The preponderance of library managers is a real problem. Imagine if every major record label required you to install their own version of an iTunes store or Spotify app in order to listen to their...
The preponderance of library managers is a real problem. Imagine if every major record label required you to install their own version of an iTunes store or Spotify app in order to listen to their music? It's totally user hostile.
The only advantages of a games library manager is that they can make sure your software is authentic, they keep all your games organized in one place, and automate updates/patching. There might be other ancillary services like tracking "achievements," enabling a marketplace of mods and DLC, and having social networks built in, but there is no reason all of this can't be done without allowing end users some choice in the matter.
The publishers ought to just stick to making and promoting games. They should just agree on a standard convention for metadata tagging, distributing patches, achievements, DLC, etc. that any library manager can plug-and-play with it. It would be a better situation for users, who don't have to deal with all this administrative lock in nonsense, and publishers who don't have to develop and maintain all this ancillary software.
I agree, but why would publishers ever agree to do that if they could make even more money just launching their own stores or getting paid extra to lock their games to a certain platform...
I agree, but why would publishers ever agree to do that if they could make even more money just launching their own stores or getting paid extra to lock their games to a certain platform temporarily?
Record labels totally would do what you described if iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, etc. hadn't already radically changed the landscape for music consumption. Even that's no guarantee for the future, just look at how Disney, CBS, etc. either have or are going to have their own streaming services to make a little extra money at the expense of Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc.
I don't know if there can be an incentive. We might just need to back Elizabeth Warren's argument that content/product developers shouldn't be allowed to own storefronts and bring the regulatory...
I don't know if there can be an incentive. We might just need to back Elizabeth Warren's argument that content/product developers shouldn't be allowed to own storefronts and bring the regulatory hammer down on these attempts at engendering lock-in.
See, that's the kind of stuff I'd have hoped would've been in the EU copyright reform. Not the kind of stuff that is in there now. To imagine that this could be in a valid EU directive right...
See, that's the kind of stuff I'd have hoped would've been in the EU copyright reform. Not the kind of stuff that is in there now. To imagine that this could be in a valid EU directive right now... I had also hoped for some clarification on the status of FOSS in the EU.
Now, I get it, that doesn't mean the EU is as much of a trendsetter as the US in these markets, but it'd sure help Elizabeth Warren not look as crazy as I don't doubt she does to moderates/mod. conservatives. Also makes the international players implement it, they'd then just have to deploy it in the US too.
Podcasts are a shining example of what open content distribution can be. Publishers put up an RSS feed and any podcatcher can access it. It makes things simpler that podcasts are, as a rule, free....
Podcasts are a shining example of what open content distribution can be. Publishers put up an RSS feed and any podcatcher can access it. It makes things simpler that podcasts are, as a rule, free. Adding payment into an open system like that could be tricky.
At the end of the day, you're still running proprietary software and have zero ability to look into what it's doing. This is the case for all software that isn't free/libre/open source.
At the end of the day, you're still running proprietary software and have zero ability to look into what it's doing. This is the case for all software that isn't free/libre/open source.
Food serving businesses are strictly regulated and have a very strong financial incentive to make sure their food is safe. Software development companies have a strong financial investment to sell...
Food serving businesses are strictly regulated and have a very strong financial incentive to make sure their food is safe. Software development companies have a strong financial investment to sell your data and nothing bad will happen to them. If it was legal to pay companies to poison people then I would stop trusting all food I did not grow.
That depends entirely on where you live and what countries those companies operate in. Canada's privacy commissioner has handed out some pretty hefty fines for privacy violations (e.g....
Software development companies have a strong financial investment to sell your data and nothing bad will happen to them.
That depends entirely on where you live and what countries those companies operate in. Canada's privacy commissioner has handed out some pretty hefty fines for privacy violations (e.g. insufficiently anonymized data being sold/shared with third parties) and recently even more strict regulations have been put in place (e.g. mandatory reporting of breaches). And we are also likely to see similar happen in the EU thanks to the GDPR...
So once again you are generalizing and assuming malice, IMO.
