Are multiplayer games SaaSS?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Is playing Nexuiz online SaaSS? RMS seemed to think so here, in the original
version of Who Does That Server Really Serve?:
http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM
Interestingly enough, the passage where he mentions games is no longer in the
current updated version on the GNU website.
I personally don't share his view. I don't think that multiplayer games are
SaaSS because (in the case of an FPS like Nexuiz or a strategy game like
FreeCiv) each user still runs her own copy of the game- the server is simply an
instance of the game that just so happens to be the centre of information
exchange for the other instances. The only information actually on the server
that would normally be on the user's own computer is arbitrary data
like the state of play and the score.
If several people decided to play Monopoly, each recording the state of play on
their own boards (the separate programs, in this allegory) and communicating
through a 'postmaster' who controlled the flow of correspondence (the server),
there is no SaaSS, because no one is doing anyone else's computing for them.
How is this SaaSS?
It's not SaSS, like software repositories and webmail services aren't. It's only SaSS when the server is running software you don't know with your data that you could be running in your own machine, like wolfram alpha for example.
That's exactly the question. I could be running Quake solely on my machine-
client and server. However, I am using someone else's server, and entrusting
them with that part of the game- acting as a hub of communication between all
instances of the game. Is this SaaSS? That is the question.
No. That's a communication job, a joint activity. It's impossible to play a multiplayer game with someone else using only software on your computer.
If the game was single-player, and the server only existed to provide the game world... that still probably wouldn't be SaaSS, because in that case you're accessing the server to get the particular game world.
Really, the only case of SaaSS in games is things like the OnLive; so-called "cloud gaming", where the game runs on someone else's computer and you send input to the server while the server sends you a video feed.
I agree. Seeing that paragraph in the original version of the article had me
somewhat confused as to how that qualified as SaaSS, and got me asking this
question here. I held, and still hold, the opinion that multiplayer gaming is
not SaaSS.
> It's impossible to play a multiplayer game with someone else using only
> software on your computer.
Consider: a chess program which does not follow the client-server model, but
simply updates its own internal state of play according to the information sent
to it over the network. It would thus be hypothetically possible to conduct a
game of chess over two networked computers using only local software, and
having the programs communicate directly, updating each other's stored state of
play and sending each other relevant information (such as moves, etc.) in turn.
It is possible to have a multiplayer experience without the client-server
model. I believe that this is in fact the manner in which some early two-player
games functioned- much like playing chess by post.
That really doesn't matter; you still depend on the software on the other player's computer to communicate with them. The only difference you're talking about is whether the communication job is centralized or distributed. If centralized communication jobs were no good, that would extend to the entirety of the World Wide Web, too.
There is a huge difference between depending on remote software being there and
actively outsourcing your computing somewhere else. Retrieving a web page
depends on remote software being there, yet is clearly not substituting a
service for your own software.
Any joint activity depends on software on someone else's machine. Here, I was only talking about the difference between centralized communication vs. distributed communication. Distributed communication would be things like P2P. The entire WWW works in a centralized manner: a server has all the data, you send a request to it, and it sends you the data. On the other hand, BitTorrent is distributed; you have the data sent to you by several parties, and send the data yourself in the meantime.
The server/client model is the centralized way to do multiplayer games. Point is, if you reject this, you would have to reject other centralized communication, like the entirety of the WWW, to be consistent. I don't reject such things.
Indeed you would. I do not.
There's a difference between communicating with remote software, and using
remote software as a replacement for your own.
Multiplayer games == SaaS?
Well this is new, sort of.
A SaaS game would be more like having the whole game on the server. So the client only sends the input and receives the frames. Could Stallman actually be referring to MMO games that have an important part of the game only in the server, like Habbo Hotel? If that's the case then I can see why he call them SaaS. But I can't if he refers to any multiplayer game, like OpenArena.
That actually has been done before; there was a system designed for this called the "OnLive". I don't think it ever really caught on.
