Ownership, if not for EULAs

[Chenghiz]

It started here: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8569.0

[WindupAtheist]

I participated in this thread.  Therfore I own it, or something.  Right?

[Merusk]

Oh, hey, all I've got to go on is the Cliffs Notes Endie provided about the history behind this. His questions have a definite 'this happened to a, err, "buddy" of mine once, yea, that's it' ring to them. I just don't know which of these eleventybillion threads that conversation actually took place in.

For some reason I thought you'd participated in that thread.  I was cranky & tired. Hugs & Kisses.

[tkinnun0]

I participated in this thread.  Therfore I own it, or something.  Right?

You don't own the thread, but you might own your own comments. All this should become very clear from reading the Terms of Service. You did read the ToS when you registered to f13.net, didn't you?

[WindupAtheist]

So then if I hack the board to give myself a postcount of ten billion and grief-title everyone with "UO is teh awesome" Schild can't ban me, right?  Because I own some shit, or whatever.  I mean that is basically what it comes down to for your WoW buddies.

[damijin]

[tkinnun0]

Prior to the post, I hadn't heard about their guild. They played on US servers and I don't, for one.

From the limited information presented in the thread I think their members couldn't take a break from their characters and couldn't bring themselves to delete them, so they exploited and didn't really try to hide it. In other words, they wanted an intervention, and they got it.

Yes, scenario 1 is based on their story. It is presented in a single-player context without the human interest stuff for the sake of a more theoretical discussion.

I hope this is a full enough disclosure about my "buddies".

[Venkman]

It started here: http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8569.0

Ah, that one. Hadn't read it yet. Thanks for the link. Now I get it.

Sounds like it all comes down to this:

Maybe because it's their fucking game? Jesus.

Other players are part of the game, those players are not slaves of Blizzard, therefore Blizzard is not the sole owner of all aspects of WoW.

Remember when I said "sociopathic" earlier? :)

[Azazel]

No one should care what I do in single player games as long as I'm not sharing it with the rest of the world.  If they do, they're just creepy.

See? I agree with Signe sometimes. 

[SurfD]

No one should care what I do in single player games as long as I'm not sharing it with the rest of the world.  If they do, they're just creepy.

Pretty sure somewhere, deep in a Department of Homeland Security bunker, someone is right now plotting ways of finding out who every single person in the country with a single player flight sim program is.  Gotta keep tabs on all those would be terrorist hijackers (it could be ANYONE!!11!!11one!one)

[Tale]

Ew, yeah, what the fuck is wrong with the Hoff's legs?

Drugs and flares.

[Sky]

Single player: cheat away.
Multiplayer: don't be a fucking douchebag.

It's pretty simple.

Here's a bold prediction: in the future, adding multiplayer will not be a technical problem, so most every game will have it.

....

What?

[Sky]

On the topic of people with an overly-large sense of ownership, there was a creepy moment in CoV last night. I was winding down for the night, logged in as an alt on Mercy Island (newbie zone). There was a TheHulk- character and some twat was getting really bent out of shape about it OMG I'M REPORTING YOU-type shit. So I started to ask why he was so upset and he got into how he was protecting his game. Apparently, the failed marvel lawsuit (and setting aside the fact that Cryptic has marvel IP rights atm) was enough to scare this guy into policing the newbie zone and reporting newly-made IP infringements. I was shocked by that level of bootlicking. He got very worked up about how we signed a EULA and whatnot, it was pretty funny. I have to admit I taunted him for a while, and pretty much the entire zone started figuring out ways everyone's names were IP infringements (I called the bootlicker on stealing that cat from the smurfs' name ;)).

Some people need to get a fucking life. But I guess that's why they are so 'serious' about mmo. *shrug* I did have a sudden urge to make a Wolverine, just to be a prick.

[tkinnun0]

Here's a bold prediction: in the future, adding multiplayer will not be a technical problem, so most every game will have it.

....

What?
[/quote]

Imagine your favourite console shooter, but with a button which instantly shows all the other players from your area who are playing right there beside you, allowing you to chat, exchange ammo or whatever. In this brave new future, you being a douchebag depends on someone doing the math on your Shooter Guy Points(TM) and making a fuss about it on their blog.

[damijin]

Here's a bold prediction: in the future, adding multiplayer will not be a technical problem, so most every game will have it.
....

What?

Imagine your favourite console shooter, but with a button which instantly shows all the other players from your area who are playing right there beside you, allowing you to chat, exchange ammo or whatever. In this brave new future, you being a douchebag depends on someone doing the math on your Shooter Guy Points(TM) and making a fuss about it on their blog.

single player games an an aberration, like, duh.

shooter guy points, dude.   :mrgreen:

[Sky]

Here's a bold prediction: in the future, adding multiplayer will not be a technical problem, so most every game will have it.

....

What?

Imagine your favourite console shooter, but with a button which instantly shows all the other players from your area who are playing right there beside you, allowing you to chat, exchange ammo or whatever. In this brave new future, you being a douchebag depends on someone doing the math on your Shooter Guy Points(TM) and making a fuss about it on their blog.

Um. Oh?

