this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
605 points (95.1% liked)

memes

10705 readers
2430 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
605
Some people just defend the status quo. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/34790413

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uis@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I prepared for this argument very long time ago.

He omits a number of unrealistic assumptions:

  1. Bots buying game somehow is not infinite money glitch for developers. Assumption of complete lack of mental capacity of dev.
  2. Nobody except 'Bad Guy' can run server. Or if there is, none of them will run server just to play game instesd of profiting. Assumption of complete lack of mental capacity of players.
  3. 'Bad Guy' somehow makes more money from servers than spends on botting.

And now I will add new assumption I missed:

  1. 'Bad Guy' spends less on botting, than it costs to reverse engieneer protocol or make new game.

EDIT: forgot most important assumption, that was in another message:

  1. Game should not loose players, or there will be nobody to profit off.
[–] kazaika@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You dont need bots to ruin a game, ddos is sufficient and cheap enough to come by, probably even easier in the future. Argument 2 already covered in other comment below

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Your reply basically was "even if they will not profit from it, they still can abuse company by doing it". It does not address critique of implicit assumptions such takes.

Such position is fundamentally anti-social and similar to making shopping center contaminate enviroment with radiation when company, that owns it, goes bankrupt, because "it would open ways for abuse". Except it's even more nonsensical(see 2, 3 and 4).

If anything, this is not an argument against SKG, this is argument against capitalism as a whole.