend so much money lobbying for the right to be free of regulations that should be covered by privacy law but aren’t because these companies don’t want that. And if you can’t see the correlation here then you’re a bit far gone because if they can lobby so can we. It has to start somewhere.
Like I said before: it is about accepting risk. Knowingly or unknowingly, it doesn’t matter any more than telling your parents that you must have gotten a virus from that pokemon cheat code rather than the hardcore pornography that came in exe form for some reason.<<
You don’t want to compromise your security more than you already do. Cool. Most people playing these games are fine with that if it reduces the odds that they have their free time ruined for them by aimbots and wallhacks. And… clearly there is merit to this approach if studios are willing to pay for it.<<
I would argue that the vast majority don’t know. People like to act like gamers are in some way really tech savvy and they just know all the ins and outs of all that goes into the game and what is installed on their system. But the opposite is true for most people. They buy a game or program from a source they don’t have a reason to distrust and they install it and give it whatever permissions it asks for. This is the main reason I’m arguing that people absolutely should be educated and they won’t get that education from game developers because for the most part those devs prefer it this way.
Because, at the end of the day? We’ve been through this. Back then it was DRM. DRM was bad and DRM was horrible and EVERYONE had a super obscure russian (?) cd rom drive that Starforce would brick. And the same arguments of “ideologically this is bad and it could ruin things for a very small percentage of people” came up. And the answer was always “I refuse to buy anything”<<
And… everyone else DID buy things. The genuinely bad shit like starforce went away in favor of activation model DRMs (which continues to this day) but also… alternatives were actually presented. Steam is basically a variation of GOO (which is also basically what GoG does) but Steam has the added benefit of people being scared shitless of getting caught by Uncle Gabe and having their account taken away.<<
People bought things with DRM because they didn’t know, or there was not another option. And DRM was a significant thing even before the internet was a widespread thing which is why once it got it’s foothold it kept it. The average consumer didn’t know and wasn’t intending to pirate anything so they didn’t care.
And that is what we need here. Not asinine requests for politicians who understand nothing to solve this for us. We need actual alternatives that work better AND are less invasive.<<
Why is it asinine to tell the government I want a public industry regulated to protect my right to privacy? Because that’s what it comes down to. It’s my right to not just privacy but security of information. This would never be a question if a company were requesting it but when people do it it’s somehow problematic?
As an aside: I increasingly notice that you say very inflammatory things based on a misunderstanding or misconception of the thing you are criticizing. That is a bad habit in general but it is a REALLY bad thing when it comes to cybersecurity (which this basically is). Because it gives you a false sense of security when you think you are following best practices but are actually spewing nonsense and ignoring all your other risk vectors.<<
Education wasn’t your goal as far as I can tell because you’re extremely combative. You make a lot of statements that you don’t back up with anything. You assume a level of knowledge that you probably shouldn’t. And you get upset when the other person doesn’t understand, completely ignore their questions and points in favor of whatever crusade you happen to be on, and then double-down while ignoring the clarifying questions they ask.
There’s not going to be a discussion between devs and consumers if we don’t educate people on what’s going on. That’s literally what we’re talking about. And you seem to assume that I’m just adverse to that without taking into account that I think we should have both things. We as consumers should have open dialog with the industries that rely on us to buy products. But we should also very much expect that our government that we pay taxes to regulates industries accordingly.
Because we’ve had so many data breaches in every industry but the ones in gaming have been pretty abundant and that’s not okay. You seem to want to act like nothing is connected to anything else and that’s a good way to go through life without getting anything done and with a giant target painted on your back.
I can’t assume that every consumer is like me. You shouldn’t either. And just because they got rid of other DRM that you view as worse doesn’t mean that we’re in the clear.
The ship named “software does shit I don’t like on my own hardware” sailed the day proprietary software became a thing.
Mind you, it’s scary how many people applaud kernel-level anticheat. “This game was just ruined by hackers until they added kernel-level anticheat. Now it’s great again!”
How would a campaign against kernel-level anticheat “succeed” exactly? More awareness? More people boycotting kernel-level anticheat? Laws prohibiting the practice?
Like, obviously I’m never running any software that involves kernel-level anticheat, but I’m a Gentoo neckbeard with an EFF-approved tinfoil hat surgically attached to my scalp.
(Hell, I think it would be great if most of the games out there had cheater and bot servers where it was encouraged to run your cheat tools and/or bots. If they allowed that but just kept it separate from non-tool/non-bot players, that’d be a fantastic way to get kids more interested in STEM.)
(Also, if anyone made and sold a boardgame that made players want to cheat (in a bug-not-feature kind of way), it would get negative reviews and no one would buy it. In a way, kernel-level anticheat can almost be considered a type of “externality”. The game studio, rather than going to the trouble to tune their game to make cheating less appealing, they break their users’ computers and invade their privacy. And the game studio then rakes in more money as a result.)
But how would we get through to normie 12-year-olds who just want to play Valorant and not have their face constantly rubbed in the dirt by “hackers”?
Ja polecam dokuwiki. Niestety ma dedykowany markup, ale wbudowany edytor tej wiki pomaga go edytować bez znajomości wszystkich detali na pamięć. Jest też ileś tam motywów, wtyczki do różnych rzeczy, możliwość udostępnienia wybranych części wskazanym na użytkownikom i wiele innych bajerów.
Money mumbles. Don’t buy the game, and also actively notify the company of your decision and why. Twitter, feedback form, steam review, whatever channel lets you get that message across.
This doesn’t work. It will never work. You can’t shame conscious consumers into voting with their wallets while the other 99% keeps buying the bad practices.
Thing is, if nobody on Lemmy, and literally nobody in general who cares about anticheat, buys GTA 6, you know what effect that would have on the company’s bottom line? None, they’ll make record profits.
So now you try to convince the 99% of players that are buying the bad practices, that a magic (to them) program that prevents cheaters is bad (since “has too much access” doesn’t really explain anything). They don’t care and won’t care.
Why would they listen to your personal complaint if you, singular, are going to buy it anyway? Your voice only matters to a company if it means you won’t buy their product otherwise. Don’t buy the game, then tell them why you didn’t.
You’re not listening to what I said. I said that most people will buy the game and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Most people are fucking idiots. You can morally decide not to support it by not buying the game, and that’s perfectly reasonable. But it won’t do fucking shit because all the idiots will still buy the game. That’s just how the world works because most people don’t give a fuck. Unless you can personally convince millions of people to change their behavior and agree with you, you not buying the game doesn’t matter.
There is a network effect to popular games.
However as more people stop buying the network effect gets weaker.
Its happening visibly with the new Call of Duty. Many i know bought it and then stopped playing shortly after because much of their friends are waiting for sales now or just find the game bad.
Those people will be thinking twice before buying next year.
Exactly, every time I say ‘I’m thinking of putting up a Factorio server, you want in?’, they are significantly less likely to be playing (or paying for) the newest game that has kernel-level access. Why, because we are playing Factorio for the next few weeks together and Factorio is fun.
Factorio isn’t the only game we play, but the point is to reinforce yours. If you are playing fun game x, your friends are more likely to play x instead of something else. Even if they have no care about Kernel-Level access, the fact you do affects their buying (and playing) patterns.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze