151–160 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These days I generally pirate the single-player content I purchase anyway. Anything that requires Origin, Epic, uPlay, or any other cancerous software to be installed gets paid for and promptly pirated. I trust the Pirate Bay more than I trust Ubisoft.
Dont you worry about Malware, Viruses and suchlike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s because you never actually bought the item. You got a license to run it on someone else’s server. Don't mean to sound too cranky but this "you just bought a license" crap has been a thing since software began being software. It was no more fair back then than it is now. No one is arguing, at least I don't think they are, that a company has an obligation to keep servers running in perpetuity. But to tell me I…
There is nothing unfair about licensing. I contribute to FOSS software, I expect that an individual or company abide by the terms of the license I grant them and that license is terminated if they fail to meet various conditions. That seems fair to me, it wouldn't become unfair if a payment was required either. But I think you have got it right with the rest of your comments. There has to be a meeting of the minds in…
(AGPL is a little different, but that's an issue for another discussion.)
I’m not getting that sh*t again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t feel any guilt about pirating the content I bought on any of those services if my account was taken from me for inactivity. I’d be interested to hear the argument about why that would be wrong though.
Because laws are not about justice. If you get something stolen you need to go to a judge to get a sentence that gives it back to you. You cannot take justice on your hands and expect to not be punished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
address signing. if you give someone your address in order to access the game, they are also accessing all of your digital items and can transfer them to their own address. this is risky enough for the user that they won't do that, or learn not to. there won't be a customer support to help them, you can try to build that kind of customer support if you want though. the system would check your signature and/or check f…
So the game would check against a blockchain that the signature is valid every time you want to play? What prevents you from just keeping a snapshot of the blockchain at a point when you owned it?
the client and the server would be checking nearest nodes for the latest block height. so any mismatch would prevent the user from keeping a snapshot of an old blockchain state as the max height would be too different.
it is also easy to disconnect a user if the assets moved when reading the current blockheight. many web3 applications just keep a websocket open to several nodes, this is boilerplate code at this point. reading from a blockchain is free. many services already check for onchain tokens to enable or disable access, for several years now. you can try gaming them to trick for access and see if you find anything.
People won't like this, but we at Ultra.io are trying to tackle this exact problem by deploying certificates of ownership to a decentralized ledger as proof of your owning a game. AKA, we want to mint NFTs for each game sold, which allows a user to prove they own it. People hate those words, but we think that the tech has real value and a use-case in the market for solving inequity between publishers and users. This…
But my receipt proves that i own it . It's just that publishers don't care .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the NFT scenario , what would prevent people from sharing licenses?
address signing. if you give someone your address in order to access the game, they are also accessing all of your digital items and can transfer them to their own address. this is risky enough for the user that they won't do that, or learn not to. there won't be a customer support to help them, you can try to build that kind of customer support if you want though. the system would check your signature and/or check f…
It becomes a long serial number that anyone who knows can transfer to another account.
But it wouldn't make sense to pay to transfer it over ($60-$300 gas fees) on an under $60 game.
I can see some real issues with your approach.
NFTs can't be used for products under a few hundred if you want to leverage the value as insurance.
This is why we need blockchain-based smart contracts and NFTs to enforce digital ownership rights. The political system is far too unreliable and corruptible to depend on for robust private property rights. If the nation-states can just maintain a free and open internet, decentralized opt-in protocols can do the rest.
You know what NFTs are REALLY gonna be used for in the gaming space? Digital property ownership of in-game assets that remit value back to the publisher whenever these fake goods get traded.
People are pretending that all these good things are gonna come out of smart contracts and tokens, when the reality is that the most useful thing to come out of them is going to be rent-seeking by digital creators.
Ubisoft isn't going to throw your ownership of a video game on the blockchain, and even if they did, their license and their service governs whether you have access to the game, not a token.
This article is a great example of why we need legislation around ownership of digital items. I generally hate getting the government involved in things, but if you're paying money for goods, there needs to be a way to be credited or receive your digital goods in a way that still works without your "account". Personally I always get kind of nervous around buying things on PSN, Xbox, Stadia, Steam, Oculus, etc. If the…
Reminds me of some friends who had Bitcoin and “forgot” about it and only to come back with massive profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
address signing. if you give someone your address in order to access the game, they are also accessing all of your digital items and can transfer them to their own address. this is risky enough for the user that they won't do that, or learn not to. there won't be a customer support to help them, you can try to build that kind of customer support if you want though. the system would check your signature and/or check f…
Seems like a group of like minded individuals could easily form an identity that only had access to things they absolutely intended to share between them. This is already an issue with streaming services. With online accounts you could prevent said identity from connecting to multiple online games at once but this is notably worse than old school physical games where you could have 3 games at 3 different friends hous…
A unique mitigation could be to raise the barrier of sharing, like not only could you check for NFT ownership, you could look for a purchase transaction on an NFT marketplace. So now the friends would need capital to wash trade that, and they'd have to beat the bots looking for low value bids, and they would have to unnecessarily pay for transaction fees.
Not advocating for that, but oh well the idea is out there now.