Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 876 posts

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#551

Post by raydev »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #295
cortesoft wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These things do not prevent cheating at all. I feel like this is the same as saying "seatbelts don't prevent car accident deaths at all", just because people still die in car accidents while wearing seat belts. Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it doesn't provide value. There is a LOT less cheating in games with good anti-cheat, and it is much more pleasant to play those games because of it.…

I don't think that analogy holds because the environment isn't actively in an arms race against seatbelts. The qualifier "good" for "good anti-cheat" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What was once good enough is now laughably inadequate. We have followed that thread to its logical conclusion with the introduction of kernel-level anti-cheat. That has proven to be insufficient, unsurprisingly, and, given enough time, t…

No. The same way piracy has been diminished in the mainstream by years of lawsuits and jailtime against the loudest most available sources, the strongest anti-cheats have suppressed the easiest and cheapest paths to cheating on AAA games. Piracy hasn't gone away, but the number of people doing it peaked last decade.

Anti-cheat makers doesn't need to eliminate cheating completely, they just need to capture enough cheating (and ban unpredictably) that average people are mostly discouraged. As long as cheat-creators have to scurry around in secrecy and guard their implementations until the implementation is caught, the "good" cheats will never be a commodity on mainstream well-funded games with good anti-cheat.

Cheat-creators have to do the hard hacking and put their livelihoods on the line, they make kids pay up for that.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#552

Post by raydev »

nialv7 wrote: post #213
viraptor wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes cheating harder and the timeline to a cheat product gets longer than the iteration speed of anticheat. Kind of like fancy locks don't prevent break ins, just take longer to pick and require more specialised tools.

As they say, locks only stop honest people.

The honest people are a larger group than the dishonest people.

And being real, the zero-day cheats are closely guarded and trickled out and sold for high prices as other cheats get found out, so for AAA games, the good cheats are priced out of comfort zone and anyone who attempts the lazy/cheap cheats is banned pretty quickly. A significant portion of the dishonest becomes honest through laziness or self-preservation. Only a select few are truly committed to dishonesty enough to put money and their accounts on the line.

Same way there are fewer murderers and thieves than there are non-murderers and non-thieves (at least in western countries).

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#553

Post by bravoetch »

emilecantin wrote: post #528
InvisibleUp wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a touch strange, in the abstract, that a corporation being public is a bad thing. On paper it should be a good thing; being publicly owned should mean that your corporation has turned from a private business venture into effectively public infrastructure that's impossible to boycott and depended on to some extent by everybody. As a result, financial statements should be (and are) public and transparent, and…

I think there should perhaps be a law that any corporation automatically has a new class of un-tradeable VOTING shares, worth 50% of the overall vote, held by the employees. Everybody with an employment contract with this company is entitled to 1 vote, no more, no less; whether they're the janitor or the CEO. Employees of a company are the ones who are the most affected by the company's decisions, it's only fair that…

How much is a vote worth in dollars? Because there would be a market for those votes, not just a spot market for dollars or internal market using vacation days, it would be reflected in salary and benefits and company policy etc.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#554

Post by wilg »

bfg_9k wrote: post #477
wilg wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty serious problem, since we would like lots of companies to participate in public markets so that regular people can gain some of the upside and so there is transparency and increased oversight.

I find it so weird that you say public companies being 'evil' (which is to turn a profit) is a problem, yet you also say you'd like for companies to exist on the public market so that the public can access some of the upside.

I didn't say that?

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#555

Post by breppp »

faidit wrote: post #496
InvisibleUp wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a touch strange, in the abstract, that a corporation being public is a bad thing. On paper it should be a good thing; being publicly owned should mean that your corporation has turned from a private business venture into effectively public infrastructure that's impossible to boycott and depended on to some extent by everybody. As a result, financial statements should be (and are) public and transparent, and…

The wealthiest 10% of Americans own like 90% of stocks, and the top 1% own 50%. While the poorest 50% of the population own about 1% of the stock market. So "publicly" traded (the term public ownership can be confusing because it can also mean state control) just means it's open for the elite to invest in.

Not sure what does that mean. Americans poor and wealthy are in the top 10% of the world wealthiest and own a huge part of the world stock value accordingly.

