As I recall, Wildcat was one of the more expensive BBS packages that was still within reach of hobbyist budgets--I want to say a license for a single-digit number of nodes was between $200 and $300 in mid-90s dollars (around $450-$650 in 2026 dollars)--so it's not surprising that it would have been mostly older people running it. IIRC, it was pretty popular where I grew up, and the demographics in that area definitely skewed a bit older.
> it has somehow become not just commmon, but accepted that a vendor can tell us and force us to use something in the way they want.
The PS5 is a games console and is marketed as such, not a general-purpose computer. Of course they want, and "force", you to use it to play PS5 games. I have a hard time seeing this as coercive when computers still exist, even if architecturally a PS5 is virtually identical to a general-purpose computer in most of the ways that matter, because at least since the Fairchild Channel F, it's always been the case that consoles are just constrained computers.
> Imagine, for instance, if you bought a flat head screwdriver, but the manufacturer told you that you could never, ever, under any circumstances use it to pry something open. It was stricly to be used for installing or removing screws.
> We would all laugh that vendor out of the room and tell them they're insane. Somehow we stopped doing that with all sorts of newer technologies.
Imagine, for instance, if that flat head screwdriver had a means to prevent you from using it to pry things open. Some kind of magical negative mass in the handle that kicks in to cancel out leverage but not torque, or an explosive charge that blows your hand off if more than a certain amount of force is applied non-rotationally, or something. It might seem a little less risible then, and you would probably just opt to buy a screwdriver that doesn't have such restrictions (especially if those restrictions were explosively enforced).
Like, I get it. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that we should be able to do whatever we want with hardware that we own. At the same time, being upset about the PS5 making it impossible to run arbitrary software without hacking feels a little like being upset that your washing machine doesn't clean your dirty dishes as well as it cleans your dirty laundry: it's not made for that, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be able to do that well if at all.
> At the same time, being upset about the PS5 making it impossible to run arbitrary software without hacking feels a little like being upset that your washing machine doesn't clean your dirty dishes as well as it cleans your dirty laundry: it's not made for that, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be able to do that well if at all.
Except that's so completely not like what's going on with modern hardware. They're taking general purpose computers and restricting you from doing general purpose computing on them. Like, a dishwasher is made to wash dishes. It has a shape and a design made for washing dishes. You would need to make physical modifications to get it to wash clothes. This is like taking a machine that could wash both dishes and clothes and intentionally stopping it from washing clothes.
This is not OK. This needs to stop. Soon they'll come for our general-purpose computing with "features" for DRM.
> They're taking general purpose computers and restricting you from doing general purpose computing on them.
But so much tech hardware is commodified. A pregnancy test probably isn't using hardware dissimilar to your laptop. It just has less of it.
I don't think there's an expectation that every electronic is user programmable. But anything that is general phrpose should be punished as such for trying to put in excessive restrictions. There are arguments for game consoles on both aisles, but I don't agree with the mentality of "anything with general hardware needs general programming ability"
To me, the difference between a pregnancy test and a PS5 is that the pregnancy test isn't programmable at all, whereas a PS5 is programmable by people who have paid Sony for the privilege, and only at the pleasure of Sony. That's the problem.
It sounds like you don't like Sony's (and Nintendo's etc.) business model, which involves charging licensing fees to amortize R&D expenses and make money generally.
Sony has had this business model since the original PlayStation (1994), but it doesn't seem to have destroyed the ability to run Linux on your PC, or to have a Linux-based game console like the Steam Deck or Steam Machine.
Yup, I don't like their business model for the same reason that I don't like the business model of Facebook or TikTok. Just because consumers should be able to choose something harmful to themselves doesn't mean that the companies should offer it.
Nintendo have done anticompetitive things before and were legally punished for it. Just because something is video games doesn't make it's business decisions unserious and unworthy of regulatory enforcement.
Steam Deck is a gaming-focused handheld PC. It has a software certification system similar in function to what you see on console. If a user sticks within that environment, they essentially have the "console experience". There could be less friction with stronger certification enforcement, but Valve are consciously less strict for ideological and practical reasons. Is Steam Deck fixed function? Valve seems to intend it to be so, they just provide options for those who want to break free of the default gaming-centric environment.
