“More inclusive and customizable character creation that allows players to mix and match different character styles and voices. A third new voice type and the ability to change the voice’s pitch are also being added”
I tried to get into terraria so many times, but this 2d perspective is just not doing it for me. For the same reasons, I don’t play metroidvanias and platformers. There are some platformer that I like, Gris, for example, but that’s not exactly the same. I have no problems with Core keeper or Stardew valley, so the genre is not the problem. I need to reconcile with it and accept that some games are just not for me.
I just converted my other brother the other day. atomic distros are great when you are the family tech support guy. Made an ssh only user on all the family computers so I can remotely deal with most of their problems without having to actually touch it or remember their login details.
There is a sub for sanity checking mod actions, aita-style.
If you keep in mind it is for active unconfirmed situations, and that votes there are not meant to mark the cases of mod abuse, I think it can fill that niche.
I really don’t see a need to drag community drama everywhere. GoL is one of the biggest aggregator blogs out there for… linux gaming. Whether we should prioritize original sources over aggregators is a different discussion.
But yeah. Liam is great for news aggregating but he is 100% the stereotypical linux gamer and has a long history of starting random shit. Still annoyed by how fast he got everyone to shit on the Duckstation devs because they didn’t want to be exploited.
Are you the lemmy cops? Is it your responsibility to chase any link to someone’s website across every instance and make sure people know they are a bit of a jackass?
If you think GoL should be a banned source, take it up with the various moderators. If you think only primary sources should be allowed (which I actually agree with), that is also a discussion to be had.
But rushing in to berate people for linking to one of the most popular news aggregators for a story that people would be interested in because you don’t like the guy who owns that site? All you are doing is discouraging people from making posts in the future.
Which is the problem with dragging community/subreddit drama everywhere you go. It just makes the site a much more hostile place for everyone. And we really aren’t big enough to be doing that.
As the official lemmy police I am arresting you for defending a mad lad caught abusing powers. You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Jokes aside… I do think people should be allowed to post opinions an discuss other peoples behavior. Gol dude was caught abusing his powers, which is a disgusting thing to do, personally don’t mind him being called out for that in a post here and there. It’s not an attack on the poster, it’s a reminder to folks who the guy really is.
As he said, modlogs are public, and it seems like other user retreived the trace of what you call an “abuse of power” : sopuli.xyz/comment/12732467 .
It is in his right as a moderator to chose how he moderate the communities he has the right to. If he finds your comment pedantic and annoying, and chose to remove it, so be it.
I’m not taking sides here. I don’t know the whole story, and I doubt anyone else here does. With the little context provided, It’d be hard to take knowingly a side.
But in both case, this is textbook harassement as you are copy-pasting this comment on every community this is posted on. This community has a pretty clear rule against harrassement (rule 2), which you are breaching, offense for which I’ll use my g… mod given right of banning you for the time being (I’ll re-evaluate tomorrow when I’ll be less tired).
Edit : After talking with OP via PM, a ban of 7 days was issued
The steam deck is also amazing, such a nice piece of hardware. I’ve been gaming on Linux for years and I’m surprised how well it works. Feels like a console.
It does prevent Linux compatibility, but even if it didn’t, it’s a computer security problem, for those who care. You’re essentially allowing different game companies to install a rootkit on your computer so you can play a video game.
Mostly, and even some Windows users don’t want to install software that has such a great amount of permission over the entire system just for a game’s anti-cheat.
It’s nice that users can now know beforehand if a game uses such software. Avoids refunds.
No its common for anti-cheat on Windows to have full root permission to your entire system Windows users are just on average less intelligent, less concerned about privacy, and, more ignorant about technology. This doesn’t mean using Windows makes you stupid its just the OS of choice for the stupid and ignorant.
Ad hominem isn’t when you insult people AND make an argument its when you insult people INSTEAD of making an argument.
User initially believes that this is only a Linux issue because its almost entirely discussed on forums frequented by technical people who often use Linux whereas forums full of Windows gamers are equally effected but ignorant of the topic.
This will be helpful for discerning if a game can run on the Steam Deck. There’s not many games that don’t have verification (Either by Valve or ProtonDB) but for newer games with anticheat it will serve as a good rule of thumb i imagine
Lots of games with anti cheat auto work under wine/proton. The most on top of my head example is Elden ring. Runs fine on my desktop with arch, as well as my steam deck.
Full agree. I do want some kind of policy for games that introduce anti-cheat both during early access and after release. Bricking a game you paid for should offer some sort of recourse.
I’d really like Valve to take an official policy on post-release changes that break games, but for what it’s worth they have not given me any hassle with refunds in these scenarios.
Yup. If it’s important enough that devs now have to add a disclaimer on the store page, surely devs shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that by adding it later. Since SteamDeck customers are affected by this the most, it’s weird that this isn’t already a rule, particularly for games that are SteamDeck verified.
That’s a bit much… It’s just not possible to guarantee that as a developer
Software is a living thing, and anything useful is made up of layer after layer of ever shifting sand. We do our best, but we are all at the mercy of our dependencies. There are trade-offs, there are bugs we can do nothing about, and sometimes moving forward means dropping support for platforms that are no longer “cheap” enough to afford while also working on the game
I love this though. I also like the idea of requiring access to earlier builds.
