Hacker News Reader

Comment by TylerE | Hacker News Reader

This is not surprising. The movement has been all about gamer vibes and not technical reality from day one. It should have been rejected, and I'm glad it was.

View on HN

Not sure about the technical reality here - until 2010s, singleplayer games didn't require an Internet connection, and for multiplayer ones you could download a dedicated server application, host it yourself. Only recently it became locked down for the corporate profit; the only party making it hard are the game developers themselves.

Because telemetry and advertising revenues did not plague the online landscape during those times. It has all been standardized since: "click OK to share data with our 13,285 partners", "always-online needed to prove your identity", "we need to force an upgrade of your software so we can ensure you get what's best for you, when we decide" ..oh and all of that after a 159 page legally binding and enforceable agreement that you can't negotiate or reject.

Are you sure we don't need all of this? Seems like we'd be going back to the dark ages of information technology if we did.. (/s)

Half-Life 2, released back in 2004, required an Internet connection to play. It was a major point of contention, in part due to how unreliable Steam was at the time

What does telling your customers you plan to make a game unplayable if it doesn’t perform exactly as you expect financially have to do with technical reality, pray tell?

(Not parent) It doesn't. It's just uninformed or bad faith commenting, astroturfing, and arm chair developers who've never written a line of code for a game in their lives. Always has been.

(Or maybe Jason Hall is going by "Tyler" now. XD )

What SKG is asking for is not only technical reality but easy to do if you plan for it from the start.

Please actually read the proposed initiative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com