I've seen some stuff happen simply with having a web browser on a game console.
EQ2 has had a web browser built in to the game client for about 15 years now, and has had no exploits because of it.
I'm unsure if you are referring to game console as in the in-game command system that many games have (which is called a console), or actual gaming console hardware such as a PlayStation or Xbox.
If the former, I've never seen any exploints to this end, and would be interested if you could point me in the direction of the game and specific exploit you are talking about, as a good laugh at poor execution is always good. It is also worth noting that of these two things, this is the only one that would apply to adding an in game browser to an MMO client.
If you were referring to consoles as in hardware, that is a totally different thing. Because consoles give software basically bare metal access to hardware, if you give people software that allows them to execute what ever code they want (such as a browser), then yeah, obviously that can be exploited. This is a fact of consoles (previous generation ones, at least) not having the built in security features that PC's and Mac's have from their operating system, because consoles were assumed to be a closed system where general users had no means of running any code other than which was approved.
I am referring to hardware. Maybe I should have called them "systems" instead of "consoles".
Just to name a few, Playstation Portable used to have a web browser exploit until it was patched with a software upgrade.
Nintendo 3DS has a web browser exploit, I believe Playstation 3 as well (can't confirm as I didn't own nor hacked a PS3).
Not to mention that the 2 consoles, PSP and 3DS, did very poorly in terms on 3rd party support due to said vulnerabilities. 3DS did somewhat better due to own IPs such as Mario and Pokemon, but the PSP did not achieve anything close to its potential.
A web browser, or software for that matter, should not have bare metal access to hardware and they usually don't. There are several access levels and software is getting some of the lowest ones. The highest access levels being the bootloader, NAND and system storage, which is generally what hackers target to modify.
By loading unsigned code through a vulnerable web browser usually allows homebrew and other tools too run on the system, which can then be utilized to gain higher access levels by exploiting other vulnerabilities.
It doesn't mean that not having a web browser will make AoC an exploit-free game, but my opinion, and based on replies in this topic I am not the only one, it's not worth it to introduce potential risk for something non-essential.
I am referring to hardware. Maybe I should have called them "systems" instead of "consoles".
Calling them consoles is fine, its not your fault that term has been assigned to that one word - at least you clarified when asked.
It doesn't mean that not having a web browser will make AoC an exploit-free game, but my opinion, and based on replies in this topic I am not the only one, it's not worth it to introduce potential risk for something non-essential.
Adding a browser to a game client and using one on a game console are vastly different things.
With consoles, the browser was usually the only way to run non-approved code of any form. In cases where it wasn't the only way, it was still the easiest way (especially if you planned to distribute said code).
With an MMO, you can always run code along side the client - there is no need to use the browser. If an exploit is to be made for the game that uses a browser, it would be able to run in Chrome just as easily as it would be able to be run in any built in browser - this is because there is no need at all to give this browser access to any part of the games code (literally no reason).
As such, a browser built in to a game client is in no way adding to the number of potential exploits a game may have. It isn't reducing it at all either, but it is not adding to it.
The only type of journal I'd be interested in is one that is created by the game as a summary of experiences characters have.
That sounds incredibly boring.
Then don't do it.
Do you realize how many of your posts this response would be appropriate to?
If you don't like word processors and spreadsheets in the game, don't use them. Adding them would use a fraction of the resources that adding an automated story telling device unique to each character would take (such a system would take years to develop to any acceptable standard).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2020
All I said is that I don't think the devs will do it because it breaks immersion.
If they do add them, which is highly unlikely, I won't use them, of course.
All I said is that I don't think the devs will do it because it breaks immersion.
If they do add them, which is highly unlikely, I won't use them, of course.
It breaks immersion less than your skillbar or quest UI does. It's just another minor UI element but this one at least is one you can choose to not use at all since it's not a necessary function.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Dev-created skillbars and quest UI do not break immersion at all.
Spreadsheets would break the fantasy setting for sure. Probably "word processors" would.
A note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy setting.
Dev-created skillbars and quest UI do not break immersion at all.
Spreadsheets would break the fantasy setting for sure. Probably "word processors" would.
A note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy setting.
A competent journal in game would be functionally indistinguishable from a word processor,and a spreadsheet and paint like functionality would simply be there to facilitate chart making (all good journals have charts) and picture drawing.
You are literally arguing semantics saying you are for a journal but against a word processor.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2020
I don't know that I care whether a journal is "competent".
