Comment by Epiphany21
4 years ago
>The reason why games on Switch can "just work" is that the OS provides the DRM. >Otherwise, we would see rootkits, spyware, or always-online requirements like the DRM hell that we see with Windows games.
None of this would be an issue if the companies just released the server-side tools and let people host and moderate their own instances of games. This is basically how the Fediverse works and it's great. People who want to be nasty go into their little corner and everyone else in another.
Only problem is this would mean customers actually get to own the stuff they buy. Companies would rather you be the product.
Hm, I don't know if I understand your ideal world correctly, but back in the days, when you could host your own game servers for e.g. Team Fortress or Counter Strike (all based on Half-Life the original and basically free with every "legitimate" Half-Life license), it was nice and dandy for only a very short time.
Soon you would only want to play on closed/invite-only servers, since the guys that "wanted to be nasty" didn't go into their own little corners, but were glad to spoil it for everyone else. And even then the cheaters invested a lot of time and effort to sneak into closed circles to ... I don't know, simply cheat?
Guys just randomly using your key (at a point were Half-Life was really cheap and easy to come by) were also a constant annoyance.
So Valve had to do something, and this was the Steam client, cheat detection, and a constant cat and mouse game to save the experience for players and assets/investments for the developers and in effect their "platform".
Never underestimate the desire of idiots to ruin it for everyone else.
If people want to cheat the game companies should respond to market demands by officially supporting modding on personal instances.
Minecraft is an example of this sort of system done right. It was so successful Microsoft had to own it.
I unfortunately can't see this working in every scenario. For a Switch it seems like a workable solution as the owner's motivation is the only controlling factor in whether or not the device stays on the secure side or the anything-goes side. (If there are loss-leading/cost changes to the hardware that is a discussion that can be addressed separately.)
For a device like a phone the owner's motivations can become muted, such as by a service provider functionality requirements or an employer's desires. This is similarly where the problem comes about in the discussion about side-loading.
We already know that there are many developers who wish to live on the 'nasty' side, but there is also a laziness motivation in using that side as well, it's less work for the developer.
This then becomes the ever-widening hole where consumers get brought onto the 'nasty' side blindly because that's where the market is - at the same time exposing the users to all of the 'nasty' stuff that technology was originally there to protect them from.
I guess you're mostly talking about multiplayer games. I was talking mostly about single player games. But also, I don't quite get how a publisher could recoup $200 mio in spending on 3D assets with your "free for everyone" model.
>I don't quite get how a publisher could recoup $200 mio in spending on 3D assets with your "free for everyone" model.
It's not "free for everyone". It's "free to use the software you bought and paid for in any way you see fit". I call this new concept "ownership".
Cursing at me and telling me to give into defeat are really good ways to get me to ignore anything good you might have to say.
[flagged]
1 reply →