Me being a douchebag has more to do with me hating 99% of online gamers. Or at least that overly vocal 5% that I'd really like to work over with a baseball bat. And poke in the eye with a knife. Morganti.

In short, I have no clue whatsoever it is you're trying to ramble about and the kids are getting scared.

[Sky]

Also, these kids with their chat. If I want to talk to someone, I'll go visit them.

[Furiously]

Why is there that one guy on teamspeak that thinks he's in radio and has to keep the empty space filled?

[damijin]

Why is there that one guy on teamspeak that thinks he's in radio and has to keep the empty space filled?

Mock him until he cries and quits.

[tkinnun0]

In short, I have no clue whatsoever it is you're trying to ramble about and the kids are getting scared.

OK, once more in excruciating detail:

1. Person A cheats in the single-player portion of the game with seamless multiplayer.
2. The game keeps a tally of Person A's score which is visible the few times Person A goes online to check demos of other games.
3. Person B sees the rate of Person A's point accumulation and makes a fuss. Why? Perhaps there's prizes involved.
4. The fuss reaches a critical mass forcing the game company to react.
5. Person A is now banned from both the single-player and multiplayer portions of the game.

This scenario is inspired by Gears of War: Emergence Day.

Edit: what I'm trying to ask is, can you own a game in which tradional single-player and multiplayer have fused and become inseparable?

[Trippy]

Edit: what I'm trying to ask is, can you own a game in which tradional single-player and multiplayer have fused and become inseparable?

I don't understand your question. Define "seemless" multiplayer. Do you have to be online to play single-player mode?

[Morat20]

On the topic of people with an overly-large sense of ownership, there was a creepy moment in CoV last night. I was winding down for the night, logged in as an alt on Mercy Island (newbie zone). There was a TheHulk- character and some twat was getting really bent out of shape about it OMG I'M REPORTING YOU-type shit. So I started to ask why he was so upset and he got into how he was protecting his game. Apparently, the failed marvel lawsuit (and setting aside the fact that Cryptic has marvel IP rights atm) was enough to scare this guy into policing the newbie zone and reporting newly-made IP infringements. I was shocked by that level of bootlicking. He got very worked up about how we signed a EULA and whatnot, it was pretty funny. I have to admit I taunted him for a while, and pretty much the entire zone started figuring out ways everyone's names were IP infringements (I called the bootlicker on stealing that cat from the smurfs' name ;)).

Some people need to get a fucking life. But I guess that's why they are so 'serious' about mmo. *shrug* I did have a sudden urge to make a Wolverine, just to be a prick.

Hmm. My brother had his "The Flaming Hulk" (pink and gay!) changed to generic superhero_string_of_digits rather quickly. I think it was his habit of running up to people and screaming that their costume/superhero concept offended him. Then dancing at them.

This was before the Marvel lawsuit was settled, so I suspect it was "The Hulk" part -- not the flaming gayness.

[Xanthippe]

No one should care what I do in single player games as long as I'm not sharing it with the rest of the world.  If they do, they're just creepy.

See? I agree with Signe sometimes. 

I’m walkin’ down the street
Like Lucky LaRue
Got my hand in my pocket and
I’m thinkin’ ‘bout you
I ain’t hurtin’ nobody
I ain’t hurtin’ no one.

[Margalis]

1. Person A cheats in the single-player portion of the game with seamless multiplayer.
2. The game keeps a tally of Person A's score which is visible the few times Person A goes online to check demos of other games.
3. Person B sees the rate of Person A's point accumulation and makes a fuss. Why? Perhaps there's prizes involved.
4. The fuss reaches a critical mass forcing the game company to react.
5. Person A is now banned from both the single-player and multiplayer portions of the game.

This scenario is inspired by Gears of War: Emergence Day.

If you are competing in an online leaderboard to win prizes clearly it is a multiplayer game, and anyone who allows people to play offline to get leaderboard points is a fucking moron to boot.

Emergence Day is apparently a clusterfuck, but you know what? If you want to play offline just unplug your fucking console from the wall. Problem solved.

In your moronic scenario the "single player" portion of the game is a multiplayer contest.

[tkinnun0]

I don't understand your question. Define "seemless" multiplayer. Do you have to be online to play single-player mode?

Yes, but only intermittently. Let's say the price of the console is subsidized by advertising delivered to the console.

In the scenario, I'm thinking going from single-player to cooperative multiplayer won't interrupt the gameplay; you just push a button and receive an in-game radio transmission telling friendly players are in the next room. Since all of this is built into 3D engines it will be added to all games, because developers have paid for it in their licensing fees.

[Margalis]

You have no idea how technology or game design works. But I will not be mean.

To go from single player to co-op you have to design a game that plays well co-op. It makes sense to make a multi-player game that you can play by yourself, but a single-player game that you can play with others is quite different.

There are always lag issues but much more subtle things to consider as well. Does it make the game too easy? Do you have to fundamentally change the design of levels? Do the two players really even interact? Can the other guy take all the limited power-ups?

Even if I could press a button and magically have Super Mario Brothers turn into a co-op game where some random internet stranger was playing along side of me, why would I want to? Do I reallly need 3 other Dantes playing next to me in DMC? Or another Solid Snake sneaking around killing enemies before I get a chance to?