Thanks for the info onpon4. I didn't knew this was already happening, or even possible. This is exactly the nightmare that I have been seeing becoming true over time. This, the tablets/toasters, and everything that has "cloud" in their name is pure crap. Whether we are talking from a freedom, philosophical, privacy or independence point of view, we can only find this things dangerous. There's just some minor advantages that comes with this. For instance you can play games with awesome graphics on toasters as long as you have Internet connection. But the price that you pay on freedom, independence and privacy is just to high. Is people's duty to completely reject and ignore this horrible services if we don't want to live depending more and more on services that we don't even need.
As well as things like AdventureQuest, which is an MMO hosted entirely in the
browser as a (*spits*) Flash game.
I believe he was probably referring to things like AdventureQuest, BattleDawn,
and the like- all multiplayer games, yet hosted entirely online.
moxalt wrote:
> Interestingly enough, the passage where he mentions games is no
> longer in the current updated version on the GNU website.
Did you ask him why the versions differ with respect to your point? If
so, what did he say in response?
> I personally don't share his view. I don't think that multiplayer
> games are SaaSS because (in the case of an FPS like Nexuiz or a
> strategy game like FreeCiv) each user still runs her own copy of the
> game- the server is simply an instance of the game that just so
> happens to be the centre of information exchange for the other
> instances. The only information actually on the server that would
> normally be on the user's own computer is arbitrary data like the
> state of play and the score.
Since Stallman says (in
https://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM):
> But where the data involved is just the state of play and the score,
> the worst wrong the operator might commit is favoritism. You might
> well ignore that risk, since it seems unlikely and very little is at
> stake.
it seems like you don't really disagree with Stallman. Perhaps in
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html he
edited out the paragraph about multiplayer games for the very reason he
said in the
https://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM version
-- "[favoritism] seems unlikely and very little is at stake".
But whether there is actually some grave threat or not is irrelevant. In the
same way that the issue with proprietary software is not necessarily that it is
directly abusing the user (in many cases it is not) but a matter of principle.
The issue at stake here is not what the operator could potentially do or not,
but whether the practice of using someone else's server for communicating
between instances of a game is actually SaaSS or not, and whether it should
thus be rejected on principle. I don't think it is.
moxalt wrote:
> In the same way that the issue with proprietary software is not
> necessarily that it is directly abusing the user (in many cases it is
> not) but a matter of principle.
Then this is where you differ with the free software movement.
Proprietary software mistreats each of its users by not granting users
the 4 freedoms of free software. For free software activists, the lack
of these freedoms are the principle by which proprietary software is
dismissed out of hand. There's no way to defend your assertion that
proprietary software is not mistreating its users because one cannot
study, alter, distribute, or sometimes even run a proprietary program.
If you believe that proprietary software is not "directly abusing the
user" then it would seem you don't actually agree with the free software
movement. The free software movement posits (with remarkable evidence)
that proprietary software is ethically wrong.
> The issue at stake here is not what the operator could potentially do
> or not, but whether the practice of using someone else's server for
> communicating between instances of a game is actually SaaSS or not,
> and whether it should thus be rejected on principle. I don't think it
> is.
There's nothing clarifying about a program being a game; we need to
understand what a specific program actually does in order to comment on
whether that program is Service as a Software Substitute. Therefore one
shouldn't make broad generalizations such as what you've written above.
Determining what the operator could do is determining the scope of what
harm the user could suffer. I believe that is the basis of Stallman's
analysis of when SaaSS is inconsequential and can be dismissed, versus
when SaaSS is dangerous and ethically wrong.
Sorry for using the term 'a matter of principle'. I was trying to differentiate
between the ethical basis for rejecting proprietary software, and the
possibilities for active abuse due to the user being denied control.
I accept that all proprietary software denies the four freedoms to the user,
and this constitutes abuse. All proprietary software does this, and all
proprietary software should be rejected just based on this is a consequence.
