Hello! I played D&D first in nineteen-eighty-fucking-one and lived through the Satanic Panic. Have you seen Tom Hanks in his first big acting role? My parents sat me down in front of that. But I’m still playing D&D in a campaign right now, and my son plays as well. Aha, take that Satanic Panic!
It’s the same shit every decade. They just need something to blame violence on, because surely it can’t be gun culture.
Well, I was something like 13, and I remember it on TV. I lived in a rural area, where we got about 6 channels on an antenna tower. I watched what they watched.
This is what I was thinking. For a first iteration to get out the door immediately it could just be windows with a “game browser” that launches full screen when you turn it on 😂
I mean, that’s what all Steam Deck competitors really are. They’re Windows 11 with atrocious launchers on top, some of which acceptable and some very buggy, plus a literal standard AMD APU that AMD is selling by the bucket, and half of them share board designs sold by Chinese suppliers pretty much ready made.
It would have to run steamos or something the complexity of all the always-online launchers that modern triple a games has is something that steam handles well, and likely a huge trip up point on any frontend slapped on a windows pc
That is literally what the first Xbox was. It’s internals was a custom mboard running a Celeron 700 and 3.5" HDD (can’t remember what the graphics was based on, maybe a GeForce MX?) with a customised Win2k OS.
All approx. It’s early and I can’t be bothered confirming those specs are 100% accurate :p
Every time I see an original Xbox I’m always amazed because in my memory it was a lot smaller. I used to carry that thing to and from school I have no idea how I managed that.
There’s a guy on youtube called CNCDan who did exactly that. SFF pc in a very nice 3d printed case with custom PCBs for the controller boards. If you’re at all interested in that sort of thing I think he has a 9 part series on how he built it.
I also posted this in another threads a few days ago:
Nah, the OP of one reddit thread admitted he tried more than just his backups:
Dude is a prolific poster in Switch hacking communities and he used an account which he previously used with a hacked Switch 1
He admits trying the migswitch with the Switch 2 and it starting downloading something.
They got an online ban, so offline games and such still work.
You can agree or disagree whether piracy should be legal or whether backup copies are permitted (depends on jurisdiction), but this dude obviously played with fire and got burnt.
TL;DR: don’t be stupid and get banned for breaking ToS (whether you agree with it or not)
Yeah I was thinking the same, first few votes were down lol. Now you seem to catch the fire for pointing it out. Hope you care as much about votes as I do
Things you should never get caught liking on Lemmy:
Nintendo
Windows
Auth-right, lib-right, or lib-left politics
A can of beans
Police
Man vs bear hypothetical
CalyxOS
Etc.
I know Lemmy’s objection to most of these and I honestly dislike them too (oh no, brainwashed drone alert! Honestly, I consider myself quite lucky I hit a group where I actually do match the hivemind instead of being different yet again. Except I think Lemmy has a much higher tolerance for political posts, and for personal insults towards people who don’t share the hivemind than I do, but hey, you’ll probably never hit 100% consensus with any big group), except: I wasn’t aware that Lemmy had something against a can of beans. Genuinely, could someone please explain? Is this a reference to something, or is it genuine dislike towards canned beans? What’s wrong with canned beans?
Luckily at the moment they have a lot more upvotes than downvotes. Probably because they are providing information and aside from the “you are stupid for breaking (a likely-predictable) TOS and expecting nothing to happen” judgment, it’s pretty neutral on passing judgment on the bigger argument at hand: whether this policy should be here in the first place.
Stop moving the goalposts. Nobody cares about the votes themselves.
This is about observing a fact and recounting it to someone who’s misinformed about the situation and even has the audicity to gaslight someone over it
I think they interviewed people in his circles, and I think a friend flippantly noticed it was kinda ironic that they played Among Us with someone who went on to actually assassinate someone, and now the media is twisting that into the standard “video games cause violence” bugbear.
Tbf, I hope nintendo keeps going this route and punishing more and more its customers. After all, if you keep supporting a company that hates you so much, you deserve what you get.
Well if you’re already a pirate you don’t need the MIG or benefit in any way from using it. Presumably you’ve got an Erista Switch or a modchip. The MIG is only for pirating stuff on modchipless Lite/Mariko/OLED/Apparently 2 (but watch out) consoles. It can’t pirate updates or DLC or eshop-only games so it’s always worse than CFW or modchips for those that can use CFW or modchips.
