Every time I read this I think it means to "stop games that promote killing"
Stop Killing Games
11–20 of 287 posts
Re: Stop Killing Games
#12Pangram flags this as 100% LLM output fwiw
Re: Stop Killing Games
#13Yes, please. Also ask yourself why that old tumble dryer, fridge, amplifier, vacuum cleaner and water cooker from 40+ years ago refuse to die while modern units die about the same week the warranty expires. They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
I have a vision for an art exposition where common tools and household items are enriched with remote shut down technology. Devices that have no business being smart like a hamer, a tire iron, a lug Wrench and perhaps shoes.
The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
Re: Stop Killing Games
#14Pangram flags this as 100% LLM output fwiw
WIW: nothing
Re: Stop Killing Games
#15Pangram flags this as 100% LLM output fwiw
I am beyond tired of reading "This isn't X. It's Y"
that happens at the end of nearly every paragraph here
Re: Stop Killing Games
#16> If you're a gamer who has watched a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon overnight, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
Re: Stop Killing Games
#17It should be legal to make and sell proprietary software with whatever server entanglements you want as long as they are clearly disclosed.
If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.
Re: Stop Killing Games
#18Yes, please. Also ask yourself why that old tumble dryer, fridge, amplifier, vacuum cleaner and water cooker from 40+ years ago refuse to die while modern units die about the same week the warranty expires. They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
Is there evidence this is actually true? When I’ve looked I’ve found the historical reliability is overstated and also ignores cost, availability, and environmental impact of manufacturing and using newer appliances and devices. Lots of older things were heavy, resource intensive, and overbuilt. Quality items are still available today for all of this stuff, probably cheaper than in the past in most cases.
Re: Stop Killing Games
#19This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do. There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them. I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say: > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. A…
this was written (or 'output') by someone (or something) that clearly has not thought of the knock-on effects of those freedoms.
they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
by all means i 100% agree that an ostensibly single player game should not be locked behind a login or telemetry, and that platforms like steam should not be able to lock you out of playing games you paid for. but i dont think forcing the whole free software thing would work out how the author is imagining it.
Re: Stop Killing Games
#20Wonder why this author felt the need to destroy his article with LLM content / proofreading?
Submissions on HN with interesting titles keep ending up being revealed as AI slop halfway down towards them making their point.
Authors: you don't need this. Don't disrespect your reader's time with LLM slophancement.