What governments tend to define as privacy violations is not even close to good enough. Insufficiently anonymized data being sold is unimaginably bad. Simply having that data collected in the...
privacy violations
What governments tend to define as privacy violations is not even close to good enough. Insufficiently anonymized data being sold is unimaginably bad. Simply having that data collected in the first place is very bad.
On a list of things I would consider unimaginably bad, I would put that somewhere near the bottom. I worry a lot more about health, the environment, food quality, governmental policy, economics...
On a list of things I would consider unimaginably bad, I would put that somewhere near the bottom. I worry a lot more about health, the environment, food quality, governmental policy, economics...
someone else has already covered the fact that this is obscenely paranoid, but just in general this is pretty bad advice, because most people aren't going to operate the way you want them to if...
All proprietary software should be assumed to be spyware and users should minimise the number of bits of spyware they install.
someone else has already covered the fact that this is obscenely paranoid, but just in general this is pretty bad advice, because most people aren't going to operate the way you want them to if you tell them this. far from minimizing their exposure, what will probably happen is people are just going to resign to spyware being a fact of internet browsing and take minimal steps to avoid them going forward, as is already happening with a lot of people in regards to their internet privacy. after all, if most of your internet history and data is already out there, what's the point in trying to suddenly go incognito? you and everybody else in the world have tells which can re-connect whatever persona you reinvent yourself as to that previous data, no matter how hard you separate yourself from it.
So you run a completely open source operating system, including no closed-source firmware? You have spyware if you don't. Can you see the problem with your position?
So you run a completely open source operating system, including no closed-source firmware? You have spyware if you don't.
Every single bit that can be open source I have open source. The bits of proprietary software I can't remove I assume to be spyware such as the intel management engine.
Every single bit that can be open source I have open source. The bits of proprietary software I can't remove I assume to be spyware such as the intel management engine.
I've heard this rumor before about the Epic Games store, it was my main reason for not getting the launcher (among others). At least this clears up my main issue with the launcher. Computer...
I've heard this rumor before about the Epic Games store, it was my main reason for not getting the launcher (among others). At least this clears up my main issue with the launcher.
Computer Security is something I've been trying to learn on my own so this article peaked my interest. Could someone more well-versed in the world of security confirm his analysis?
You realize this is the modified launcher right? This as is after the shitstorm and they "fixed" somethings. So if the above analysis is correct this version of the launcher isn't as bad...
You realize this is the modified launcher right? This as is after the shitstorm and they "fixed" somethings. So if the above analysis is correct this version of the launcher isn't as bad...
I have taken a couple security classes and can vouch for what author of the link has discussed is correct. It all seems very reasonable (except for like he said, the lack of encryption and taking...
I have taken a couple security classes and can vouch for what author of the link has discussed is correct. It all seems very reasonable (except for like he said, the lack of encryption and taking steam data). I am saying this from a completely neutral perspective, idc about fortnite or steam, I don't really play any games except LoL or some random indie games on steam. Anyone who cares about their product should put a tracker of some sort such as mouse clicks and all, it is very normal UI/UX analysis.
The preponderance of library managers is a real problem. Imagine if every major record label required you to install their own version of an iTunes store or Spotify app in order to listen to their music? It's totally user hostile.
The only advantages of a games library manager is that they can make sure your software is authentic, they keep all your games organized in one place, and automate updates/patching. There might be other ancillary services like tracking "achievements," enabling a marketplace of mods and DLC, and having social networks built in, but there is no reason all of this can't be done without allowing end users some choice in the matter.
The publishers ought to just stick to making and promoting games. They should just agree on a standard convention for metadata tagging, distributing patches, achievements, DLC, etc. that any library manager can plug-and-play with it. It would be a better situation for users, who don't have to deal with all this administrative lock in nonsense, and publishers who don't have to develop and maintain all this ancillary software.
I agree, but why would publishers ever agree to do that if they could make even more money just launching their own stores or getting paid extra to lock their games to a certain platform temporarily?
