this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
146 points (97.4% liked)

Games

16745 readers
745 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net 48 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Doesn't the publisher of the game have to approve for a game to be put on GeForce Now?

I mean, don't get me wrong - I know anti cheat detection has never been perfect, but you'd think this would be something they heavily try to make sure they get right.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Banning people for playing a game that they are not cheating in does not constitute getting anticheat right. It is not enough to catch cheaters but you have to do that without catching players that are not cheating. Playing the game on a different platform should not in of itself constitute cheating.

[–] russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right, I didn't mean to imply that playing on GFN was cheating by any means - I probably should've worded that a bit better.

I meant more of "If Call of Duty explicitly allowed GFN to add the game, then players who play via GFN shouldn't have a chance to be banned just for playing through it"

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Even if they didn't allow it, that seems more of a GFN issue than the player's fault. Most players are going to assume that if they can play a game via GFN that they are allowed to play via GFN.

[–] russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net 4 points 11 months ago

Correct on all accounts. Just to be more precise, I'm not placing any blame on the players in my prior comments - the blame goes to GFN and Activision since the player expects to be able to play a game that they've paid for, on a service that they have paid for.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes and no, I don't know how GFN works, but as a Linux user I've heard enough stories of people being banned because they were using Linux because we get the game running in a "non-authorized" way, i.e. using something that's easier to describe as a windows emulator (even though it isn't an emulator). And the way to do this is enable the feature on steam for all titles, and click play on the game, so also people assume it's safe. This does not apply to CoD specifically, because it's designed not to work with that "emulator" purposefully, so I would assume that if GFN is in any way similar they would also have discouraged from using it.

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 4 points 11 months ago

You must have missed the top comment where it was stated that publishers need to agree to have their games on GFN. Activision not only told Nvidia that it was okay to put their game on GFN, they likely had developers work with Nvidia to iron out any issues in creating the VM that it uses.

Wine/proton are unauthorized tools - most publishers don't care, and some even encourage it and help to fix issues (i.e., No Man's Sky), but it's still not officially agreed to like GFN.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

I won't play any game that's like this.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

No, it's a CoD anti-cheat issue. It shouldn't matter what platform you play on, you should only get banned if you're actually cheating.

[–] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 11 months ago

you’d think this would be something they heavily try to make sure they get right

eh, I don't think they've tried very hard at anything at all these last few cycles, except to make money

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Activision was required to put Call of Duty on GeForce Now for the EU to approve the acquisition by Microsoft. Just pure incompetence

[–] Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't the publisher of the game have to approve for a game to be put on GeForce Now?

Nope! It's probably the only cloud service that lets you use Steam/Epic/whatever.

[–] russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Once I woke up a bit more I had another look at the article, and this phrasing certainly makes it sound like it needs approval at some point:

Due to a licensing dispute between NVIDIA and Activision in 2020, GeForce NOW lost access to all Activision-Blizzard games.

Perhaps though it's a case of "Better to ask for forgiveness than permission" and they just add games until someone tells them to pull it off, I'm not sure. It's been 4+ years since I looked into GFN, I tried it out during the beta period but I don't believe I've used it since then.

[–] Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

That's weird. I still have no fucking clue why devs have any say in this. It's literally just a cloud computer where you can play games you already own on a (approved?) launcher.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Two different managers that didn't bother talking to each other.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 16 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Who still plays this shit? Who is buying a new Call of Duty every 12 months?

[–] QuarterlySushi@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

A very large number of people unfortunately

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

For a while I just saw it as a COD subscription, a yearly $60 fee to play the same game year after year. It was a fun mindless game, but “SBMM” and their pantented system of manipulating gun accuracy and hit registration to level the playing field became too much for me. I’m not playing slots, I’m playing an FPS. I want my shots to be skill based, not engagement and retention based. Once I learned about that, the game was utterly unplayable for me.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

At least 9 goobers that downvoted you.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -1 points 11 months ago

You’d think after what, 15 years now, of COD being the best selling game on every platform every year that comments like these would have stopped, utter here we are.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s a glitch and anyone banned for this will easily get their account unbanned. Complete non story.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Getting their accounts unbanned doesn't make it a non-story by any stretch of the imagination.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s an error. This didn’t need to be a story.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's an "error" that is stealing a product people paid for from them.

A false ban for five minutes is inexcusable and unforgivable.