He / They

  • 11 Posts
  • 930 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • I think the assumption is that buy-to-play MMOs tend to be less microservice-based or ‘cloud native’ than subscription ones, such that they are more likely to already feature a monolithic server application. They’re probably thinking games like ARK: SE, and DayZ, rather than Guild Wars. In reality, some sub-based MMOs have monolithic servers (e.g. Mabinogi), and some buy-to-own MMOs have distributed architectures.

    This was probably also an easier sell to politicians, by saying, “hey, they said they sold the whole game for that price, so why can they not deliver the whole game, server included?” With a subscription, it becomes harder from a business ‘rights’ perspective to argue that a player who paid for e.g. 1 month of a subscription immediately before the game is retired should be allowed to then own and operate the full game indefinitely, and then becomes a sort of, “how long paying the sub is long enough to ‘own’ the game?” debate. This is especially important because it could impact a lot of non-game software as well, so politicians are much more likely to quash this out of fear of backlash. So they may just be picking their battles.

    WRT market impact, I am sure the shittier companies would use the exemption as a loophole, and just make all their multiplayer games subscription-based. I doubt it will encourage more buy-to-own MMOs in the future as well, but I think SKG cares more about the extant software people paid for already, than the market impact.


  • Unfortunately, yes.

    Facebook v Power Ventures is probably the strongest anti-scraping ruling, because it held that a simple CAPTCHA is sufficient to qualify as “bypassing technical measures” so as to qualify as hacking under CFAA.

    YouTube has a number of technical controls to prevent downloading, and it’s always been considered iffy to mass-download YT vids because all the downloader tools (usually) incorporate some kind of means to bypass their protection schemes.







  • Yeah, the protocols that corporations and governments rely on were (mostly) not their own creations, and they cannot feasibly change the underlying TCP/IP stack itself, which has quite a lot of ‘grey space’ baked into it in terms of controlling traffic. Even China, whose government could much more realistically create another alternative model with a totally different protocols (a la DTNs) and mandate domestic equipment use them (enabling them to block the current suite of protocols), just haven’t even bothered attempting that route because of how huge a lift it would be.

    The biggest danger is probably national boundary isolation, which countries have moved further and further towards. This is not actually all that rare, and countries have a lot more ability to control cross-border network traffic than people probably realize (most people probably envision something akin to The Great Firewall, but that is explicitly about still facilitating north/south traffic at-scale).

    Totally discrete ‘mini internets’ via e.g. mesh networks or directional wireless P2P bridges is totally doable, but generally not a way to avoid government scrutiny as it’s very easy to detect. If we ever get to a point where you’re not subscribing to an ISP for internet, but to ‘Disney Network’, with just their services (and add-on bundles for other services!), it’ll be in conjunction with regulatory capture to help them ‘protect’ against pirate (as in, un-controlled by government, not as in copyrights) networks.


  • You are creating your cool streaming platform in your bedroom. Nobody is stopping you, but if you succeed, if you get the signal out, if you are being noticed, the large platform with loads of cash can incorporate your specific innovations simply by throwing compute and capital at the problem. They can generate a variation of your innovation every few days, eventually they will be able to absorb your uniqueness. It’s just cash, and they have more of it than you.

    So the safest bet again is to stay silent, or at least under the radar. Best bet is to not disrupt - succeed at all … ?

    Except that ‘success’ in this interpretation seems to assume money, which the big company will beat you at obtaining. Success can just be about a FOSS version of a tool being out there for anyone who wants it, and no company is going to pay the AI costs to build tools they immediate MIT-license (and even if they do, there are then TWO new pieces of FOSS software!), so they may be able to beat you in creating a commodified product, but they aren’t and won’t and arguably intrinsically can’t beat you in bettering someone’s life by having a tool they didn’t before, for free.

    We will again build and innovate in private, hide, not share knowledge, mistakes, ideas.

    This is a sad reaction to capitalism capitalism-ing. You can’t beat the profit machine by trying to make your profit in the cracks it can’t see, you beat it by giving the thing it wants to profit off of away for free.

    The vibrant public ecosystem that created all the innovation and moved it around the world will decline - the forums, the blogs, the “here’s how I built this” will move to local, private spaces.

    I highly doubt this. I’ve seen no such shift in any tech space around me. If anything, I actually noticed that every Con I regularly attend has mentioned in their RFP emails that they are being flooded with proposed talks, so people should submit early before they fill up. If private spaces are also growing, that’s great!

    I know this is ostensibly an article about Technology, but it’s also an article about Resistance and Praxis, and frankly I think a lot of people run to models of competitive resistance instead of exploring disarming or evasive resistance. You can’t beat Capitalism at commodifying something, but you can prevent Capitalism from commodifying something by removing the characteristics (like cost and scarcity and control) that make something a commodity.

    Code is one of the few things that can actually be freely and un-limitedly distributed and re-distributed, which makes it uniquely resistant to commodification, but only if the person making the code is not themself trying to commodify it.

    There’s a reason that Linux has only gained ground over time.





  • It’s funny because literally in Snow Crash there are guys who wear giant head-mounted camera/ antenna/ hacking rigs, that the MC says are weirdos for doing it. The Metaverse in Snow Crash is a ‘full dive’ thing you basically plug into like the Matrix, not a headset. How they went and reversed those roles, and tried to market tiny screens strapped to your head as a Metaverse, is beyond me.

    The absolute hubristic ignorance of tech bros, man…