This month, Google announced an upcoming game streaming service by the name of Stadia, slated to launch later this year. There have been, and currently are, other game streaming services out there, but Google's version is supposed to take advantage of their reach and expertise to make a "like-local" connection happen on nearly any hardware, including phones and tablets.
Initial reactions I've seen across the web have been, well, less than enthusiastic. Some are convinced that Google's technical claims are overblown, either because of their experience with networking hardware in general, or due to a firmly-held belief that the system's responsiveness won't be able to keep up with their "leet gaming skillz". Others loudly decry the upcoming death of actually owning the games you pay for, never mind that software "licensing", for good or bad, has been a reality for decades. On top of all that, you have other lingering, unanswered questions, like how much the end-user will need to pay to get access to the service, and how developers will get paid for the games they make for the service, for starters. All in all, it's not a great point for Google to start from.
However, consider the possibilities... suppose Google's technical claims are spot on (or enough so for the majority of game players and types), and the financial details work out well enough for both users and developers. What might that mean, for both Stadia, and for gaming at large?
The first big thing that comes to mind for me is game stability. There are a fair number of games out there available for both the various game consoles and PC. Currently, especially if I'm looking at a launch-day purchase, I'll try to suss out which device the game was built for, and which ones get a "ported" version. Even though I could often get the PC version cheaper, and get the ability to tweak various settings for a better overall experience, I'll often get the XBox version. That's mainly because I know the developers have had access to the exact same hardware I'm using, so I'm less likely to run into problems due to a particular bit of hardware (or its driver software) behaving slightly differently than the developer expected.
Now, bring Stadia into the picture. You get standardized PC-like hardware that any developers using that system will have to test thoroughly against (the end-user not having access to anything like a power switch). That's a standard that PC component manufacturers can also build/test their goods against as a selling point... or somebody (even Google?) could build a "compatibility mode" software package as a layer between the hardware and the games for "in the wild" PCs to work with, simplifying troubleshooting there. Oh, and for the people playing on Stadia, there's no longer any need or justification for third-party DRM software, which would also help out with stability.
The other big thing Stadia could do that I see... well, for all it sounds like hyperbole, I think it could revolutionize multiplayer online gaming. For starters, just think about the current state of online play in almost any game you care to name. If there's one thing I've taken to heart, it's that, given the slightest opportunity, there is a subset of humanity that will find a way to cheat, and even take a certain pride in doing so. They'll install programs on their devices, or tweak the settings on their routers, to get the slightest advantage over their fellow players. Stadia could all but eliminate that issue, since all the cheater has access to is the control inputs and the display output they receive from the service.
On top of that, consider MMOs and other server-based games. Design to now has been limited by what you can offload to the client (thanks in large part to cheaters), and what you can afford to pass between the client and server in real time over a variety of network connection speeds. With your "slow" connection now between the user and their client, their inability to access the internals of the client, and standardized client hardware, you could offload more tasks to the client hardware, and, with a high-speed private connection across Google's network to the server, transmit more data, and be better-connected from things like denial-of-service attacks.
How this will all shake out is yet to be seen, and there are certainly plenty of potential pitfalls yet to be addressed. However, right now, I'm seeing some very nice potential in this Stadia service. Here's hoping!
Friday, March 29, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Yes Tim, you're still a thief.
I try not to post about every little thing that catches my notice, but, every once in a while, there's that something special, that extra little splash of "maybe I can bullshit my way out of this" that just demands I say something. Side note: this isn't about our current president and his crew, that tsunami of bullshit is more than I could ever hope to keep up with. Thankfully, we still have news organizations with paid fact checkers for that.
No, this is about someone more local, Tim Eyman, a long-time initiative-hawker in Washington state. Recently, he was caught on video taking a chair from an Office Depot that he didn't pay for. He has since issued a statement through his lawyers, calling it "ridiculous" that anyone would believe that he intentionally stole that chair. Rather, he just forgot to pay for it, and "accidentally removed" the chair.
Now, maybe, just maybe, he's being absolutely honest here. Maybe he's not just another "rich shoplifter" (try Googling that phrase, turns out it's enough of a thing that news stories and psychology articles have been written about it). Maybe he did wheel that chair out to his car before completing his shopping trip, with every intention of paying for it when he finished up. The fact of the matter is, none of that matters. Stores have a tried-and-tested process to avoid that sort of mistake - to wit, gather what you want to buy, pay for what you've gathered, then take what you've paid for with you when you leave. Tim, at some point, decided that he was above the need to follow those simple steps, and act that would leave many of us fearful of being accused of shoplifting on the spot. He did things his way, for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, and as a result took merchandise from a store without paying for it. That's still theft, and I can only hope that he gets the same treatment that any other person who did the same would get.