What you are describing would work well for many games, but really the idea there is to start with a co-op game and allow it to scale down, not the other way around.

[Trippy]

I don't understand your question. Define "seemless" multiplayer. Do you have to be online to play single-player mode?

Yes, but only intermittently. Let's say the price of the console is subsidized by advertising delivered to the console.

In the scenario, I'm thinking going from single-player to cooperative multiplayer won't interrupt the gameplay; you just push a button and receive an in-game radio transmission telling friendly players are in the next room. Since all of this is built into 3D engines it will be added to all games, because developers have paid for it in their licensing fees.

If single-player cheating affects the multi-player game then at the minimum the player should be banned from the multi-player part of the game. I'm a little more ambivalent about banning the player from the single-player as well, assuming that was possible. In your example, if the "prize" you earn in single-player is useable in multi-player and assuming it has some meaning gameplay effect (i.e. it's not just something trivial like a costume change) then that would qualify.

Edit: fixed typo

[Merusk]

If the price of anything is subsidized to the point you have to keep it plugged in to download ads or do something else equally asinine, you don't own it.  You've signed a lease of some sort at a point in the transaction process, or you got snowjobbed by the place you bought it from, and should return the hardware/ software.

In either event, you've agreed you do not own what you have physical possession of.  The real owners of the unit/ software can deny you access for whatever reasons they've outlined in that agreement.

[eldaec]

Wow, I honestly never thought this thread could get worse than how it started.

Ew, yeah, what the fuck is wrong with the Hoff's legs?

When that is the high point of a thread, something is very wrong.


Cheating is bad mmm'kay.

[Signe]

Wow, I honestly never thought this thread could get worse than how it started.

Ew, yeah, what the fuck is wrong with the Hoff's legs?

When that is the high point of a thread, something is very wrong.


Cheating is bad mmm'kay.

In single person games, it's the only way I can get through them.  Don't you be calling me bad, Eldaec!

[Sky]

1. Person A cheats in the single-player portion of the game with seamless multiplayer.
2. The game keeps a tally of Person A's score which is visible the few times Person A goes online to check demos of other games.
3. Person B sees the rate of Person A's point accumulation and makes a fuss. Why? Perhaps there's prizes involved.
4. The fuss reaches a critical mass forcing the game company to react.
5. Person A is now banned from both the single-player and multiplayer portions of the game.

This scenario is inspired by Gears of War: Emergence Day.

Uh....that article is about multiplayer matches. Your scenario is riddled with logical holes.

If there is some online service keeping track of my single-player game stuff, I will firewall it. Prizes? Please.

Yes, but only intermittently. Let's say the price of the console is subsidized by advertising delivered to the console.

In the scenario, I'm thinking going from single-player to cooperative multiplayer won't interrupt the gameplay; you just push a button and receive an in-game radio transmission telling friendly players are in the next room. Since all of this is built into 3D engines it will be added to all games, because developers have paid for it in their licensing fees.

You sure like to make up scenarios, don't you?

[HaemishM]

Since all of this is built into 3D engines it will be added to all games, because developers have paid for it in their licensing fees.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Don't do drugs.

[Simond]

Speaking of cheating, apparently Blizzard broke out their Mighty Banhammer of the Eagle and smote a whole bunch of botters very recently.

The official boards are aflame with the usual "I got banned but I never used bot_program_65! Fix this Blizz!"...of which quite a few (as expected) end up backpeddling to "I only used it once! Okay, a couple of times. Okay, so I bot for dreamfoil 24/7"

[tkinnun0]

To go from single player to co-op you have to design a game that plays well co-op. It makes sense to make a multi-player game that you can play by yourself, but a single-player game that you can play with others is quite different.

Yes, if your unique selling point is having a brilliant co-op gameplay. But consider this: how many games have realistic physics as a USP? Physics simulation is moving from novelty to everyone having some at this very moment. Various forms of multiplayer could be next, propelled by 3D engines having higher and higher level features. For example, in a current-gen engine a developer might be placing shotgun shells into closets. In a next-gen engine, the developer might be placing "ammo supplies" in closets and then saying that during this part of the level, the player should get 2 medium ammo units (equals 4 shotgun shells) per monster. Scaling this up for multiple co-op players would now be trivial and provide a passable (not great, not awful) co-op experience. Sure, problems introduced by multiplayer have to be solved first, but it makes sense for the 3D engine developer to provide reasonable solutions and allow their licensees to tailor them, if they so choose.

[Endie]

...For example, in a current-gen engine a developer might be placing shotgun shells into closets. In a next-gen engine, the developer might be placing "ammo supplies" in closets and then saying that during this part of the level, the player should get 2 medium ammo units (equals 4 shotgun shells) per monster....

Hmm, so you're saying that we shouldn't be hard-coding everything with literals?  Radical.  You should write to somebody about that.

You're persistent though, I'll give you that.  And you're rapidly convincing me you're right.  Well, when I say "convincing me you're right" I mean persuading me that your knowledge of coding is limited to 10 Print "Hello World!"|  20 Goto 10