This is real abuse, and I concur. There is, however, another dimension of abuse
on top of this, which the nature of proprietary software allows the entity
controlling the software to perpetrate- things like disregarding the privacy of
users, and so on. There are two grounds on which to reject proprietary
software- firstly, that it denies the user control of the program, enough in
itself, and secondly, that the body behind the program can actively abuse the
user due to the nature of proprietary code being closed and secret.
In the same way, all SaaSS should be rejected, not necessarily because the
server operator is selling the user's secrets to the NSA, but because (as with
proprietary software) it denies the user control over the program doing the
user's computing. This is clearly unethical, and as with proprietary software,
it should be rejected solely due to that. On top of that, because SaaSS denies
the user control, it opens up the possibility for active abuse by those
controlling the server, because the user has no idea what's actually being done
with her data.
Your last paragraph contains something of a contradiction. You claimed that
proprietary software, since it denies the user control over the program, is
unethical and should thus be rejected (and I agree). However, in regards to
SaaSS, even though it does the same thing (denying the user control over the
program), you call this inconsequential. SaaSS and proprietary software are
both unethical regardless of active harm perpetrated because they both deny the
user the four freedoms in the first place.
With these games (especially the Quake 3 ones), there is a dedicated server for the clients to connect to. If the client is under a free license, the server software is probably free as well.
If this is actually SaaSS then being under a free license isn't enough if you're going to use the service anyway. You have to run it on a computer under your control (both server and client). So the question isn't whether SaaSS can be acceptable under a free license but whether using someone's else Quake 3 server qualify as SaaSS.
It doesn't. Multiplayer games aren't your own computing, but a shared activity by multiple people.
Then we should ask Stallman what was he referring to with multiplayer games before people picks the wrong idea.
It seems obvious to me that he simply changed his mind. He was probably referring to exactly what it looks like in the original version. Like all human beings, RMS is imperfect and makes mistakes.
You're right. This edit clearly reflect that mind change: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ko-diff.html
So it's pretty much solved now, the article is just outdated.
Why are you making such a big stink about this? It is software running on another server that you connect to and probably don't have any control of. If you have a problem with that, you may as well disconnect from the internet.
I was trying to understand Stallman's position, but it seems he was just mistaking. So there's no reason to ask him now.
You clearly don't understand the distinction between SaaSS and connecting to
servers in general. Browsing the web is not SaaSS, but under your definition
('anything that involves connecting to a server you do not directly control')
it would be. The difference is that in the case of, say, Google Drive word
processing, you are using a service hosted on a server to do your own computing
for you, instead of simply running a free word processor of your own. The
ethical issue here is that, as with proprietary software, the user is not in
control of her own computing- those who run the server are. Requesting files
from a server, however, is not SaaSS because those files are simply being
retrieved and then viewed in a program on the user's own computer. Sure,
potential abuses exist, as they always do, but this does not make the practice
of browsing the web unethical. It is important to note that in both these cases
the user is connecting to servers running software they have no direct control
over- yet there is a clear difference in how both practices (browsing the web
and SaaSS) actually function, and the ethical consequences therein.
My case is that I do not consider playing, say, Nexuiz online over someone
else's server a case of SaaSS- and I don't think Stallman does either. A game of
Nexuiz usually requires both a client and a server. Usually (in single-player)
these are both hosted on the same machine; one client, one server. In the case
of online play, however, multiple users have decided to share one server
between their many clients, communicating over a network.
There are peer-to-peer games around like Stunt Rally, which do not have any central server, aside of the master server which handles the list of games.
The original version of "Who Does That Server Really Serve" clearly mentioned that games are for fun, so you don't need to care if they're SaaSS. So it's not unethical to eg. play chess on a site.
> Games are for fun, so you don't need to care if they're SaaSS
I know that Games aren't exactly computing/work/tool. But still, "cloud gaming" means depending on someone's else server for doing something that you're perfectly capable of doing on your computer. It also means that you never have the possibility to modify or copy the game. So, I care if a game is SaaSS.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that SaaSS is not necessarily unethical. I can't see a way to justify calling services substituting for software unethical which wouldn't also justify calling all services to do something you could do yourself unethical. However, I do think RMS is right that we should avoid SaaSS, because it's still dangerous for the users even if it's an ethical type of service (for the reasons he outlines).
