Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Michal Suchanek]

On 5/15/06, Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> At Mon, 15 May 2006 14:39:00 +0200,
> Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Considering what proprietary software games try to stop people from cheating,
> > including punkbuster servers, and that these methods are actually used, not
> > only by the vendors of the software, but also by people who host their own
> > games, I'd say that is evidence that people do want a defense against
> > cheaters.
>
> But you are talking about the people providing competitions, while I
> am talking about people playing games.
>
> Competitions and games are two very different things.

Not really. I would say that the terms are pretty much orthogonal.
While some games are more or less competitive, some may not be. And
some competitions would not be considered games even when stretching
the term to its limits.

> > > I also have plenty of evidence that people want to cheat sometimes: they are
> > > even paying money for magazines or hardware (like the modules for the C64,
> > > back then) to allow them to cheat.  In fact, cheat sheets are a regular part
> > > of any computer magazines covering games since at least the early 80s.
> >
> > Sure, but that's about cheating themselves.  I agree that this should continue
> > to be possible.  But when playing a competition, it shouldn't happen.  If
> > there're a lot of people playing in the competition, you can be pretty sure
> > that some of them will try to cheat.  If they succeed, it ruins the whole
> > competition for everyone.  I think it does make sense to provide a defense
> > against that if we can, and it isn't too expensive.  The question of course is
> > if we can, and if allowing DRM is "expensive".
>
> What you say is correct.  But competitions have others affect as well.
> They nurture and exploit addictive strains in people, and in fact they
> frequently kill people.  Without even investigating into these issues,
> I know from news reports about one person killed by playing Starcraft
> and one person killed by playing Everquest (another committed
> suicide).  There has also been at least one murder over online game
> "property."  Online game addiction is widely recognized now, and the
> social cost, carried by society, is enormous, in terms of health care,
> broken up relationships, neglected children etc.  I want to coin the
> term "digital drugs" for these types of infrastructure (Everquest was
> coined "Evercrack" by its players).
>
> So, no, it is not at all obvious to me that we should support this.
> In fact, I am quite convinced that personally, I do not want to
> support this.

The fact that people may get addicted to something does not mean we
should not support it. People can get addicted to wide variety of
things including sweets, cocolade, coffee, work, all kinds of games
(computer or not), adrenaline sports, ...

Banning all such things would be very restrictive and ineffective.
There are many drugs that are actually banned, and people still get
addicted to them. Yet people who would make good use of them cannot do
so legally.

Thanks

Michal