First problem was I couldn’t buy it. My bank refused to let me buy it. I had to go in, say yes that is my attempt, then they preapproved a third attempt. I did tell them to block it after that though, so no microtransactions.
Second, wow classes were like locked to a single sex which is weird. But oh well.
Then very very grindy.
But! Heeey absolutely beautiful even on my old shit computer. Loved that. Also loved exploring!
back when I played Roblox as a kid it was a small, windows only Lego game. at a certain point the games on the platform because much higher quality (around 2015), and it was great for me as a broke kid who couldn’t afford a better PC or “real” games.
which is why I didn’t say anything when my little brother was asking my parents if he could play it. now I really wish I had because the entire platform is a cesspool of consumerism, gambling, and predators
Interesting. I remember taking a look at the previous game from a couple of years ago because, in spite of myself, edgelord dark fantasy is still appealing to me if it’s done knowingly (which is different, I’ll hasten to add, from not taking it seriously). However, one glance at the screenshots told me it was a deck-building game and I immediately disregarded it. It’s just not a mechanic or loop that I enjoy.
However, given that this appears to be to Skyrim what, say, The Outer Worlds is to Starfield (narrative tone notwithstanding), my interest is piqued.
I am having a great time. It’s janky, but fun. It is EXTREMELY nostalgic for early Skyrim in terms of its leveling mechanics, character development, sense of humor, and jank. Just swap the tone from Nordic to early Irish dark fantasy.
Could be that I’m a product of a country which produced Kevin Costner as Robin Hood, and therefore don’t have the best grip on the culture cross the pond, but I feel like suggesting “Arthurian”=“Irish” might get you in trouble in certain pubs.
Yeah I mean you are probably right. In my defense, though, without having spoilers, the game is emphatically NOT pro King Arthur and the main likeable factions are the ones I would describe as Irish
Aside from my concerns about the kind of shit libertarians think counts as free speech, how the hell would Microsoft implement a ban on a Minecraft server that Microsoft doesn’t host?
Like I assume it’s just connecting to the server by hostname or IP. What are they gonna do, hardcode the server’s known IPs and hostnames and prevent connections??
how the hell would Microsoft implement a ban on a Minecraft server that Microsoft doesn’t host?
if a minecraft server wants to enforce verification of the game license, the server needs to be in contact with the authentication servers of microsoft. the server operator can turn this off, but then moderation becomes much harder, as usernane based banning becomes useless, and the paywall from ban evasion disappears.
other than that, in recent years there’s something with chat message verification that I think involves sending some of the messages to microsoft? I don’t remember exactly
but also the minecraft client could have a built in blacklist of servers. I don’t know if it has but it’s not much work.
a ban from the authentication server is probably easier though.
The chat message verification is the Chat Reporting system, which can be required on servers. That’s a whole rabbit hole to go down. TL;DR you can get banned from Minecraft if your messages get reported. (Use the NoChatReports mod like everyone does)
If it’s one of the oldest ones, I assume it’s for Java, which means it’s entirely run by the server operator and not one of those shitty 3rd party hosted servers you can rent out from within Bedrock.
I don’t remember ever seeing anything about how you need to run a server of your own in compliance with Mojang’s rules in the EULA or TOS.
If you want to say what you want, go ahead. Nobody is required to host that speech or allow that speech to be hosted on their platform or software.
MS is attacking free speech here in the same way that a moderator attacks free speech blocking a Lemmy server. Nobody’s saying you can’t use a modded client to connect to their server if they self-host it, but they’re defederating on the main client because they want no association with it.
Minecraft servers are a unique case because they are hosted by the owners. Microsoft/Mojang does not host online servers; they just host the authentication server that the client pings to check the connecting account UUID (and pull the skin file). The whole way Mojang “bans” servers is by marking certain IPs to always be told the connecting account is invalid. Either way, server costs are paid by the owner. I recommend you look into Minecraft specifically because the model has its quirks.
Personally I agree with the MC servers here purely because of that fact. Also, Mojang/Microsoft should be seen as an enemy of the common people for many reasons - including their Copilot AI. If the Chat Reports feature (where purchased accounts are neutered because of automated chat reports) isn’t reason enough to dislike Microsoft, consider the following: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I recommend you look into Minecraft specifically because the model has its quirks.
I’m familiar. The first server I hosted was an alpha hmod server for some friends, and I’ve played a lot since then.
What MS is doing doesn’t prevent anyone from connecting to a server. It only puts a wall in the way, saying essentially to both the host and the players that this server violates MS’s terms for hosting, but not preventing them from doing so. Server owners can bypass this restriction in a few minutes with a single restart (assuming they aren’t using a modded server that can apply the change at runtime).
This isn’t unique to Minecraft. Games have supported custom servers for as long as I’ve been alive, and more recently as software became more and more internet-connected, restrictions on those servers have also been enforced. Being self-hosted or a custom lobby on a game doesn’t change this - the server software is still owned by MS and licensed to the users.
If anything, that it is so easy to bypass this shows that it’s nothing more than signaling. I would be much more concerned if the solution weren’t simply to change online mode to false. Sure moderation is another story, but there are alternative solutions, like IP banning.
Also, Mojang/Microsoft should be seen as an enemy of the common people for many reasons - including their Copilot AI. If the Chat Reports feature (where purchased accounts are neutered because of automated chat reports) isn’t reason enough to dislike Microsoft, consider the following: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
There are many, many reasons to dislike Microsoft. They have made many terrible decisions in the past, ethically speaking. This does not implicitly mean that every decision they make is bad or harmful. It only raises the question of intent behind decisions, and here the intent seems clear to me: they do not want their brand associated with the kind of speech allowed on that server.
Microsoft can revoke service for any reason, so it’s legal. Yes, this is exactly how it is done internally. The only way to bypass Mojang’s blocking is to run a “Cracked” server, where accounts are never checked, but in that system anyone can log on as any name.
What I’m saying is that it sounds like lying. If you say “Hey, is KelvarCherry legit?” And they say “no” they’re lying, but if they say “you’re not allowed to verify users” that seems fine.
bin.pol.social
Gorące