Unethical or not, it's clear that you have way more independence and control over your computing running the software on your own than using a service. And since the whole point of the free software movement is to have control over your computing then SaaSS should be avoided. SaaSS is even worse than off-line proprietary software in some aspects:
* If you have a computer with proprietary software that works without Internet and you don't connect. Then you know your data is safe in terms of privacy. With SaaSS you always have to send all the data to the server in order to get the result, clearly not the best in terms of privacy.
* You can at least try to reverse engineer the software and change it. With SaaSS you can't, unless the source code from the server is public. But if you want to make changes to the software you obviously have to run it on your computer, but then it's not SaaSS anymore.
But I don't think that SaaSS is bad always. If you only use SaaSS sporadically for reasons like "I need to do a translation but my brother's computer don't have GNU translator" then it's okay, because you don't depend on SaaSS, you only used it because it was more convenient at that temporal situation. But when you depend on SaaSS then in my opinion it can be as bad as any addiction.
RMS would agree with the last paragraph. Even he uses proprietary software on
occasion, for things like browsing, when he is without his own computer.
I think this is maybe the difference between quake 3 arena, and quakelive.com?
Quake Live isn't SaaSS, just a typical client-server multiplayer game as far as I understand it. The only particular difference is the client was initially implemented as a Web browser plugin.
Wwell I personally think its safer in some aspects.
Like for example, admins of those servers are very limited compared to admins on a q3a server. id is basically the admin now, and its all in the cloud. You can't just make your own server with your own hardware like in q3a and have the same full control over it with the same admin commands.
Which is how i believe I was hacked in q3a a couple times. For example my cfg was changed so that I would always be drowning. So when a round started my character would just start dying hahah. ( this same thing happened to me in a game called RIFT recenlty, after publicly recalling this story about quake. The devs just called it a bug that has happened to people, but I know from my past and the coincidence, it was most likely malicious) Another time, all the players on a q3a server changed their names to the names of underground music artsts i had in folders on my pc at the time.....
But even in quakelive.com i have had problems. For example, my account was bugged so that every other game would crash to desktop. id software told me it was my vid card....so to be on the safe side, i went out and bought a whole new pc with diff brand hardware, cpu, vid card, mobo, hdd, etc... and I still had the same issue!! Eventually the mod of the russian quakelive forums felt sorry for me, and gave me a javscript code he told me to make a bookmarklet with. So everytime i went to the quaklive.com site I would click the bookmarklet, and i never crashed again.... I would be banned for talkinga bout these things, but they never deleted my thread in the support section with the fix. These are true stories.
I even got a virus from battlelog.com which ea refused to admit a couple years ago, after battlelog and punkbuster were hacked offline for almost two weeks...
Imo, online gaming is one of the most dangerous things you can do with your computer. Its where all these criminal hackers get their start, and imo the only ones still playing pc games. Its why pc gaming has been dying for a decade, especially fps games with all the cheaters. And why, although not my type of game, you really have to respect those honourable Koreans who made League of Legends an international sport, bigger then counterstrike ever was. Quite an anomaly in this day and age especially when since 2012 all hell has been breaking lose, with game companies constantly admitting when they are being hacked, which they never did before.
I don't mind multiplayer games being saas, because they are games.... But I'm definitely against normal software being software as a service. Such as word processors, or operating systems, or things that deal directly with sensitive information.
I Play video games at my own risk, because I refuse to let the malicious hackers think they can scare people off. But I do think using software controlled by someone else, not matter how minute, is definitely dangerous.
Speaking of counterstrike, I remember Haliburton and Army research and development, hacking kids who played counterstrike back in the days, and then sending army recruiters to their highschools. I know this for a fact.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires