this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
5 points (85.7% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2646 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't buy games with invasive user-side anti-cheats that hamper performance, and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people. If everyone gave a shit, we could end this. But instead, people would rather just complain while still forking over the money to these companies.
There are so many good indie games without this kind of bullshit. We have better choices.
Is "get rid of all anti-cheat" a popular position outside of Lemmy? I don't really play these sorts of games but was under the impression that most competitive multiplayer would be unplayable without anti-cheat measures.
It is perfectly possible to run anti-cheat that are roughly as good (or as bad, as it often turns out) without full admin privilege and running as kernel-level drivers. Coupled with server-side validation, which seems to be a dying breed, you'd also weed out a ton of cheaters while missing the most motivated of them.
As someone who lurks around in different communities (to some extent; Steam forums, reddit, lemmy, mastodon, and a few game-centered discord servers), the issue is not much against anti-cheat for online play. It's the nature of these piece of software that is the issue. It would not be the same if the anti-cheat was also forced on solo gameplay, but it is not the case here.
(bonus points for systems that allow playing on non-protected servers, but that's asking a bit too much from some publishers I suppose)
It's not even popular on Lemmy. People are fine with the anti-cheat. They draw the line at enforced third-party accounts, though, which is commendable.
Anti-cheat measures should be baked into the server side. 99 percent of the multiplayer cheating problem is not adhering to the golden rule of server security: Never Trust the Client
There are plenty of anti-cheat measure that doesn't require invasive access to your system or performance hits. The objection is not to fighting cheating, it is with the specific overreaching methodology chosen to do so.
Also I personally rarely play multiplayer so it's even more frustrating to have bullshit installed on my system for a feature that doesn't even apply to me.
It didn't have "invasive user side anti-cheat" on day one you doughnut
That's why Linux users bought it. This was added YEARS after release
Where did I even remotely imply otherwise?
"Don't buy games with invasive user-side anti-cheats that hamper performance, and demand refunds on any game..."
1st point: AC Wasn't there at purchase
2nd point: AC was added decades later so how can one return the game?
This, which is in my original fucking message, applies here. If you think the effort is futile, fine, whatever, don't try. But my statement was made with full understanding of the timeline, and I stand by it. Feel free to read the rest of the comments in the thread for further discussion of the timeline, or feel free to fuck off, I guess; I'm not in the mood to indulge a pedant clearly just looking for an argument.
No it doesn't, at least not everwhere.
If you wanna be an idoitic asshat, and get all pissy because someone points out a flaw in your argument, thats not my problem.
I legitimately avoided rockstar for years because they force you to use their store even when you buy on steam. I still haven't played rdr2, despite critical acclaim. I finally caved and got GTAV on sale cause I realised none of this shit works. Consumers using purchasing power to enforce standards is a losing battle. The storefronts or legislators need to enforce this shit. I think it should be valve. They have the market position and userbase to actually succeed or at the very least convince publishers to not break shit that was already working fine.
They implemented this 10 years after the game's release. It's harder to vote with your wallet at that point.
The way I see it, adding it, even this late, is changing the terms of the agreement and thus justification for a refund. Steam will often see it that way too if you word it as such. And if not, hell, you can still badger the publisher for a refund incessantly so at least it still costs them the equivalent in man hours even if you don't get the refund. The point is not to be passive, even if we don't get to win every single battle.
Companies like Rockstar certainly would meet any requests for refunds outside of very recently purchased with "Go kick rocks.". For sure they changed the rules/ experience after the fact, but you can bet it's covered in the small print of the EULA. Even if they received (and denied) 100,000 requests, they would care a bit unless they saw a significant slump in their overall sales. Sadly, a lot of their customers will be pissed about this but will be first in line buying other Rockstar games.
I won't be buying other Rockstar games if they do this with other Rockstar games, since it means I won't be able to play them since I use Linux and they don't want to use the checkmark to enable BattlEye on Linux/Proton.
Depends on your country/jurisdiction. Consumer protection is weak in the USA, but much stronger in some other countries. It'd depend on how much it changes the experience. For example, if you buy a product because it advertises a particular feature, but then the manufacturer removes the feature in the future, that can be a reason to get a refund, at least in Australia and some European countries.
Then they aren't pissed enough. But yes, talking the talk is completely meaningless if you don't also walk the walk, I agree.
If you let them, sure. The reason we use phrases like "fight for a refund" is because these things are hard and they take effort. Like yes it sucks to have to do that and yes I understand our time is valuable, but as I see it there is value in both having your voice heard and punitively costing an offending company manhours in having to deal with you - even if you ultimately do not win the fight.
Again, the point isn't about winning or getting your money back, it's about not being passive and just accepting the things that happen to you as if you do not have autonomy.
What rights?
You're buying a license to play a game. Rockstar is not obligated to ensure it's available to you indefinitely.
"What!? You don't like the erosion of ownership rights? You're an asshole!" - you.
They're trying to argue that an EULA isn't binding because they can't sign away their rights, and thats legally incorrect in this case.
Recognizing reality is different than endorsing it.
Nuance is the friend of truth. Some parts of EULAs may not be binding if they cross a line, dependent on what country's laws apply and how the judge happens to rule in court.
Right, I bought that shit in 2014 I think. Haven't played it in several years.
Probably testing it for gta6.
And that's the one we can refuse to buy.
But let's be honest - people won't. They'll buy it in record numbers - just not on Linux.