Sony could provide an optionally accessible VM running a Linux distro, providing access to an open environment to install and run the stores that they want. Would it break their business model? Maybe, but no one is entitled to business models that are blatantly anti-competitive. It also wouldn't prevent it from being a fixed function console for those who want that, given that engagement with those features would remain a choice.
"Fixed function" isn't an excuse to build a vertical monopoly. It's been a long time coming for the console razor blade marketing model to come under scrutiny and Sony meets the criteria of being a gatekeeper under EU's DMA. When I look at what Microsoft is doing with Helix (which everyone else seems to be confused by) I get the feeling that Microsoft is anticipating exactly that outcome and getting out ahead of it.
Most appliances have fairly general-purpose microcontrollers inside them, but expose a fixed-function interface. Hopefully things like safety interlocks for microwave oven doors are implemented in hardware rather than software.
> Soon they'll come for our general-purpose computing with "features" for DRM.
You... haven't noticed all of the existing DRM features?
Not on my computer. I'm worried that there's a chance that someday general-purpose computing hardware will be locked down to the same degree that mobile or console hardware is today.
I see. So no intel CPUs with secret microcode and internal VMs. No ASICs with opaque internal functions and control software. No machine-readable serial numbers. Certainly no NVIDIA GPUs, and probably no AMD or Intel either. No hard-coded MAC addresses for Ethernet, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi. No USB. No secure boot or signed firmware. No secure enclaves. And of course no DRM-encumbered software like common web browsers or media playback systems. No Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, Steam, etc. So basically a system that regular people would not want to use.
Let me guess, you think GOG was perfectly justified in unilaterally taking away nake89's copy of--excuse me, I meant unilaterally revoking nake89's license to play Cyberpunk 2077--when they judged the gift transaction to be fraudulent, just because it could have been a conspiracy between nake89 and their wife to defraud GOG of the princely sum of eighty United States dollars[0]?
I don't dispute that GOG has the right, from a strictly legal standpoint, to revoke a license for any reason their terms of service allow, and that someone continuing to play a game after their license was revoked would be in breach of contract. What I do dispute is that this is a correct, fair, or desirable state of affairs, especially when the license in question was received as a gift and believed in good faith by the recipient to have been acquired non-fraudulently.
And in particular, if GOG wants the absolute and irrevocable right to prevent consumers from using products for which GOG has decided to revoke the licenses, they shouldn't advertise themselves as a DRM-free platform, nor claim that "Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming." -- advertising copy may not have the force of law, but courts tend to take a dim view of ad claims that are provably false.
[0]: the list price of the Cyberpunk 2077 Ultimate Edition on GOG as of this writing (though it is currently on sale for 38% off)
GOG may have the right to revoke a sale, but since it lets you download the game without DRM, it doesn't have the ability. Unless you delete your copy of the game and then try to download it again.
If you buy milk from the supermarket and they reverse the transaction 2 days later claiming you used a fraudulent card, but you didn't use a fraudulent card, you have the right to keep the milk and the loss of money is the store's problem.
GOG has a Steam-like client application that you can use instead of downloading the installers (which, in the case of Cyberpunk 2077, would be more convenient because its installer is in 28 parts, with another 11 for the Phantom Liberty expansion). It may be that if you install games through that, GOG can remove them if they revoke a license for any reason. I don't know that for sure, though. Just pointing out that they may, in fact, have the ability, at least in principle. But to be clear in case there's any doubt, I think we're on the same side: I think if nake89 had downloaded and installed CP2077 manually instead of through GOG Galaxy, and had continued to play it even after GOG decided the license was fraudulently acquired, they would have been in the right in every way that matters, and at least from a moral perspective, GOG could go pound sand.
As a native English speaker who learned a foreign language (German) in high school, I have a pet theory about this, which is that I suspect most other languages use a word roughly equivalent to English "appear" (with which it would be correct to use "how", such as "how the atomic tests appeared from Los Angeles") even in colloquial speech, whereas English tends to reserve those synonyms for more formal registers of speech; in casual conversation in English, you wouldn't ask someone "how did he appear?" (unless you meant the other sense of "appear", as in "become visible"), but you would in, say, German (wie hat er ausgesehen? or wie sah er aus?). Of course, I'm sure learners of English as a foreign language are taught to say "what does he look like?" and not "how does he look like?", but I can imagine them struggling with remembering that just like I struggle with remembering genders and cases and declined forms in German.
