subignition

joined 3 months ago
[–] subignition@piefed.social 49 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Having done it for a living for a few months, you cannot possibly imagine how bad it gets.

No, seriously. I already had very little faith in humanity going in, and thought I'd seen the worst the internet had to offer. Scraping the actual bottom of the barrel is difficult to even describe. I had to force a stunned sense of humor about it to detach myself a bit as a coping mechanism.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's reportedly been running for seven years, so I suppose I just assumed that they didn't want to pay to maintain the online service for all eternity.

The other reply's probably also got a good point in terms of actual staff doing support for it, too.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The article links to a previous article about the online service for the free to play version shutting down. It looks like the Complete edition is an offline version where all the content will be available through gameplay without microtransactions, where the events will rotate every 4 years. HTH

[–] subignition@piefed.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

Honestly, as long as the collision lets you walk over it smoothly without getting caught in the gap between the terrain and the object, I think this is fine. Having it flush or overlapping would probably lead to z-fighting or other weird collision bugs.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

As divisive as it would be, I think that would be a good thing overall...

It reminds me of the literacy test to use Kingdom of Loathing's chat features.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

If they were any more inbred, they'd be a sandwich.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if they really cared about intellectual property rights, this would be OPT-IN.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

Was that supposed to speak to some part of my comment...?

It seems like a complete non sequitur to me.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I am WAY too unqualified to understand any of the technical stuff, so I'll be waiting to hear thoughts from experts on this one. It looks like if there are no major flaws in it this is a great thing for the platform overall.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I am a bit out of the loop in terms of RDBMS history, what do you mean by MySQL refugees?

[–] subignition@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

If functionality exists in the client app, there's nothing to be done to stop someone from bypassing checks.

Looking into it further this looks like it's an API between the backend of a service and Google though. That would be difficult to defeat, but you could probably spoof the identity of the requesting device with enough effort

[–] subignition@piefed.social 51 points 2 months ago (13 children)

It's not like dedicated people aren't going to be able to just patch out the calls to this API from the apps themselves...

This feels like yet another attempt at DRM that is doing more harm than help.

view more: next ›