351–360 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I play online games every day, manage an EVE Online corp and general gaming community, so... maybe I just don't agree with you?
I meant skill based multiplayer obviously. Otherwise the controller story makes no sense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, maybe I'm biased here as a PC gamer who frequently uses a controller... but why not just allow both? Some games like Gears of War on Xbox already do this. Others, like Fortnite, offer crossplay and just show a symbol over each player's head. Do mouse and keyboard players have an advantage? Sure. So do players with bigger TVs or Series X graphics or less worn controllers or the Elite controller. Big deal? The PC e…
"Why purposefully handicap your player base instead of letting them use whatever they want?" Failing to do so creates a pay-to-win situation. Now, you might be thinking, companies obviously have no problem with a pay-to-win situation. But you see, there is a critical difference; the companies want you to pay them to win. Paying a third-party, unapproved, unlicensed hardware manufacturer results in $0 dollars going to…
Your pay to win argument would hold more water if the superior input method wasn't also available for less money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regularly when doing anything that touches online. And even stuff that doesn't touch "online", these days, normally involves trophies that you can cheat your way to getting.
Who cares about trophies enough to ban grey market controllers?
I'll agree that if it was ONLY trophies? Sure you might have an argument... but this obviously isn't only about that one thing.
Let me ask this... if trophies are low key "no one cares" (and that's not the case... plenty of people go out of their way to "100%" games and care about those stupid trophies) then what's the solution to allow "bootleg" controllers for only those people? how many people fall into that category? 25%? 15%? 5? 1? That's a low % of people to support a fragmented market - which is what MS would have to do - support a more fragmented market.
I think it's just too simplistic to say "M$ Evil and only wants money and I play online so I'm the only one that matters".
Supporting "grey market" means a more complicated product to support and that complication isn't going to be worth it for such a small subset of players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and a cartel isn't made to have a level playing field fighting cheaters. Cartels are made to make money. you want to cut the Law and Order angle then you need to also cut the "cartel" angle. Fact is that if XBox doesn't take steps then their platform becomes less valuable meaning less people want to play there. "it's only about money" is a short sighted and overly simplistic answer just like "M$ is a cartel".
Microsoft's only motivation for anything is the maximisation of shareholder value. There are things we in society don't allow corporations to do in their pursuit of profit. We codify those things in law. This thing they want to do is one of them.
And saying it's illegal is a bit too strong as well. Maybe in the EU but even then? The EU just made a decade of things obsolete when forcing Apple to switch to USB-C so saying "companies can't do that because illegal" obviously isn't true.
And what is illegal in EU is legal in America or vice versa... or brazil... or China... so saying "society doesn't allow" is too simplistic on that level as well.
In America it's illegal to break DRM. Companies like Apple and Nintendo do stuff so that you can't run custom code or use unauthorized attachments/parts/etc. if you break the DRM you can get sued as a company that provides that service.
And you haven't address the fact that MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, etc all have to have stable trustworthy platforms for gaming - that goes beyond "they only want money"- sure, they want money but part of getting that is having platforms people want to use. That they trust. That makes cheating harder and provides a level playing field.
Take a step back and realize that "greedy" companies aren't as simplistic as you want to make them out to be and even if they are "greedy"? They do have valid reasons to do shit like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Valve gets way too much credit. They haven't abused their market position as much as they could have but they did normalize always-online DRM schemes. CS2 skin trading is also a hive of illegal/underage gambling and scams. If you want to valorize a digital games retailers, I would suggest GOG is a better candidate.
>I would suggest GOG is a better candidate. I love the idea of GOG, and I ADORE that they're making old games available (GOG peeps, if you're reading this, civ 2 please!), but if I were a PC gamer I'd buy through steam just for proton compatibility on linux. It's that good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PC gaming is loaded with tons of cheaters despite rootkit level anticheat systems. Having locked down hardware ecosystems reduces the rate of cheating, I've had far fewer times of running into cheaters on console games than on PC games.
How is blocking controllers anywhere close to rootkits? How is blocking controllers going to prevent hardware modifications to official controllers?
Blocking controllers isn't a rootkit, I agree. But acting like PC gaming has somehow solved cheating without needing restrictions on input devices and the like is disingenuous.
Blocking controllers makes the cost to have a hacked controller higher. It takes more effort to make a useful hacked controller, they have to source already built controllers and tear them apart, etc. Higher costs means it will be less likely to have people using hacked controllers. If you make the ownership of hacked controllers lower, you reduce the rate of cheating on the platform.
Using cheats on a lot of PC games can be free. If there was some magic that made the cost to install a cheat at least $100 do you think the rate of cheating will be lower, higher, or the same?
The goal isn't to eliminate all cheating, that's impossible. The goal is to reduce the rate of cheating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search all the *.h files in the Xbox and Windows SDK's for that hResult. AKA "Partying like it's 1999"
All of the header errors are documented in multiple languages on MSDN, I only start searching header files when I'm desperate. Microsoft doesn't document all of their errors, annoyingly, but at least the HRESULT structure gives some kind of indication of the source.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=100...
There's a web version I am aware of as well, but I think you have to work for MS to get access to it. I would speculate there's extra stuff in that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why purposefully handicap your player base instead of letting them use whatever they want?" Failing to do so creates a pay-to-win situation. Now, you might be thinking, companies obviously have no problem with a pay-to-win situation. But you see, there is a critical difference; the companies want you to pay them to win. Paying a third-party, unapproved, unlicensed hardware manufacturer results in $0 dollars going to…
A basic wireless keyboard and mouse can be purchased for as little as $20. An Xbox controller is closer to $50. Your pay to win argument would hold more water if the superior input method wasn't also available for less money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft's only motivation for anything is the maximisation of shareholder value. There are things we in society don't allow corporations to do in their pursuit of profit. We codify those things in law. This thing they want to do is one of them.
"only" is a strong word and obviously not true. Mainly? Sure... but only? a company with thousands of employees "only" wants one thing? And saying it's illegal is a bit too strong as well. Maybe in the EU but even then? The EU just made a decade of things obsolete when forcing Apple to switch to USB-C so saying "companies can't do that because illegal" obviously isn't true. And what is illegal in EU is legal in Ameri…
Microsoft is an organisation focused on maximisation of shareholder value. Literally anything they do contrary to that gets them sued for securities fraud. Any employee who morally objects to any action taken by the company can suck it up, resign or commit sabotage for which they will be fired if found out.
Microsoft management have to be ready to defend any and every action as being at the very least not detrimental to shareholder value in court.