101–110 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you expect to achieve that, given the technical differences?
Did you miss the fact that the game is actually release and runs on all those platforms?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until of course they disable installation from other sources than Windows Store in name of "malware protection and security". Boiling frogs and all that.
I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to ban, oh, just for starters: * Photoshop * Illustrator * Premier * Avid * Office * Visual Studio etc. etc. Legacy applications are a huge reason for people to use Windows. Blocking themselves off from that rich ecosystem of applications is basically begging people to use a Chromebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can download an emulator and a rar with all 721 SNES games for free.
I could also sneak into movie theaters to see all my movies for free. It's not stealing, right? I haven't deprived them of a physical product? There's no marginal cost to them to show the movie to one extra person, right? They lose no revenue because I wasn't going to pay to see the movie anyway, right? And movies are terrible right now, aren't they? Everything's a sequel or reboot, there are no more original ideas,…
And piracy is not the same thing is downloading something you already have a license to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can download an emulator and a rar with all 721 SNES games for free.
I could also sneak into movie theaters to see all my movies for free. It's not stealing, right? I haven't deprived them of a physical product? There's no marginal cost to them to show the movie to one extra person, right? They lose no revenue because I wasn't going to pay to see the movie anyway, right? And movies are terrible right now, aren't they? Everything's a sequel or reboot, there are no more original ideas,…
e.g. I live in Canada. Pretty sure HBO Go doesn't support Canada, and I'm sure as hell not wasting my money on cable TV just to see Game of Thrones. I'd rather pirate it. But if I can watch something on Netflix, obviously I'd rather just do that and pay for the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's getting really picky. It's almost identical.
The game was written twice for different hardware, having different CPU, GPU, memory constraints, controllers and operating systems. Who is supposed to pay the salaries of the development team that wrote the Switch version? So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
They don't make a meaningful amount of money by requiring some people to buy two copies on the same account. They make a marginal amount of money as a tradeoff for being visibly customer-hostile.
> So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
This is already a buy one take one hundred model, in that you can redownload it as many times as you like on as many sequential devices as you like. The only difference is that the downloads are restricted to one flavor of device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
webrtc works fine. Rendezvous servers are a minimal cost, they're not involved beyond the setup, and you can run your own fairly easily. I'd argue it works better than sockets, especially for gaming, since there's no need to mess around with NAT.
It's about freedom to run your own software, it is not cost or "works fine". Webrtc has a dependency on and is controlled by a 3rd party. You can't talk to someone in the next room via webrtc without some party running the server and providing a service to you. If they decide to lock you out you can't use sockets anymore. With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network…
There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game was written twice for different hardware, having different CPU, GPU, memory constraints, controllers and operating systems. Who is supposed to pay the salaries of the development team that wrote the Switch version? So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
99% of people are only buying one copy or the other copy. Your question is just as valid with the way nintendo chose to do things, and already has an answer. They don't make a meaningful amount of money by requiring some people to buy two copies on the same account. They make a marginal amount of money as a tradeoff for being visibly customer-hostile. > So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about freedom to run your own software, it is not cost or "works fine". Webrtc has a dependency on and is controlled by a 3rd party. You can't talk to someone in the next room via webrtc without some party running the server and providing a service to you. If they decide to lock you out you can't use sockets anymore. With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network…
You can use any rendezvous server in the world. Even without free ones, you could buy access for $1 per decade. There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere .
And they still have to agree on the same server, that provides a certain lock-in or inertia. Ultimately it means you have less control over your network connections than with real sockets.
And for the purpose of discussion this about the freedom of running software on your computer and webcontent not being equivalent in that regard. With webrtc signalling servers you're just kicking the ball down the road because then you need to be able to run a server with access to real sockets on some other machine, just to use those poor imitations of sockets.
I guess in 10-20 years we will be telling our grandchildren about the old days, where you can do whatever you want on your computer, limited only the abilities of the hardware* . And they won't believe us. *Simplification, of course.