• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • I’m just baffled by someone insisting absurd definition to defend unnecessary enshittification while using all the technical terms and how they function incorrect.

    Also, context of this particular thread started with initial comment that PC multiplayer is free, but Xbox online multiplayer (Not any other feature) - which is, identical in its technological basis and requirement - need payment. Then you simply asserted that such functionality was never free on consoles. I don’t remember original Xbox requiring me any payment to access XIII’s multiplayer mode, but memory is memory, so with no Xbox to test with, I will just accept that point was incorrect on my part.

    Then you went off-track stating that method of connection to server or time of implementing technology makes it so that those doesn’t count as multiplayer on console. Followed by arguments that is not even possible to do.

    If there is anything that I misunderstood from the context is that I just presumed that you were being careful with your claim. Upon reading again, I was indeed very wrong on that. PS3’s PSN and Nintendo exists. Consoles always had infrastructure to pull from, the very same infrastructure to PC multiplayer. Companies simply decided to charge more because they could.


  • You mean there exist online game that doesn’t have any host at the end point? So games like Phatasy Star Online runs on magic? I’m genuinely asking here.

    So if you connect with modem, it isn’t multiplayer? If you connect third-party servers, it isn’t multiplayer? Connection doesn’t care what hardware is present at end point - all it care is that it satisfies authentication then following byte stream is correctly formatted. The fact that it is console doesn’t magically make it require different kind of infrastructure from PC to begin with unless someone forces to.

    So what is definition of console multiplayer for you anyway? It clearly seems to be not “A session of a game where multiple players are involved locally or via internet” based on what you are saying so far.







  • If he wanted to argue that, he probably should have argued that in court. Especially considering that he always had the chance to do so. But that would be admitting guilt, isn’t it? He continued to fight the legal system after he was shown to be squarely in the wrong. Indeed, this is the case where legal system is actually working as intended - Judge shouldn’t actively protect either side, they judge, not represent.

    And yes, ‘Being bankrupt’ is a valid argument. But only if it is true. Just like any other arguments, if evidence to the contrary is found, that is just another crime to be punished for lying in the court. Now you can see how he ended up with that much fine.