Really quick: In general, I dislike responding in quote-reply format. It always makes it sound like I'm more combative than I mean to be. But I didn't know how else to format this.
I didn't mean to suggest you did. So I apologize if it seemed that way.First, when did I say that?
The problem is that they're not just saying these things, they're doing it. They're the ones behind integrating DRM into Intel Sandybridge CPUs, encrypting BluRay disks, and on and on. It's not enough for us to roll our eyes at them and call them idiots. We have to stop giving them money and legislative authority.The MPAA says those things, but we all know it's bullshit.
They may not have been "pro-piracy", but they sure were "anti-anti-piracy"! Because there is no such thing as a law that "stops piracy" and simultaneously respects freedom of speech. Even if you do decide that file sharing is immoral, you have to come to the conclusion that the "solution" to it (draconian censorship laws and hardware locks) is worse.Their business model is flawed and broken. However, piracy is also still flawed and unethical. The (very successful) SOPA protests were in no way pro-piracy or anti-copyright movements, you realize. They were simply a "SOPA goes way too overboard" movements.
If so, then I think most "AAA game" makers missed that course.That's a simple area of interest filter, and yes, that's basically game networking 101 material.
I can't think of any examples of a pure p2p game. What are some? I have to think that would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. Every networked game I can think of is just client-server. (Even if it's the case that one of the clients also acts as a server.)You are making the fatal mistake of assuming the existence of a server. Many games are pure client-server models, but a great many have no server at all during play (and use them only for match making or the like). I don't just mean a lack of a dedicated server, but a complete lack of any server during play at all: pure peer-to-peer protocols (say that 10 times fast).
That's an interesting problem for sure. Though I don't see where being proprietary gets you anywhere. It's still going to be nearly trivial to swap out the game textures. (Which people do) The real issue is that a player's computer knows something, but the player is not supposed to. You have to have the player's computer hide information from the player which just isn't possible. I could just write a program to inspect the incoming network packets and make a realtime map of all enemy positions. (And never actually mess with modifying the game itself at all) Which is exactly how some maphacks work in many games.Let's head back to visibility cheats for a moment. Let's even take the network out of it and pretend we've got some perfect client-server secured model. In an FPS that relies on cover, like a realistic WWII shooter, a simple "hack" would be to just replace the texture for all foliage with a blank transparent texture and replace the ground with a solid blue texture. Now all those enemy players sneaking in the grass are plainly visible, as even with a highly intelligent server those enemy positions still need to be sent to the client because the hiding mechanic is based on human vision and not on object culling algorithms.
It's hard to come up with a generalized solution to that cheating problem. It's probably by a case-by-case basis. I can imagine, in an FPS, a method where you use some heuristics to determine whether or not to send position data to a client. (Since having the game server do proper line of sight tests would be too many cycles) You can use proximity, (If closer than X, give vision) Direction. (Don't give vision if the enemy's behind) You can have zones on the map where line of sight is assumed. Would probably work really well in all but some corner-cases.