No, this is about someone more local, Tim Eyman, a long-time initiative-hawker in Washington state. Recently, he was caught on video taking a chair from an Office Depot that he didn't pay for. He has since issued a statement through his lawyers, calling it "ridiculous" that anyone would believe that he intentionally stole that chair. Rather, he just forgot to pay for it, and "accidentally removed" the chair.
Now, maybe, just maybe, he's being absolutely honest here. Maybe he's not just another "rich shoplifter" (try Googling that phrase, turns out it's enough of a thing that news stories and psychology articles have been written about it). Maybe he did wheel that chair out to his car before completing his shopping trip, with every intention of paying for it when he finished up. The fact of the matter is, none of that matters. Stores have a tried-and-tested process to avoid that sort of mistake - to wit, gather what you want to buy, pay for what you've gathered, then take what you've paid for with you when you leave. Tim, at some point, decided that he was above the need to follow those simple steps, and act that would leave many of us fearful of being accused of shoplifting on the spot. He did things his way, for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, and as a result took merchandise from a store without paying for it. That's still theft, and I can only hope that he gets the same treatment that any other person who did the same would get.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Spoilerriffic! Seafall, final entry
It's been nearly a year since we last played this game, and our injured player hasn't recovered to the point where getting to the gaming table large enough to hold Seafall is practical, and life has other challenges for getting players together regularly... so, I made the command decision, and decided it was time to dissect the set, and see where our further adventures would have taken us. The short answer is, nowhere... because three different players didn't clue in to what the game intended with one of the milestones, The Masks Have Fallen.
Basically, you need to find a chart to the end of the world to collect that milestone, and move on to the endgame from there. Turns out, there are four advisors in the deck that have a hidden graphic on the back of their cards, consisting of the words "chart +5" and a picture that's like the one on the last sealed box. None of us put that together with the "find the chart to the end of the world" description on the milestone... I know, in my case, that I kind of assumed it would act as a bonus to whatever chart we eventually did find. But no, it's just supposed to be "first one found, gets the milestone", which then lets you all know that there are four advisors with that, and you can use them when you try for the final island and "win" the game.
But then, what's all the symbols on the tablets about? Well, I was right on that score, it's a simple substitution cypher at play there. As for what you get... well, mostly they come out to something like an extra glory point for whoever finds them first. However, there are the secrets of the statues to be found as well, which is useful for the real end game.
What's that? Real end game? Yeah, as you might suspect, the presence of another sealed box means that finding the island at the end of the world isn't quite the end of things. Sure, somebody gets crowned Emperor/Empress, and there's much rejoicing, but only briefly... turns out, the final island is of the "gateway to Hell" variety, it gets unsealed, and things go sideways quite quickly. It sets up for a final game session of "try to get the gate closed again, while the world burns, and undead ships and crews roam the seas to try and take out ships". The actual act of closing the gate is either a Raid or Explore (player's choice) at a 20 difficulty rating, which you can use Society advisors, relics, and seals obtained from the statues to offset. If you've found the secret of a statue, the cost to get that seal goes down. Oh, right, the event deck is totally replaced as well, and those "world burning" events basically starts picking off colonies from farthest out first, and, left to its own devices, will eventually destroy the provinces as well, in which case everybody loses. By the way, this mode is also the "if you want to come back and play more Seafall after the story's done" mode.
So, that's the game. I definitely enjoyed the time I played it, but... yeah, I definitely wish that one milestone had been clearer. Not a huge fan of the ending either... I expected something horrific and world-threatening, but I'm more in the school of tentacular monsters and ancient, extra-dimensional evil turning a player against everyone else than "Hell happens, everybody make it stop". And honestly, if I had played through that ending once, I don't see where we would have ever come back to play after that... it's a nice gesture, having replayability, but it doesn't seem to match the flavor of the base game up to that point very well at all. Oh well, it was a positive experience overall, can't hold a late-game stumble against it too harshly.
Basically, you need to find a chart to the end of the world to collect that milestone, and move on to the endgame from there. Turns out, there are four advisors in the deck that have a hidden graphic on the back of their cards, consisting of the words "chart +5" and a picture that's like the one on the last sealed box. None of us put that together with the "find the chart to the end of the world" description on the milestone... I know, in my case, that I kind of assumed it would act as a bonus to whatever chart we eventually did find. But no, it's just supposed to be "first one found, gets the milestone", which then lets you all know that there are four advisors with that, and you can use them when you try for the final island and "win" the game.
But then, what's all the symbols on the tablets about? Well, I was right on that score, it's a simple substitution cypher at play there. As for what you get... well, mostly they come out to something like an extra glory point for whoever finds them first. However, there are the secrets of the statues to be found as well, which is useful for the real end game.