If it's the equivalent of a txt, fine. If it's the equivalent of a rtf, that's probably not worth the coding effort. And the equivalent of a doc is definitely not worth the coding effort.
Any form of spreadsheet, especially, is not worth the coding effort and is immersion-breaking.
So, while I am literally arguing semantics, I am not colloquially arguing semantics.
Also, I did not say "I am for a (note-taking) journal."
I said a note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy-setting.
As an aspiring crafter I'd love to have an in game spreadsheet that can be linked to my inventory.
In another thread people have suggested adding in game tools for guilds to track DKP, since "people will be using it anyway, and the devs might as well just make ppl's life easier". I don't see why the same cannot be argued for crafters' & traders' case - we will have spreadsheets anyway, and letting us import inventory data (either through API or adding in-game spreadsheets) would definitely save us countless hours of typing.
But then, as others have mentioned, there's concern for security, plus that's extra work for the devs.
But again (so many buts), since Ashes is aiming for a near 100% player driven economy, where artisans & traders are expected to play significant roles, I think having an in-game spreadsheet is justifiable.
At the bare minimum, if there won't be any in game spreadsheets, give us buttons to
- export inventory to clipboard
- export purchase / sales log to clipboard
I don't know that I care whether a journal is "competent".
If it's the equivalent of a txt, fine. If it's the equivalent of a rtf, that's probably not worth the coding effort. And the equivalent of a doc is definitely not worth the coding effort.
Any form of spreadsheet, especially, is not worth the coding effort and is immersion-breaking.
So, while I am literally arguing semantics, I am not colloquially arguing semantics.
Also, I did not say "I am for a (note-taking) journal."
I said a note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy-setting.
Coding?
Pull the resources off of github. That is how they would do it either way, the time involved is in deciding which resource to use, and in making a UI for it.
These things are common to both.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words or phrases.
If you made the assumption that a word means a thing, and I say it means so nothing different, that is an argument of semantics.
That isn't what is happening here. You are assuming the developers would have to code a word processor from scratch, I am telling you outright that they would not need to do that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2020
No, you are assuming that what I mean by coding is limited to literally writing new code for a brand new word processor.
And you are -as usual- mistaken.
No, you are assuming that what I mean by coding is limited to literally writing new code for a brand new word processor.
And you are -as usual- mistaken.
So, your argument now is that by "coding", you mean literally anything other than coding?
The thing with semantic is that there need to be multiple valid use cases for the word or phrase. In a discussion on computer development, "coding" only has one meaning - writing computer code. Any other use of the word is just outright wrong, and the suggestion that this isn't the case is to suggest that people are now free to take any word at all, and apply any meaning they wish to it and still expect others to know what they are talking about.
This is plainly absurd, yet is literally what you are now suggesting.
If what you mean by "coding" is not actually coding, then rather that saying I made an incorrect assumption that the thing you say is the thing you mean, the appropriate thing for you to do is to say that you mis-spoke, and then correct yourself. It is not appropriate to expect others to read your mind - and it is not appropriate to say others are mistaken when it is in fact you that is mistaken.
You used the word "coding" as a catch all for development. That was incorrect, and a mistake on your part. Own that shit, rather than trying to make it appear as if others are at fault.
---
And even then, you are missing the point. Your argument was that a simple text editor would be easier to implement, my point is that it would be no easier than a RTF editor, as in both cases all that needs to be done is selecting the editor desired, dropping the code in to the game and working the UI scheme in to it.
It could easily be argued that a full on word processor would actually be easier, as the part of this process that would take the longest is in deciding exactly which editor to use, and there are fewer full RTF editors than simple txt editors - so that process will be far easier.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2020
By coding, I mean everything that it takes to implement and test the feature to work properly in the game.
Should be easier to convey with the one word (especially in the game industry) than writing it all out in detail - except for asshats like yourself who like to argue over every little thing.
If what the OP is asking for is a simple text editor, I am OK with that. I am not "for" it. But, I also am not against it.
If what the OP is asking for is a "competent" word processor - which in IT is considerably more robust than a simple text editor - I think it's not worth the effort. A simple text editor should suffice. Developing and testing and implementing the UI to work with an RTF is more work than it would be for a simple text editor.
If what the OP is asking for is a spreadsheet, that, too, is probably not worth the effort and is immersion-breaking in a way that I think these devs will not implement it.
Again, I'm done with your absurd inanity in this topic.
You can win if you need to win.
By coding, I mean everything that it takes to implement and test the feature to work properly in the game.