This is how you radicalize actual children. It’s clear these people are completely oblivious to the fact that every 10 year old in the country knows among us and plays it. Actual children will see how completely absurd all of this is. I love this move. Go ahead, show the children how utterly out of touch the top is.
It’s likely more than half of adults in the US play video games. About 40% of those play some kind of shooter. There are 258 million adults in the US. That’s ~129 million gamers, and ~51 million “shooters”.
Out of 51 million, they think they can link one to a game and condemn the genre?
Not too much earlier; Wikipedia says the game was invented in 1986 by psychology student Dimitry Davidoff, a psychology student at Moscow State University.
In June 2006 a Rockingham school inquiry was launched after parents complained of the traumatic effects classroom Mafia was having on their fifth-grade children. Davidoff responded to the reports, saying that as a parent who had studied child psychology for 25 years, he felt that the game could “teach kids to distinguish right from wrong”, and that the positive message of being honest could overcome the negative effects of an “evil narrator” moderating the game as if it were a scary story.
If you enjoy the game you should check out The Traitors with its many international variants. I was surprised to read that the productions provide psychologists to help the contestants as it gets traumatic, but when I watched the first UK season there were a lot of people getting into emotional distress.
There have been a lot of people cast who really shouldn’t be on the show; it’s just a game!
The biggest difference of the TV show versus the home game is the home game just ends whenever all the killers are found. The TV show has to reach a set number of episodes, so there are mechanisms built-in to make sure there’s always at least one traitor up to the final episode.
I guess it depends which version you watch; I think the U.S. and Canada versions are 44 minutes without commercials, but yeah, it does have some filler. When someone’s actually good at the strategy it can be interesting hearing them talk through their plans.
This has been done over and over again to entice boomer parents to get their kids to stop playing video games. My parents didn’t let me buy any shooter games other than jet force gemini becuase they thought it was a exploration game…
It’s rock music. It’s “reefer madness”. Then it’s metal music with satanic messaging when played backwards. Now it’s video games. Same old blame game while never tackling the actual problems of lack of psych care, real societal pressures like financial difficulties, and more.
Especially in the era before just looking shit up on the internet when you hit a snag. I remember scouring levels in that looking for a path that I’d missed when I couldn’t figure out where I was supposed to go next.
Definitely a highlight of the N64 for me. It’s up there with the Zeldas in my book.
Boomers’ children are grown ass adults with their own kids now. Those parents are the ones who grew up playing games. This dumbass narrative doesn’t play anymore
[His] opinion asserts that manipulating transient data generated during gameplay through third-party software does not infringe copyright according to the EU’s Computer Programs Directive. This distinction between protecting a game’s code and the temporary data it generates is a very significant one for all developers of game-enhancing tools.
The Advocate General also highlighted that the variable values in question are not original works of the game’s author but result from player interactions and game progression, which are unpredictable and dynamic. Since they depend on unforeseeable factors, these values lie beyond the author’s creative control.
That is an interesting distinction, the code to generate your health total is copyright but the actual health value you modify with cheats is not.
I mean, this is a pretty normal distinction afaik (human vs non-human creations; afaik non-human creations almost always have any human copyright claims voided when challenged).
Imo what makes this special is how precise he’s being. If I understand correctly, he’s basically saying that the code for the health bar is a human creation and protected by copyright, but while the code to change the health value might be human-made, the actual values are machine-made and not under copyright (there’s probably a lot of nuance I’m skipping over, but my understanding is that’s the gist of it).
I’m not explaining it properly. Imagine instead of 100 hp, there is apple bananas. That isn’t really a mathematic representation in the same way that the cheat code can change. It would be a copyrighted work of art. It wouldn’t be trivial to build an hp system to do this (in fact it would be a large undertaking), but I am not asking about practicality, just what the law would find.
No, no it wouldn’t. You’re still using math, you’re just using a different language. If apple bananas becomes apple pears after being hit by a bullet, you’ve changed the value. That is what math describes. You cannot avoid this. This is how computers work, and math is just another language to describe things. Even if every health value is a string, you still need to keep track of which string is currently in use so that you know when to kill the player. That requires math. That is what they’re talking about. It is not the in-game health indicator that is public domain, it is the actual health value in RAM that is generated and modified during gameplay.
