> I asked you to post your favorite (commonly known) game/sport to play or watch and you failed miserably at it.
Yes, I ignored it 'cause it had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
And it looks like I failed to make you understand my point. Not once but twice. Well, that's too bad.
> This is not about game options are in using in game mecanics to get an advantage.
> This is about preventing third party software...
I'm not talking about in game options alone, I'm talking about all the possible things one can do to improve (cheat if you will) your edge.
Everybody can install third party software (be it legal to the game or not), which makes the level playing field argument none-sense.
This is about sacrificing privacy for games, which is a bad thing. Humans will always try to cheat/find the edge, it is in their nature.
> are you serious?
Yes I am serious, actually I'm superserious.
The "level playing field" argument the article talks about is BS. If anybody can use some option (be it morally good or bad!!!) the playing field _is_ level.
So, yes, sacrificing privacy for a so called level playing field is stupendous to say the least.
> How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field?
None whatsoever! We are talking about effing games here!
And like someone else already mentioned: This "option" can be used by everybody, hence the playing field _is_ level.
The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.