• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is to block cheating shit, right?

    I’m very anti-rootkit anticheat on PC, because it’s a PC, and I think it should be literally impossible for customers to consent to it. But consoles are an entirely different beast, and not having control is the point of what you’re buying. I have no issue with blocking this shit there.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I wish it didn’t block you from playing online without an update, though. Just make it optional for a week. Then I can let it update in the background whenever. Sure, declining to update now would limit me to only matching with others that haven’t yet and risk of cheats, but it’s better than not playing.

      Luckily my internet has been upgraded so it doesn’t take as long but sometimes it was a 20 to 30 minutes wait and ps+ always fails to do it in sleep mode in advance. As a dad with young kids, that 30 mins is my whole play time.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, I’ve checked multiple times on both my ps4 and ps5. If it goes a few days, it’ll do it itself. Day of update, it doesn’t. It could be a time zone thing as I’m in Australia, so perhaps the release time is just close to work finish time, whereas for others it might be night time.

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      and I think it should be literally impossible for customers to consent to it.

      Why? It’s their computer. Shouldn’t people be able to do with their own machine whatever they please?

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because it’s not consent.

        No one is choosing “yes, I think installing this malware is a reasonable thing to do”. Ignoring that the reality is that they don’t communicate it and no one knows, which means every single person involved should be in a prison cell until the end of time, they would be abusing their market position to get that consent.

        It’s the entire reason every EULA term is thrown out every time. It’s not possible for a consumer to actually form a contract because of the imbalance of power.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            No, I know with certainty that it’s fucking malware, that it’s a massive security hole, and that there is abundant precedent that customers inherently cannot consent to unreasonable EULA terms.

            There’s a reason that no abusive EULA term has ever been accepted or enforced by courts. The idea that all that shit is automatically ignored, but somehow consenting to extremely invasive malware is OK is completely batshit.

                  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    “He consented to me stabbing him dude, I dont get what the deal is. What, do you hate free will? He said it was okay to stab him. Get your hands off me, you cant take me to jail he coNSENTED, HE CONSENTED!!!”