It is better this way. Copyright is already abused to hell and back, if they expanded copyright to cover this kinda stuff then it would potentially destroy things like right-to-repair as companies could claim copyright infringement on anything that modifies their code.
Computers work with 1s and 0s. We have decided as a society that certain combinations of those equate to being copywritable. This ruling seems to be saying the result of a calculation cannot be copywritable? Wouldn’t creative tools like movie editor or photoeditor disagree? So then is the ruling actually saying these specific values used in this instance are not copywritable, changing the health to 100 for e.g., because there is no human creativity in the result of that value?
So if a programmer used an original work of art to define the state of health in the actual code, and verified the value matches the 1s and 0s that represent that work of art (thus it only ever comes down to boolean check in the logic side, and the value of the variable is never set to something simple like 0 to 100, it was using a huge amount of RAM and a very slow comparator operator.
Well, I think both are human creation, you are using the machine and the game to create something new. In that sense, a save game file could also be under the players copyright. Lets say a Minecraft world for instance.
What this is saying is that the Minecraft world would not be under copyright, but anything the player built in that world would be. So you can’t copyright the world itself, but you can copyright any human-made constructions in that world.
This is wholly preferable to the alternative options which could result in things like being able to copyright AI-generated works (applying his logic to AI, they’re basically saying you can copyright any edits to an AI-gen image, but not the image itself because that was AI-gen).
I meant minecraft world file which stores the chunks the player explored and potentially modified. And I said “could” not “must”, it depends on if hits a certain creative threshold.
If the player decides to teleport around while creating a dickbud or whatever by just the explored chunks, that could meet it.
If someone selectivly openes quests to use the open quest markers on a map in an RPG to create a dickbud, that cloud meet it as well.
The save game could tell your individual story through the game, that cloud meet the threshold as well.
Also, because the unmodified minecraft world is randomly generated, it would not be under anyones copyright.
With AI, there could also be made an argument that the selection process might make it copyrightable. Like if you take a picture of a interesting looking cloud. The clouds might be semi-random, but you selecting a specific one reaches the threshold.
A Minecraft World isn’t, not even if you draw on it with exploration as the world was generated from a random seed.
It is random, and unpredictable. You could maybe make an argument from reusing the random seed… But since the ability to turn the seed into the map isn’t something a human can replicate without Minecraft I think it also fails the test for copyright.
Nature is often random and unpredictable, but the process of selecting a interesting POV and taking a picture of it is still copyrightable.
I wouldn’t be so sure that if you discover a seed, that can be transformed using minecraft into a world with very interesting and specific properties, could not be under copyright protection.
In fact movies, pictures and books are specific numbers on a digital storage medium as well, that are transformed using a codec. That isn’t something that can be easily replicated without that codec.
I am not a copyright lawyer, but I think there are precedences where just the selection process from a stream of (semi-) random number, pictures, sound or events alone can produce copyrightable products.
Yes, and you have copyright on the photo - not the layout of the plants and trees in it, nor even the angle of the subject. Someone else can go with a camera and take their own photo without touching your copyright.
Much like with digital files, the copyright is as it is a non-random transformation of a mostly replicable media product. People don’t have a copyright on numbers, even if their 5000 trillion billion digit number happened to turn into a 1960s Disney short if you run it through the right compiler.
Yes, and you have copyright on the photo - not the layout of the plants and trees in it, nor even the angle of the subject. Someone else can go with a camera and take their own photo without touching your copyright.
A work is original if it is independently created and is sufficiently creative. Creativity in photography can be found in a variety of ways and reflect the photographer’s artistic choices like the angle and position of subject(s) in the photograph, lighting, and timing. As a copyright owner, you have the right to make, sell or otherwise distribute copies, adapt the work, and publicly display your work.
So if someone intentionally reproduces a picture, they violate copyright, IIUC.
In the case of minecraft, I think a case can be made, where the “picture” is the minecraft world, and the creativity is the selection process by the artist. The artist chooses their angle, position, lighting, etc, in this case they choose properties of the world, maybe by visiting thousands of them, using seed search machines, or other reverse engineering tools etc.
I all depends on if the artist can raise their work above just the random noise they get as an input in a creative way. I am not saying that all minecraft worlds (or save games for that matter) are subject to copyright, but since we are dealing with blurry lines of copyright, it is possible.