Record labels totally would do what you described if iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, etc. hadn't already radically changed the landscape for music consumption. Even that's no guarantee for the future, just look at how Disney, CBS, etc. either have or are going to have their own streaming services to make a little extra money at the expense of Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc.
I don't know if there can be an incentive. We might just need to back Elizabeth Warren's argument that content/product developers shouldn't be allowed to own storefronts and bring the regulatory hammer down on these attempts at engendering lock-in.
I wholly support that approach
See, that's the kind of stuff I'd have hoped would've been in the EU copyright reform. Not the kind of stuff that is in there now. To imagine that this could be in a valid EU directive right now... I had also hoped for some clarification on the status of FOSS in the EU.
Now, I get it, that doesn't mean the EU is as much of a trendsetter as the US in these markets, but it'd sure help Elizabeth Warren not look as crazy as I don't doubt she does to moderates/mod. conservatives. Also makes the international players implement it, they'd then just have to deploy it in the US too.
Podcasts are a shining example of what open content distribution can be. Publishers put up an RSS feed and any podcatcher can access it. It makes things simpler that podcasts are, as a rule, free. Adding payment into an open system like that could be tricky.
At the end of the day, you're still running proprietary software and have zero ability to look into what it's doing. This is the case for all software that isn't free/libre/open source.
Exactly this. All proprietary software should be assumed to be spyware and users should minimise the number of bits of spyware they install.
Food serving businesses are strictly regulated and have a very strong financial incentive to make sure their food is safe. Software development companies have a strong financial investment to sell your data and nothing bad will happen to them. If it was legal to pay companies to poison people then I would stop trusting all food I did not grow.
That depends entirely on where you live and what countries those companies operate in. Canada's privacy commissioner has handed out some pretty hefty fines for privacy violations (e.g. insufficiently anonymized data being sold/shared with third parties) and recently even more strict regulations have been put in place (e.g. mandatory reporting of breaches). And we are also likely to see similar happen in the EU thanks to the GDPR...
So once again you are generalizing and assuming malice, IMO.
What governments tend to define as privacy violations is not even close to good enough. Insufficiently anonymized data being sold is unimaginably bad. Simply having that data collected in the first place is very bad.
Again that is subjective, not everyone thinks so.
On a list of things I would consider unimaginably bad, I would put that somewhere near the bottom. I worry a lot more about health, the environment, food quality, governmental policy, economics...
someone else has already covered the fact that this is obscenely paranoid, but just in general this is pretty bad advice, because most people aren't going to operate the way you want them to if you tell them this. far from minimizing their exposure, what will probably happen is people are just going to resign to spyware being a fact of internet browsing and take minimal steps to avoid them going forward, as is already happening with a lot of people in regards to their internet privacy. after all, if most of your internet history and data is already out there, what's the point in trying to suddenly go incognito? you and everybody else in the world have tells which can re-connect whatever persona you reinvent yourself as to that previous data, no matter how hard you separate yourself from it.
So you run a completely open source operating system, including no closed-source firmware? You have spyware if you don't.
Can you see the problem with your position?
Every single bit that can be open source I have open source. The bits of proprietary software I can't remove I assume to be spyware such as the intel management engine.
I've heard this rumor before about the Epic Games store, it was my main reason for not getting the launcher (among others). At least this clears up my main issue with the launcher.
Computer Security is something I've been trying to learn on my own so this article peaked my interest. Could someone more well-versed in the world of security confirm his analysis?
You realize this is the modified launcher right? This
asis after the shitstorm and they "fixed" somethings. So if the above analysis is correct this version of the launcher isn't as bad...I did not know that. Well my suspicions are back up. Who knows if one day they decide to "unfix" it.
I have taken a couple security classes and can vouch for what author of the link has discussed is correct. It all seems very reasonable (except for like he said, the lack of encryption and taking steam data). I am saying this from a completely neutral perspective, idc about fortnite or steam, I don't really play any games except LoL or some random indie games on steam. Anyone who cares about their product should put a tracker of some sort such as mouse clicks and all, it is very normal UI/UX analysis.