What's that? Real end game? Yeah, as you might suspect, the presence of another sealed box means that finding the island at the end of the world isn't quite the end of things. Sure, somebody gets crowned Emperor/Empress, and there's much rejoicing, but only briefly... turns out, the final island is of the "gateway to Hell" variety, it gets unsealed, and things go sideways quite quickly. It sets up for a final game session of "try to get the gate closed again, while the world burns, and undead ships and crews roam the seas to try and take out ships". The actual act of closing the gate is either a Raid or Explore (player's choice) at a 20 difficulty rating, which you can use Society advisors, relics, and seals obtained from the statues to offset. If you've found the secret of a statue, the cost to get that seal goes down. Oh, right, the event deck is totally replaced as well, and those "world burning" events basically starts picking off colonies from farthest out first, and, left to its own devices, will eventually destroy the provinces as well, in which case everybody loses. By the way, this mode is also the "if you want to come back and play more Seafall after the story's done" mode.
So, that's the game. I definitely enjoyed the time I played it, but... yeah, I definitely wish that one milestone had been clearer. Not a huge fan of the ending either... I expected something horrific and world-threatening, but I'm more in the school of tentacular monsters and ancient, extra-dimensional evil turning a player against everyone else than "Hell happens, everybody make it stop". And honestly, if I had played through that ending once, I don't see where we would have ever come back to play after that... it's a nice gesture, having replayability, but it doesn't seem to match the flavor of the base game up to that point very well at all. Oh well, it was a positive experience overall, can't hold a late-game stumble against it too harshly.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Instant Pot experiments: Beef Stew, take 3
With the weather cooling down again, it struck me, mid-grocery-trip, that some beef stew would be a fine idea, and proceeded to get all the necessary ingredients while I was there to give the ol' Instant Pot another whirl. As if... as inevitably happens with on-the-fly shopping decisions like that, I forgot a few things entirely. Most importantly, I forgot the beer!
Well, I wasn't looking to head out again, so improvisation was the name of the game. Surprisingly, it actually came out better than I had any cause to hope... enough so, that this (with a bit of tweaking) is likely the "base" from which I'll make any further experiments.
Well, I wasn't looking to head out again, so improvisation was the name of the game. Surprisingly, it actually came out better than I had any cause to hope... enough so, that this (with a bit of tweaking) is likely the "base" from which I'll make any further experiments.
Preparation
- Dissolve 1 beef bouillon cube in 1c. of water (mug and a Keurig works well for this)
- Re-hydrate about 2c. of dried mushrooms, and reserve 1c. of the resulting liquid
- Peel and quarter about 1lb. of potatoes
- Skin and cut an onion into wedges (8 worked fine for me)
Procedure
- Heat Instant Pot on Saute setting
- Add 3T. butter, allow to melt
- Add onion wedges, knock them about a bit with a wooden spoon while they soften to let the layers separate. Once the onion has started to soften
- Add 1lb. cubed stew meat, brown on all sides.
- Add 3T flour and stir to absorb the liquid fats in the pot
- Add the reserved "mushroom water", use to de glaze the bottom of the pot
- Add the following ingredients and stir to complete the sauce/soup/whatever:
- Prepared beef bouillon
- 1c. off-dry mead (just because I don't have beer, doesn't mean I don't have anything useful lying around!)
- 1t. thyme
- 1t. garlic salt
- 1T. Worcestershire sauce
- 1T. steak sauce
- Add the mushrooms, potatoes, and a 1lb. bag of baby carrots to the pot, and stir to combine
- Top off with some fresh-ground pepper
- Cancel out of Saute mode, close/lock the lid, and hit the Meat/Stew button. In my case, it was done cooking about 40 minutes after that.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Sony, Sony, Sony... *facepalm*
Over eight and a half years since Sony decided to play a nice game of "we have altered the deal, pray we don't alter it further" with me, I finally get to put my grudge to rest... kind of. My settlement check came in today's mail. They did stick with their plan of offering "up to $65" per claim, depending on the number of claims, but my prior unease about how they came up with that number looks to have been spot on, since the check I got was a whopping $10.07.
So, yeah, I've gotten some compensation, years after the fact, for the feature Sony removed, so I don't have any direct reason to keep them on my "no buy" list any longer. That said, implying a $65 payout and delivering a $10 payout doesn't make me eager to give them my trust any time soon.
So, yeah, I've gotten some compensation, years after the fact, for the feature Sony removed, so I don't have any direct reason to keep them on my "no buy" list any longer. That said, implying a $65 payout and delivering a $10 payout doesn't make me eager to give them my trust any time soon.
