wellheh

Makes sense, but in that case, why do law enforcement even care if the OS reboots itself if they already have a copy of the encrypted contents?

Most phones aren't letting you try more than 5 attempts before you're locked out. You can even set it up to erase after the attempts

Problem with their logic is that, as stated in the article, goods such as preserved books are already used for recreation. Your idea that a catalogue of old media would prevent consumption of new media is provably false by example. People read old books and it doesn't stop them from reading new ones. Can you imagine saying this exact same thing about music? People's tastes change over time and they like new things- old things don't stop us from consuming the new things. All the copyright lobbyists are doing is preventing the public from enjoying old games that can no longer be played because the hardware is dated or there are no viable copies left.

I think a big problem we don't want to address is now that we're so interconnected, internet access is a necessity that should be classified as a utility. You can't just cut off someone's electricity without notification or process because they did something bad with it and it should apply here too

IMO the problem is not that you can't block them but tooling. It is true that with the appropriate tools and work you can farm the data yourself and get everyone's votes, but realistically most people aren't going to go out of their way to do that. I see no reason why this would make lemmy better and instead just gives ammunition to bad actors. The poster above you is asking why we need to do more things to avoid bad actors as an effect of the change instead of avoiding that outcome. We know there will be bad actors, but we don't need to make things easy for them. Maybe you were never gonna stop the guy willing to make an instance and look through all your votes, but you'd stop all the ones who wouldn't be willing to put in the effort.

You are free to discuss all the stuff you thought that made the title as great as you thought it was. I clearly elaborated on why I thought it wasn't a genre defining fps but your comments were all about you claiming halo is great but not really saying why or how. Did you even try to explain what parts of the game were so revolutionary? Notice you wrote 4 paragraphs but didn't mention a single aspect of the game that stood out against what was in the market at the time. You also claimed I disparaged "casuals" when I clearly talked about features that made the game easier to pick up on console (you know, the market they were targeting) compared to what was the norm. You called the genre dead and I elaborated why it wasn't and what it was up against, and to be clear, you claimed the entirety of fps as a genre was dead. Not adding the millions of pc users seems weird when it is alive in that market (and many new games being produced are proof the market had growth). What do you consider widespread usage? How do you know Halo set the benchmark and not Counter-strike or team fortress or... maybe gaming in general was just growing and it was along for the ride? Or maybe it was marketing that put it on the map? You may as well have claimed no fps existed until halo. Do you think moba as a genre is dead? Moba dwarfs other genres in viewers but it is largely pc. For console fps, i would argue goldeneye set the standard in the late 90s with its good controls, split screen multiplayer, and memorable campaign. If we're talking gameplay trends clearly more tac-like shooters based on cod and counter-strike flourished. Also I recognize esports as relatively niche but you'd also need to realize it's the 2000s and recognition of esports at all is a big achievement in terms of gaming becoming mainstream. Gaming was stigmatized for a long time and the idea of competing in it for money was a breakthrough.

All that said, if you want to continue I don't care. It would've been nice to hear what parts of the game changed the genre but if you prefer zero substance comments I'm done here

Crazy take. Op was right that halo basically made fps more accessible for console players- that along with great storytelling is its real legacy. At the time, if you wanted the most out of fps games, you'd buy a PC and pick up a copy of Half-Life from a store, find an update off a shady ftp, then after install you'd have access to tons of mods giving you access to an array of truly unique experiences. Fps weren't really made for console at the time and lacked a lot of usability (I.e. aim assist was not well developed, games were way faster and also more difficult for console controls). Counter-strike paved the way with TAC shooters and streamlining fps, but again you needed Half-Life and the retail port didn't come until 2003. Halo brought a console first experience with casual play in mind, most notable: low gravity for easier positioning and easier to shoot players, spawning with a decent weapon so you weren't outclassed off spawn, limited you to carrying only two weapons for easier weapon management, slow movement, and regen so you didn't have to chase health packs. This wouldn't be complete without me actually saying what Halo was good for- Notable innovations were obviously its physics and graphics engine, extensive user input assistance (aim assist and movement assist), use of vehicles (other games were clunky and there was little to do other than drive from one point to the next), story telling, sophisticated AI, and system link. To call halo some sort of Renaissance game that vitalized a dead genre is so very weird- you do realize this was the time of Counter-strike, team fortress, unreal tournament, quake, tribes, alien vs predator... Esports was growing with CPL and ESWC, both with majority fps-only titles. I can only assume you were not alive to experience it.

Fps games circling the drain in 2001 is a crazy take.