These mitigate anti consumer practices - dropping support for a platform is more likely to be a technical trade-off or unintentional consequence though
I do agree with the part where software moves, dependencies yada, yada… I’m a developer myself.
But… this is different. They eliminated a perfectly working game, where they didn’t have to invest a minute of labor to get it working on Linux. The only thing they had to provide was the .so-file (for EAC) when publishing to Steam… Valve did all the work to make EAC compatible on Linux, yes, on user-level… but still… it fucking worked.
Punishing an entire userbase, because other assholes (assumably) used Linux for cheating is discrimination. Even if there were no cheaters at all… it’s still discrimination… because it used to fucking work.
Oh no, I totally agree with you that this is gross behavior - I just think your rule is too broad.
So we need more focused rules and mechanisms. I think disclosing anti-cheat on the store is a good mechanism, I think forcing them to provide previous releases is a good rule. That obviously doesn’t cover nearly enough, but in the current gaming environment I think it’s a good start
I don’t think that’s fair. I “own” GTA5 and don’t really care for the last… 8 years? what they add. I had the full content of my purchase. Why should I be able to gain money for this?
That’s exactly what Valve did. The automated refund system wasn’t available, but you could request a manual review and cite the added anti cheat; Valve was refunding those who did so.
I suppose they do suffer from the “Known in the state of Cancer to cause California” problem. A bubble level app wants in-app purchases and GPS access.
However, it’s only being forced for kernel-level anti-cheat. If it’s only client-side or server-side, it’s optional, but Valve say “we generally think that any game that makes use of anti-cheat technology would benefit from letting players know”.
I will always love Valve for their ability to use corpospeak against corpos.
Your game has anti-cheat?
Wonderful!
I’m sure that always only results in an improved experience for all gamers, lets let them all know!
Edit: I was talking about them labeling vac games as being anti cheat… And wondering if they were going to pull some double standard… I didn’t know they label them already and still don’t know if they do…
I would love to see any kind of documentation that can somehow prove OW2’s AC is better than VAC, something that isn’t based on vibes or immediacy bias.
So … your previous assertion that OW2’s AC is superior to VAC was in fact just based on vibes.
Anti Cheat developers typically do not like to explain how exactly they work, how effective they actually are.
Their data is proprietary, trade secrets.
There will almost certainly never be a way to actually conduct the empirical study you wish for, save for (ironically) someone hacking into the corporate servers of a bunch of different anti cheat developers to grab their own internal metrics.
But that should be obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of how Anti Cheats work, both technically and as a business.
… None of that matters to you though, you have completely vibes based anecdotes that you confidently state as fact.
Please stop doing that.
When someone has no clue what they’re talking about, but confidently makes a claim about a situation because it feels right, this is typically called misinformation.
I mean, anybody could verify it by spending a few hours each on the respective games… But yes, any empirical data would be nice. For example, a study on the amount of blatant hackers found on lobbies joined in comparable ranks. Anyway, this isn’t exactly misinformation to anybody who has played both games at any decent rank. It’s unproved but immediately discernible information. Take that how you will, i don’t really intend to argue about this here. This kind of pointless argument is the worst thing about Lemmy.
I mean, anybody could verify it by spending a few hours each on the respective games… But yes, any empirical data would be nice.
No, thats an anecdotal experience, and all it would tell you is the players’ perception of how prevalent cheating is… not how prevalent it actually is, not how effective an anti cheat system is at blocking cheaters.
But yes, any empirical data would be nice. For example, a study on the amount of blatant hackers found on lobbies joined in comparable ranks
“It would be great if there was any valid data/research to back up or disprove that thing I said earlier, but there isn’t, therefore I am completely justified in saying whatever as I want and acting as if its indisputable!”
Anyway, this isn’t exactly misinformation to anybody who has played both games at any decent rank. It’s unproved but immediately discernible information.
Again, no.
You made a claim that a particular anti cheat system is better than another.
You keep saying that ‘oh anyone can just tell’.
No.
What you are describing is again, at best, player perceptions of cheating prevalence.
The logic you are using is exactly the same logic that people who believe in astrology or woo woo nonsense medical treatments use to justify their efficacy.
… You have nothing but vibes and anecdotes, which you admit are unproved and have no basis in fact, beyond ‘i think this is obvious’.
You’re just bullshitting.
It is indeed pointless to attempt to get a bullshitter to admit they are bullshitting, when they’ve already backpedalled by moving goal posts, dismissing the importance of the discussion after being called out for making a specific claim which they can’t back up.
You could just admit that ah well shit yeah, I guess I don’t have any actual valid reasoning or data to back up my claim, but nope you keep trucking on, doing everything you can to talk around that point instead of addressing it.
I mean…bro was just giving an opinion man. He didn’t even really say that much originally. I think claiming the “superiority” of something online alot of the times is vibes based. That ain’t necessarily bad though. Are people not allowed to give more generalized or vague opinions?
gamingonlinux.com
Aktywne