Rulings for PC games (framerates, key bindings etc.)

2013-07-11 10:58:42 am

Gets the cake.

Quote from S.:

Yeah WHen I needed a new mouse I bought one with a freescroll wheel just so I could bhop easy.

I now use the wheel for everything BUT bhop.

It really is way more useful for freescrolling down 3 days of missed status updates on facebook, or finding the bottom of a massive news article.

Blubbler

2013-07-11 11:03:52 am

Quote from z1mb0bw4y:

Back on the topic of freescroll wheels, they are really not as much of an advantage as everyone in the community thinks. If you get it spinning fast enough to be an "autospam", then it's doing an input every frame and the game will just see it as holding the key down. It's, imo, literally useless.

It depends on the game. It's like that in the Source engine, but in many others it isn't.

Freezard

2013-07-11 05:20:54 pm

Yeah I know games it works just fine in. But it doesn't really matter, in the future every mouse is going to have a wheel like that so it would just be stupid to ban it.

CyberBotX

2013-07-11 07:16:06 pm

Insane Killer Robot

I feel like this should probably be the thread for this, but I would like to see what the SDA administration is going to do about runs of games from Steam, since it auto-patches and all that.

oasiz

2013-07-12 12:06:02 am

Iha paska

You can still see the version number and re-use older binaries with your legal backup copy of your game directory, providing you can skip steam itself. There are ways..
It's a risk you gotta take when doing runs, just like hl2 dwahmov, just barely managed to squeeze by the steampipe update which would have ruined the whole run potentially.
Even though the update is pretty transparent, you can still see the version easily in most games. I don't really see an issue with this for that reason.

CyberBotX

2013-07-12 05:12:38 am

Insane Killer Robot

Yes, but the issue that has been brought up is the questionable legality of getting older versions once you've been updated to the latest version through Steam. Not everyone is going to be able to keep older versions of the game, and even if they do, then you have the extra bag of worms in trying to get it to run without Steam interjecting. I personally feel that the rule stating to use a version that works best for a speedrun is a lot harder to maintain because of Steam's auto-patching, especially since that rule was in place long before systems like Steam existed. I, for one, feel like it would be unfair if I did a run of a game from Steam and got it rejected on the grounds of "He's not using the version with the bugs or glitches or exploits that would make it faster." It's not like older console games where different versions of the cartridge exist and you could search out an older version of the game.

Freezard

2013-07-12 01:52:30 pm

On the other hand you can't really have one category for every patch can you? That could quickly get messy since you don't know how many major patches a game will get. Getting an old version from a non-Steamworks game isn't a problem because patches are separate and there are usually different sites selling the game, it's a bit trickier with Steamworks games since you have to skip Steam like oasiz says, but I haven't had any problem finding 1.0 torrents for the Steamworks games I've been running.

presjpolk

Edit history:

presjpolk: 2013-07-12 03:34:23 pm

2013-07-12 03:34:09 pm

HELLO!

1.0 torrents.. If someone else has to do something illegal for you to run a game for SDA, is that really a sensible rule?

Onin

2013-07-12 03:53:59 pm

Illegal is a relative term when it comes to this, but that is the biggest issue with updating versions. It's somewhat common for runners to share the fastest version among each other, which, considering everyone owns the game and is therefore entitled to have it in the state they prefer, is technically legal, but it's a slippery slope and it makes the game a lot less accessible for future runners.

In the past you could just handpick what official patches to download. Nowadays, entire versions of a game may disappear from the internet.

kwinse

Edit history:

kwinse: 2013-07-12 04:27:11 pm

kwinse: 2013-07-12 04:26:46 pm

2013-07-12 04:26:27 pm

Quote from Onin:

Considering everyone owns the game and is therefore entitled to have it in the state they prefer

That's not a right I've heard of when it comes to software licenses.

Personal backup rights are not licenses to distribute to other people who also have personal backup rights.

presjpolk

2013-07-12 04:38:53 pm

HELLO!

Correct. You're allowed to have backups. That's established law. But you're not allowed to convey those to others without a license.

LLCoolDave

2013-07-13 03:29:50 am

With the current state of ToS nonsense for games I wouldn't even be surprised if they technically didn't allow you to run outdated versions of a game, although I'm sceptical if that type of ruling has any legal basis.

Hsanrb

2013-07-13 04:16:14 am

Chances are unless they watch the title screen or a place the version number is listed, or your using a really big bug/glitch that has been patched, they probably couldn't tell the difference between one patch and another of their own game.

Freezard

Edit history:

Freezard: 2013-07-13 05:47:06 am

2013-07-13 05:45:33 am

Why should we care about someone else doing something illegal when we aren't? Unless it's a speedrunner doing it (which I only know happens in the Source-scene), it's not our problem. If you want to distribute old versions and you're worried about having the cops knock on your door I suggest writing a program that allows people to switch to any version on-the-fly.

I would ban using old versions of games that are online-only though, like Diablo III, StarCraft II and Sim City, because you're not even supposed to be able to play these games offline. I know some runners have done it but it's a pretty complex process.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2013-07-13 05:46:22 am

2013-07-13 05:45:39 am

Quote from presjpolk:

Correct. You're allowed to have backups. That's established law. But you're not allowed to convey those to others without a license.

