Hacker News Reader

Comment by oliwarner | Hacker News Reader

It's copy protection.

You can't run a hacked server that ignores license state or hacking bans if you have no access to the server software. They disguise it under a claim of convenience, a feature that you match against similar-experience players, but you're right, it's ultimately an antifeature.

Gamers put up with a lot of crap, between exploited ring0 DRM, platform exclusives, the loss of consumer rights (like refunds and resale) and crappy ports from consoles. I don't understand how they get away with it. I might just be old, but I've changed my entire purchasing game strategy to ignore games that fall foul of these things.

View on HN

That, and planned-obselescence.

I'm sure that EA would love to kill Battlefield 4. But it will never die, because players can run and moderate dedicated servers.

Battlefield 1 (newer than 4), on the other hand, died years ago. Battlefield 5 is practically the same game, arguably worse, yet was able to steal most of 1's player base because support (and moderation) were effectively dropped by EA during the release of 5.

Anti-cheat is the newest (and deadliest) iteration of this pattern. CoD Warzone is free to play, so long as you run it on Windows, and not in a VM.

Worst of all, this means the burden of moderation has been moved to anti-cheat itself, even though any experienced forum moderator can tell you that moderation itself is based on social interaction, not technical behavior.

While I'm sure both copy protection and planned obsolescence are considerations, I think most of us neglect the bigger elephant in the room:

Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore.

Times change, gamers might have been tinkerers and hobbyists who accepted needing to mess with their software and perhaps even hardware (memory address allocations, anyone?!), but that was 30 to 40 years ago. We're in the 21st century now, more than 1/5th of the way to the 22nd, and gaming has become mainstream.

Gamers today just want to play games, messing with the computer (what's a computer?) is above their pay grade. Games today route multiplayer through their own matchmaking servers because Player-2-Player matchmaking /fucking sucks/, it's janky under ideal circumstances let alone normal. Gamers today don't want to deal with network shenanigans, they just want to play; so devs and publishers oblige by handling more things on their end simplifying the experience.

Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore.

The gamers of 30 to 40 years ago have moved on to messing with "home labs" and Raspberry Pis and 3D printing and shitposting on HN.

You say that but for games that allow self-hosting there is a rich tinkerer community. Look at Minecraft for example.

Tinkering gamers aren't the audience anymore.

More importantly, their audience isn't the audience anymore.

After all, it was never a hugely significant number of tinkerers that were important, it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them.

That just isn't the business model anymore.

> it was the audience each tinkerer brought with them.

Could it be that said audience depended on the tinkerers to help with settings things up, but since games "just work" now, the middleman has been cut?

> Tinkering gamers aren't the audience anymore.

With gaming becoming popular I'd say tinkering gamers are the same number as before, just not the same proportion of the overall gamers pool.

I think tinkerable games causes tinkerers.

I'm not sure that's true. The games that allow or encourage tinkering have pretty decent modding communities. What were we doing 30 years ago that we aren't today? The only mainstream thing I can think of are devices like Game Genie.

Completely with you on matchmaking. The pathetic limits on these things. You've not lived until you've had a dozen friends all try to climb in/on a drop ship in Tribes 2 in a 64v64 match. That was worth carting a CRT to a lan gaming convention alone. But I don't believe players prefer this, they just don't have a choice. I much prefer the old server-list model.

The only online game I play right now is DayZ which has mostly player-hosted servers and most of those have mods.

>What were we doing 30 years ago that we aren't today?

Messing with computers.

PC gaming today is as simple as going out to Best Buy or Costco, buying a "gaming" desktop, come home, unbox it, plug everything in, initialize (note: not install) Windows, install Steam, and Bob's your uncle.

Most of us hailing from the 20th century learned how computers worked because we kind of had to to run the games we wanted to play. Memory address allocations, DLL hell, driver hell, registry tricks, picking out parts and putting it all together; all stuff gamers today simply don't have to deal with. Windows Update will even figure out most if not all the drivers for you.

And before anyone says it: Yes yes, I know buying a "gaming" desktop from Best Buy or Costco isn't ideal. But guess what? We are outdated oldtimers. We definitely know how to get the best stuff, but gamers simply don't need the best anymore. Computers have become household appliances, not tinkerers' toys to be handled by wizards. So what if that desktop from Best Buy craps out? They just go and buy another one like you would buy another Playstation and Bob's your uncle.

Gamers aren't tinkerers anymore, most people don't mess with computers anymore.

If we only allow "tinkering" to mean fixing things that should work, sure: Stuff works better today. But I include hardware tuning and software modding in that too, and both are vastly more powerful and present than they were in the 90s.

My experience ~30 years ago involves a 386, big-box computer, Window 3.1 pre-installed. My options for tinkering (outside the battle for HIMEM) were pressing a turbo button and hex-editing File Manager to File Mangler. There was no hardware modding scene at that level, just a choice of massively expensive storage and RAM. I'm sure there was more that you could describe as maintenance but I don't consider myself any less of a hacker because I don't have to run "hdsit" before I shut down.

Did I do more stuff? Sure. I didn't have a huge number of games so writing your own, playing with tools was pretty much your only option, and I would agree with a characterisation that people fiddle with computers less because they have less contact time with an actual desktop environment outside of the browser. We are spoilt for choice.

But PC gamers still tinker. The have hardware options unimaginable in the 90s and the scale of game modding scenes for things like The Witcher 3, GTA5, Fallout 4, Skyrim, Minecraft, Souls and Rimworld eclipse those efforts in the 90s, many times over. Shader beautifiers weren't even possible. Is it niche? Probably, but PC gaming has always been niche.

> Battlefield 1 (newer than 4), on the other hand, died years ago

Hm? Not quite, there's a solid player base still playing.

It was even on a sale on Steam a couple of months ago which brought in a lot of new players

It's probably healed a fair bit since I last tried, but when 5 came out, it was rough.

That used to be the case, now it's asset protection because the only way people will pay for skins, hats, virtual shoes, and pink guns is if you can't load arbitrary assets.

If a server says: load whatever skin you want... well, why would you pay for it?

This is also why modding got killed off, you can't sell people stuff if someone else will make better assets for free and just puts them up for download. Even if integrity or security was a big issue, that's been solved since quake 3 and ut99 with integrity checks and server-side load controls (ironically, the same ones that are now used in locked-down games to make selling different coloured virtual shirts a thing).

Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them. The top examples are EA and Blizzard. I'm unsure whether to attribute it to simple addiction, misplaced brand loyalty, or something else. With regard to the DRM and anti-cheats that ironically make your system even less secure, a lot of gamers are so scared of cheaters that they'll put up with anything.

> Gamers are a "special" target market that regularly purchases products from companies with contempt for them.

How does that make gamers special - aren't most mainstream products optimized for profit at the expense of quality?

> It's copy protection.

This is always the official explanation.

It is just pure greed.

instead of shitty, addictive and expensive trash i play chess

Reply on news.ycombinator.com