That's simply capitalism, money is spread unevenly across everyone, that does not make everyone an elite

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#556

Post by bigyabai »

lmm wrote: post #465
bigyabai wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're basically reiterating exactly what I just said. Intel had no interest in licensing ARM's IP, they'd have made more money selling their fab space for Cortex designs at that point. Yes, it cost Intel their smartphone contracts, but those weren't high-margin sales in the first place. Conversely, ARM's capricious licensing meant that we wouldn't see truly high-performance ARM cores until M1 and Neoverse hit the ma…

> Intel had no interest in licensing ARM's IP, they'd have made more money selling their fab space for Cortex designs at that point. Maybe, but the fact remains that they spent years trying to make an Atom that could fit the performance/watt that smartphone makers needed to be competitive, and they couldn't do it, which pretty strongly suggests it's fundamentally difficult. Even if they now try to sour-grapes that th…

I think we're talking past each other here. I already mentioned this in my original comment:

  ARM is typically [...] more efficient at idle.
From Intel's perspective, the decision to invest in x86 was purely fiscal. With the benefit of hindsight, it's also pretty obvious that licensing ARM would not have saved the company. Intel was still hamstrung by DUV fabs. It made no sense to abandon their high-margin datacenter market to chase low-margin SOCs.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#557

Post by treyd »

anvuong wrote: post #519
reactordev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things do not prevent cheating at all. They are merely a remote control system that they can send instructions to look for known cheats. Cheating still exists and will always exist in online games. You can be clever and build a random memory allocator. You can get clever and watch for frozen struct members after a known set operation, what you can’t do is prevent all cheating. There’s device layer, driver layer…

I don't know why you brought up VAC as an example. It is a horrible AC, so bad so that an entire service (FaceIT) was built to capitalize on that. VAC is still a laughing joke in CS2, literally unplayable when you reached 15k+. Riot Vanguard is extremely invasive, but it's leaps and bounds a head of VAC. And Valve's banning waves long after the fact doesn't improve the players experience at all. CS2 is F2P, alts are…

> CS2 is F2P

Not anymore for the competitive gamemodes. This was reversed a while ago.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#558

Post by dboreham »

InvisibleUp wrote: post #457
xbmcuser wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major reason is they are a private company with good business. The don't have a need to keep adding to shareholder value ie stock price instead just need to generate a yearly income. We have reached a point where the shareholders are a companies real customers and that is who they all try to attract.Everytthing else a company does is just to attract shareholders

I find it a touch strange, in the abstract, that a corporation being public is a bad thing. On paper it should be a good thing; being publicly owned should mean that your corporation has turned from a private business venture into effectively public infrastructure that's impossible to boycott and depended on to some extent by everybody. As a result, financial statements should be (and are) public and transparent, and…

It's a common pattern. If you're in their service area compare both the food served by, and the employment practices of In-n-out Burger (private) vs McDonald's (public).

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#560

Post by rmunn »

faidit wrote: post #496
InvisibleUp wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a touch strange, in the abstract, that a corporation being public is a bad thing. On paper it should be a good thing; being publicly owned should mean that your corporation has turned from a private business venture into effectively public infrastructure that's impossible to boycott and depended on to some extent by everybody. As a result, financial statements should be (and are) public and transparent, and…

The wealthiest 10% of Americans own like 90% of stocks, and the top 1% own 50%. While the poorest 50% of the population own about 1% of the stock market. So "publicly" traded (the term public ownership can be confusing because it can also mean state control) just means it's open for the elite to invest in.

Could you link to how that measurement was taken? Because I very much want to know whether it counts things like mutual funds, or whether it only measures direct ownership of stocks. E.g. I have a bunch (though not all) of my retirement savings in an index fund that owns partial shares of the top 500 US companies (as listed by Standard & Poor's). So depending on how that S&P 500 fund is measured in those statistics, I either own shares in the top 500 companies, or I'm counted as not owning any shares. The latter would produce a very misleading statistic, because I am very much not the only person who invests in the stock market via mutual funds.

So a link would be much appreciated, in order to judge the quality of the info. As it is, I'm skeptical that the info is accurate, precisely because mutual funds are so wildly popular among the middle-class people I know (none of whom are in the top 10%, though most of them would likely be in the top 50%).

Post reply on HN