Hi, American here and "how" + "to look like" makes my teeth itch. However, people generally find grammar corrections to be needlessly pedantic when the erroneous grammar does not impede comprehension, so I've personally decided to choose my grammatical battles and simply fume about people talking about "how something looks like" in private instead.
I generally also choose to keep such complaints private, and I'm not sure what whim motivated me to speak up this time. Rather to my surprise, this trivial gripe has been voted up more than almost anything else I've written here over the last sixteen years. It would seem that there actually is, in some contexts, somehow, at least some appetite for grammatical pedantry!
Language is tricky. One of the trickiest things! There's so much tied up in it, objective and subjective. It's a simple tool. It's an academic object. It's a well-defined spec. It's a living ambiguous blob. But it's also one of the biggest pieces of one's culture. There's a reason the French are so possessive of their language where it lives in cultural exclaves. There's a reason the Irish have laws to keep their native language alive.
I can see at least two grammatical errors in your first two sentences.
Imagine being a grammar pedant and missing a comma before the conjunction linking two independent clauses.
I mean, if you want to be like that, you could generalize that statement to "the fact that they believe there to be a single `$LANGUAGE_OR_REGION` accent means this can be quickly discounted as nonsense". Other languages, and other varieties of English, have regional variation as well, after all--although in the case of other languages, I'll grant that the accents of, say, two German speakers from different regions might not be as distinct from each other in English as they are in German.
At any rate, I was looking forward to finding out what the accent oracle thought of my native US English accent, which sounds northern to southerners and southern to northerners, but I guess it'd probably just flag it as "American".
Agreed. Immersion in a game world, at least for me, is less about how accurately it visually reflects reality and more about how detailed the overall world feels -- whether the designers have crafted worlds that feel like they live and breathe without you, that you could imagine inhabiting as someone other than the protagonist. For instance, I can imagine what it would be like to live in Cyberpunk 2077's Night City, whether I was a merc like V or just one of the nobodies trying to get by that you pass on the street; I can imagine living in Dishonored's Dunwall (or the sequel's Karnaca) in the chaos and uncertainty of their plagues; I can put myself in the shoes of one of the faceless, downtrodden members of the proletariat of Coalition-occupied Revachol in Disco Elysium; a lot of AAA games, on the other hand, feel like theme park rides--well-crafted experiences that are enjoyable but don't stick with you and discourage you from thinking too deeply about them because they don't withstand much scrutiny. But Cyberpunk 2077 is evidence that they don't have to be that way, and Dishonored and Disco Elysium are equally evidence that you don't need a half-billion-dollar budget and photorealistic graphics to create immersive worlds.
(edited to clarify that I'm not laboring under the misapprehension that Cyberpunk 2077 isn't a AAA game)
Can confirm as well, although to my recollection it just shows up as if it's a word the transcription model heard, not "[foreign]" in brackets like with "[Music]" or "[Applause]". It's especially weird to me because I recall the auto-transcriptions being reasonably serviceable when they first rolled them out, only to degrade over time to the point where it was hallucinating the word "foreign" and dropping letters from words or using weird abbreviations (like "koby" for "kilobyte", "TBTE" for "terabyte", or, most memorably weirdly, transcribing the phrase "nanosecond-by-nanosecond" as "nond by nanc") if it didn't decide it heard another one entirely.
I also noticed a couple of months ago that YouTube seems to have quietly rolled out a new auto-transcription model that can make reasonable guesses at where capitalization, punctuation, and sentence boundaries should go. It seems to have degraded even more rapidly than the old one, falling victim to the same kinds of transcription errors. Although the new one has a different hallucination in silence and noise that it wasn't able to classify (which, incidentally, its ability to recognize things like music and applause seems worse than the old one's): where the old model would have hallucinated the word "foreign", the new one thinks it's hearing the word "heat", often repeated ("Heat. Heat.").
The game came first, and the TV shows were spun off from it, which is probably why the game feels more fully developed. It grew into a whole media franchise -- there were Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? and Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? game shows on PBS, as well as a Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego? Saturday morning cartoon, and more recently, an animated series on Netflix. I don't remember there being Carmen Sandiego segments on Square One but I also don't remember Square One all that well in the first place.