IANAL, but I think if I would look into case law, I would find examples for both options, in some cases the “selection process” was enough to demonstrate creativity, and in other cases it wasn’t.
You are correct it isn’t about the numbers, it is about the artistic and creative product that is copyrightable, which, in case of digital art, is represented as numbers, and distribution of those might be punished by law.
I am just saying that digital art can be more that just still or moving pictures and sound. It can be a world space the artist prepared for you where you can move around.
About the section on the law, I would read it just as stating what is covered under copyright, and not what isn’t. I also just mentioned what original work is, not describing derived work.
First, we’re talking cross duristicion, since I was using the EU ruling above.
Second, I’m wondering if what that US page means is that a non-original work doesn’t get copyright protections, or that non-original work is itself in breach of copyright? Maybe I should go digging to find out.
I agree deliberately designed digital worlds are artistic creations. Just that randomly generated ones are not.
You’re probably right that legal examples on both sure probably already exist.
The crux of the matter for me is the question wherever “the selection process” alone is enough to create art or not, and depending on my mood I fall to one side or another on that question. Not specifically if it is under copyright or not, because that sort of follows from that.
Artists often use randomness in various parts of their creation process, what is really required is the human element. Is a picture of a cloud, that speaks to the photographer in some way art or just a picture of a random cloud?
I guess this has to be decided on a case by case basis, therefore I cannot completely exclude it.
I agree with all that. The edge cases are tricky and there’s no easy answer.
A painter flicking or splashing paint on a canvas presumably makes something with copyright protection.
Does an accidentally statically impossible basically impossible to tell apart version accidentally made by someone flicking and splashing their own paint infringe it? I’d hope not but can’t really argue for a rule on it that doesn’t involve believing stated goals/mind reading.
Guess not a thing us mortals/non-legal professionals can ever answer.
This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it's protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that's the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.
This wouldn't/shouldn't apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game's programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn't protected.
This raises a rather sticky situation for the coming years. I have been seeing more and more posts about developers using GPT generated code in various projects. If a game is made and it is found that GPT was used for some parts of the core code, does the whole project lose its copyright?
I don't see how this wouldn't be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it's exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it's public domain, and now I'm creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.
As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of "computer."
He is the Russian equivalent of a baby boomer mandating with the implied threat of death that his own government pay a single shitty local satellite set-top box distributor (let’s be real, it’s likely just cheap chinese hardware) to develop and spread Russian culture through video game media in less than three months (which is probably already developed and was waiting for more money to market and enter production).
Sounds like he is very in touch, because that is one of the ways how U.S. culture is spreading throughout the world currently.
Sounds like he is very in touch, because that is one of the ways how U.S. culture is spreading throughout the world currently.
With the absolutely stonking caveat that the US government didn’t mandate that, it just happened naturally over time. Over decades and decades. Particularly helped by the US speaking English. In a lot of parts of the world English is a good second language.
But the only people who speak Russian is Russia. No one has Russian is their second language outside of a few Baltic states and even then often it’s a tertiary language, not a true second language. This is a huge limiter on their ability to spread culture.
I noticed that too, but the decline is very gradual which shows you how out of touch the shareholders are. I bet most are unaware they are on a sinking ship.
AI techbros will have you believe that you can solve world hunger, cure cancer, and colonize Mars with a few prompts on ChatGPT.
Yet their AI is still incapable of answering two prompts consecutively without making shit up, or drawing a human without turning it into an eldritch abomination.
Game preservation could be fixed with open source emulators and fixing copyright laws so that I’m allowed to download a game nobody has profited from in two decades, but that’s not appealing to big corporations.
Yeah, instead game preservation is being solved by abandonware and copyright infringement.
Legal open source software is doing the heavy lifting, and then torrenting is sharing by he files. But there is a huge risk as there is no safety net to preserve the niche and unpopular games.
The game publishers and broken copyright laws are blocks to preservation but fortunately people are just doing it anyway. And the more the big companies push against it (including targeting emulation systems for current systems) the more they push it underground and out of any control they might have had. Typical greed and stupidity.
AI techbros will have you believe that you can solve world hunger, cure cancer
And yet they don’t. Well, we already know how to solve world hunger. Just not a willingness.
Researchers are using AI as an additional tool for discovering new drugs, but the techbros and pharmabros are going to be over charging for any new cures even if they become cheaper to discover.
techdirt.com
Ważne