Ok so your in favor of suing individual people who cheat in a multiplayer game. It's quite funny how your in favor with Epic on this when you don't hear a lot of other game companies that do the same, suing people over this kinda bullshit...
I'm defending this cheater because I see it as bullshit to sue people, your making it more reliable for companies to become sue happy towards other gamers, both single player and multiplayer games, and I who cheat in single player games for the sheer enjoyment of it (infinite ammo on a destructive physic engine game like red faction guerrilla, hell yeah). I don't want to get sue for having fun in single player games.
I recommand a better and stronger defense, people use easyanticheat on certain games like ghost recon Wildlands and 7 days to die, and possibly more games that actually use easyanticheat program to prevent cheating.
I hope Epic loses this fight...
- Putting the debatable efficacy of this method aside (it's not feasible to bring every cheater to court, so it's mostly a bluff, though a strong one), litigation is not especially more anti-consumer than mandatory installations of difficult to remove, completely invasive systems monitoring third party software. That's what anti-cheating software generally are. Some of these are even known to keylog.
- What's the incentive (financial or otherwise) to sue players cheating in single player games? Why actually would anyone ever do that? Ever?
- The presence of cheating in any multiplayer game makes it unplayable, or seem unplayable (which has the same result since populations inevitably disappear). That's actively anti-consumer; it's preventing consumption of those games. Why would you defend any party actively impinging on consumer rights if your position is to defend consumer rights? That's a direct self-contradiction.
Again, I don't know that litigation is the solution. But cheating in a multiplayer game in itself is simply indefensible.
(Edit: I see QDP2 had many of the same thoughts I did. Apologies for being a bit redundant.)
I was confused by Ananym's comment at first--I actually thought it might be in reply to a moderated comment or some such. I just couldn't figure out who was being "namecalled".
It seems some people are taking offense to "Nazism is once again on the rise, hiding under the guise of the ‘Alt-Right’", as far as I can tell? Which is odd given that the term alt-right was literally coined by Richard Spencer, an individual that actively promotes "peaceful" ethnic cleansing and white "identitarianism". I mean, if even Breitbart calls him "center of alt-right thought"...
I'm not arguing anything, I'm just stating these moves are what killed any chance the games above had. Overwatch is a much better package than both BattleBorn and LawBreakers. More charming? absolutely, better gameplay and more enjoyable modes? you betcha'. I just dont understand why they constantly employ this tactic to the point of delaying updates by a few days, like the Doomfist update. Updates roll out on what, a tuesday? and they pushed it to a thursday as that was LawBreakers open beta. I just dont understand this obviously deliberate move if they are so confident in their product (which they should be). Overwatch is allowed, and should have, competition, but they flat out kill any that oppose it. That's how it seems to me, maybe I'm waffling a little, and I've nothing against Blizzard, but I do dislike Activision.
I would respectfully submit that, yes, this is a bit of waffling, because the underlying premise is that this practice is unfair--that having a more successful product is inherently unfair.
For a hyperbolic example, that's rather like saying it's unfair for Michael Phelps to show up at the Olympics because he's too good.
If an _update_ to a game that was released a full year ago can kill off an entirely new game with a headline designer, that doesn't really seem to be a matter of fairness.
Not taking any sides here, but I'm confused by this logic. You're arguing that Blizzard killed off these other games by promoting their own game during the launches for the other two, correct? But that's just an argument that Blizzard killed them off by making a product that is inherently more appealing when placed directly in competition to those games, no?
That is, you're essentially saying Overwatch is somehow intrinsically irresistible so it's unfair to have to compete with it, unless I'm completely missing something in your argument.
My apologies if that comes off as confrontational, I'm just genuinely puzzled.
No way! Thanks for the translation. I was wondering what was actually being said.
Oh nice! It threw me because it said "requires the base game to play" on Steam. Have updated now, thanks!
This is a response to rising sales taxes on _all_ digital distributors, right? It shouldn't impact Steam any more than it impacts all other digital distributors in those jurisdictions. Essentially, should still be status quo as far as market dominance goes.
Probably, though there's always the element of the consumer saying 'sure, I live in this low-tax region'.
I recall with 3ds, it allowed me to pick from a list of regions with the tax rate stated beside each XD
Steam is a bit trickier to dupe than that I believe.