Monday, September 10, 2018
What's this, just desserts?
I put Vizio on my no-buy list back in 2015, when they were caught spying on their customers and colluding with advertisers to even more intrusively track them on other devices they owned (link). I pretty much just forget them after that... I mean, consumers rarely see anything resembling justice these days, so why cause myself heartburn, right?
Well, I just happened to stumble across a new article today... looks like a judge is going to make Vizio post a pop-up notification on all the affected Vizio TVs, informing their owners about the spying and instructing them on how to get on board with a class-action lawsuit. Mind you, it's not perfect, class-action lawsuits tending to be both slow and mainly a means of enriching the lawyers, from what I've seen... but it tickles me to see a misbehaving company forced to let their customers know, in a hard-to-ignore way, that they've been had. Should be fun to see what happens with Vizio hereafter.
Well, I just happened to stumble across a new article today... looks like a judge is going to make Vizio post a pop-up notification on all the affected Vizio TVs, informing their owners about the spying and instructing them on how to get on board with a class-action lawsuit. Mind you, it's not perfect, class-action lawsuits tending to be both slow and mainly a means of enriching the lawyers, from what I've seen... but it tickles me to see a misbehaving company forced to let their customers know, in a hard-to-ignore way, that they've been had. Should be fun to see what happens with Vizio hereafter.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Today's mini-rant: web advertising
Let's make one thing clear from the start: I absolutely despise most advertisements. That's because they tend to be nothing more than cheap manipulation of our more primitive urges to try and get you to buy something you neither want nor need. That said, I can understand ads having a place in supporting "free" content that would otherwise be unavailable, whether that's broadcast TV and radio, or the various websites that support themselves with ads. However, advertisers have taken liberties with their web ads, to the point where the unscrupulous can damage the computers of the people being advertised to. Not surprisingly, tech-savvy end users have worked out ways to interfere with ads, and in some cases have made "ad-blockers" available for the public to download and install without needing that much tech-savvy. Advertisers have taken issue with that (with some validity, since it's their ad dollars that are paying for the content that's being delivered), and have been working with their website developers to find ways to counter those ad-blockers. All very cat-and-mouse, much the same story that plays out in, for example, computer security. However, I've recently run into one tactic that I disagree strongly with.
Some websites have taken it upon themselves to try and detect whether your computer is running an ad-blocker... and if it is, they'll call you out on it, and demand that you turn it off for their website before they will let you see what you've come to see. In theory, that's entirely reasonable, and a suitable answer to the advertiser's concerns... but that's only if they're remarkably good about detecting the presence of ad-blockers.
Me, I don't use an ad-blocker... but I do use a little tool from the Electronic Frontier Foundation called Privacy Badger, whose sole purpose in life is blocking misbehaving advertisers (and their tracking cookies). They're more than welcome to shoot any ads my way, they just don't get to do so with embedded payloads of tracking nastiness to follow me from one website to the next. Mind you, because nobody seems to want to use a "default" ad these days, I rarely see much in the way of ads at all, but, frankly, that's their problem, not mine. At any rate, now I've got some websites (including at least one that I rather enjoyed) demanding that I turn off Privacy Badger for their site... and frankly, if you're a web developer, and you think that's a reasonable request to make, I want nothing to do with your website. So, here's hoping this particular ad fad doesn't gain any more steam... and I hope those websites that maybe lose traffic from this change their minds, and somehow let us know. Maybe with a nice static ad banner somewhere?
Some websites have taken it upon themselves to try and detect whether your computer is running an ad-blocker... and if it is, they'll call you out on it, and demand that you turn it off for their website before they will let you see what you've come to see. In theory, that's entirely reasonable, and a suitable answer to the advertiser's concerns... but that's only if they're remarkably good about detecting the presence of ad-blockers.
Me, I don't use an ad-blocker... but I do use a little tool from the Electronic Frontier Foundation called Privacy Badger, whose sole purpose in life is blocking misbehaving advertisers (and their tracking cookies). They're more than welcome to shoot any ads my way, they just don't get to do so with embedded payloads of tracking nastiness to follow me from one website to the next. Mind you, because nobody seems to want to use a "default" ad these days, I rarely see much in the way of ads at all, but, frankly, that's their problem, not mine. At any rate, now I've got some websites (including at least one that I rather enjoyed) demanding that I turn off Privacy Badger for their site... and frankly, if you're a web developer, and you think that's a reasonable request to make, I want nothing to do with your website. So, here's hoping this particular ad fad doesn't gain any more steam... and I hope those websites that maybe lose traffic from this change their minds, and somehow let us know. Maybe with a nice static ad banner somewhere?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)