Then technically, it falls under that 'backup' clause, if you've already bought the game and you're just downloading an older version of it because you wouldn't be able to find it otherwise. It's a grey area, but not an ethically bad one in that case.

kwinse

Edit history:

kwinse: 2013-07-13 08:30:42 am

2013-07-13 08:30:24 am

Quote from Carcinogen:

Then technically, it falls under that 'backup' clause, if you've already bought the game and you're just downloading an older version of it because you wouldn't be able to find it otherwise. It's a grey area, but not an ethically bad one in that case.

Copyright.gov suggests to me otherwise. Admittedly it only talks about the sale and purchase of "backup" copies, but it reads to me that the act of unauthorized distribution to people who legally own a license is still in itself a violation, regardless of how much money changed hands.

But yeah I think SDA will have to assume good faith- as long as the runners don't incriminate themselves, SDA should have no reason to suspect they are doing anything wrong.

CyberBotX

2013-07-13 09:12:32 am

Insane Killer Robot

Even if it is possible to get an older version of a Steam game from a non-Steam source, I still don't feel like it should be forced onto people to go hunting down the older versions just to be allowed to publish a run on SDA. That's why I'd like an official statement about it.

I understand that, in some cases, it's not possible to tell what version of the game is being used. I also remember reading in the pre-roundtable discussion thread that someone mentioned at least one game's developers didn't mind that an older version was being passed around, but like Carc said, it's a gray area.

My point is this: If I don't feel comfortable hunting down a source for an older version of a game, illegal or not, ethical or not, then I shouldn't have to. I'm not saying that it means there should be multiple categories based on version, but maybe something more simple, like either glitches/glitchless, if that happens to be the case.

MMAN

Edit history:

MMAN: 2013-07-13 09:51:11 am

MMAN: 2013-07-13 09:49:57 am

MMAN: 2013-07-13 09:49:44 am

2013-07-13 09:20:54 am

For games where it's relevant I think categories for "newest version available at the time" and "fastest version available at the time" doesn't seem it would be too big a problem, outside of regularly updated games; and I think that would work out as long as verification standards stay up and a crappy run with bad execution isn't accepted just because it tries to excuse itself with the fact that the developers removed all glitches and timesavers.

Edit: Of course there's the risk of having a new patch come out mid-run and essentially obsolete the run before it's done, but most games where this distinction is important are presumably old enough for major patches to not happen anyway, and if they are, maybe it would be better to hold off on running anyway until things settle down a bit?

Judgy

Edit history:

Judgy: 2013-07-13 10:05:50 am

2013-07-13 10:03:37 am

Borderlands 2 Glitch Hunter/ router.

just thought I'd throw something into the pot, As far as Backups and patching is concerned with Borderlands 2 what we did was create a Community patch, which can roll the game back and forth from patch 1.3.4 (Best suited for a Speedrun) and 1.6.0 (Kreig / Tiny Tina DLC) [Most recent] what it does is it overwrites only the files changed by the patches restoring them to either 1.3.4 or 1.6.0 states.

I do need to note that we are distributing this patch to allow others to rollback their games, so that they can speedrun themselves and that this is ONLY A PATCHER, not an entire set of game files, on its own it is useless, you would need to purchase the game itself to use it. also it is incapable of enabling DLC's it contains files which certain DLC's require however ultimately the activation of DLC's are Steams business.

We also (to the best of my knowledge) asked a Gearbox member of staff if they were O.K with a community patch like the one mentioned and they were fine with it.

presjpolk

Edit history:

presjpolk: 2013-07-13 02:37:03 pm

presjpolk: 2013-07-13 02:37:01 pm

presjpolk: 2013-07-13 02:37:00 pm

2013-07-13 02:34:10 pm

HELLO!

Quote from kwinse:

But yeah I think SDA will have to assume good faith- as long as the runners don't incriminate themselves, SDA should have no reason to suspect they are doing anything wrong.

It's one thing to assume good faith. It's another to set a policy in place that, in practice, eliminates the legal ability to run a bunch of games, because it is no longer possible for a person to acquire the only allowed speedrunning version through legal channels.

Because not all copyright holders are going to give permission, or even be accessible to *ask* for permission.

Freezard

Edit history:

Freezard: 2013-07-13 05:57:42 pm

2013-07-13 05:56:07 pm

That is what I was talking about, making a patcher if the game moves too fast with updates (which Borderlands 2 does for sure). Why you would even need permission to do that, I don't know, since it only contains the patch files and those can usually be downloaded for free from the net.

Anyway, as CyberBotX said, this isn't a question about legality but more about people wanting to speedrun the newest version of a game instead of hunting down an old, specific one. All I know is that a major skips category exists, but that's only for extreme cases. If I had to put the words into the horse's mouth, I think it's fine as it currently is and that new categories would only clutter down the site even more. And while I can see the fun of running a game without certain glitches (which you always can do without having to submit your runs), I can't see the fun of watching it when there's a faster run available which includes cool glitches but otherwise is pretty much the same.

Yagamoth

2013-07-16 07:00:52 am

INTJ

I wonder - was the issue of DOS games actually touched?