The correct words you want for this are "developing, testing and implementing", not "coding". Coding is one specific aspect of that development process. You need to stop trying to weasel out of situations where you make a small mistake and then attempt to defend it when asked for clarification, rather than just correcting your mistake like any normal person.
Every time I have seen you say you are "done with" a poster or a thread, it has been a result of you refusing to clarify something you either mis-spoke on, or were not clear on, and rather than simply admitting it and dealing with it, you double down and point fingers at everyone else around you.
---
Once again, a comprehensive text editor would take Intrepid no more time than a simple one, because in both cases they would use an off the shelf plugin. If you can spend the same resources and get more functionality, that is a no-brainer. They would even be able to get a comprehensive editor with a built in spreadsheet if they wanted, so they could get all the functionality for the same amount of work as implementing a simple editor.
Comments
I am referring to hardware. Maybe I should have called them "systems" instead of "consoles".
Just to name a few, Playstation Portable used to have a web browser exploit until it was patched with a software upgrade.
Nintendo 3DS has a web browser exploit, I believe Playstation 3 as well (can't confirm as I didn't own nor hacked a PS3).
Not to mention that the 2 consoles, PSP and 3DS, did very poorly in terms on 3rd party support due to said vulnerabilities. 3DS did somewhat better due to own IPs such as Mario and Pokemon, but the PSP did not achieve anything close to its potential.
A web browser, or software for that matter, should not have bare metal access to hardware and they usually don't. There are several access levels and software is getting some of the lowest ones. The highest access levels being the bootloader, NAND and system storage, which is generally what hackers target to modify.
By loading unsigned code through a vulnerable web browser usually allows homebrew and other tools too run on the system, which can then be utilized to gain higher access levels by exploiting other vulnerabilities.
It doesn't mean that not having a web browser will make AoC an exploit-free game, but my opinion, and based on replies in this topic I am not the only one, it's not worth it to introduce potential risk for something non-essential.
Eternal Guild
( Web | Discord )
With consoles, the browser was usually the only way to run non-approved code of any form. In cases where it wasn't the only way, it was still the easiest way (especially if you planned to distribute said code).
With an MMO, you can always run code along side the client - there is no need to use the browser. If an exploit is to be made for the game that uses a browser, it would be able to run in Chrome just as easily as it would be able to be run in any built in browser - this is because there is no need at all to give this browser access to any part of the games code (literally no reason).
As such, a browser built in to a game client is in no way adding to the number of potential exploits a game may have. It isn't reducing it at all either, but it is not adding to it.
Do you realize how many of your posts this response would be appropriate to?
If you don't like word processors and spreadsheets in the game, don't use them. Adding them would use a fraction of the resources that adding an automated story telling device unique to each character would take (such a system would take years to develop to any acceptable standard).
If they do add them, which is highly unlikely, I won't use them, of course.
It breaks immersion less than your skillbar or quest UI does. It's just another minor UI element but this one at least is one you can choose to not use at all since it's not a necessary function.
Spreadsheets would break the fantasy setting for sure. Probably "word processors" would.
A note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy setting.
A competent journal in game would be functionally indistinguishable from a word processor,and a spreadsheet and paint like functionality would simply be there to facilitate chart making (all good journals have charts) and picture drawing.
You are literally arguing semantics saying you are for a journal but against a word processor.
If it's the equivalent of a txt, fine. If it's the equivalent of a rtf, that's probably not worth the coding effort. And the equivalent of a doc is definitely not worth the coding effort.
Any form of spreadsheet, especially, is not worth the coding effort and is immersion-breaking.
So, while I am literally arguing semantics, I am not colloquially arguing semantics.
Also, I did not say "I am for a (note-taking) journal."
I said a note-taking journal could probably fit the fantasy-setting.
In another thread people have suggested adding in game tools for guilds to track DKP, since "people will be using it anyway, and the devs might as well just make ppl's life easier". I don't see why the same cannot be argued for crafters' & traders' case - we will have spreadsheets anyway, and letting us import inventory data (either through API or adding in-game spreadsheets) would definitely save us countless hours of typing.
But then, as others have mentioned, there's concern for security, plus that's extra work for the devs.
But again (so many buts), since Ashes is aiming for a near 100% player driven economy, where artisans & traders are expected to play significant roles, I think having an in-game spreadsheet is justifiable.
At the bare minimum, if there won't be any in game spreadsheets, give us buttons to
- export inventory to clipboard
- export purchase / sales log to clipboard
Coding?
Pull the resources off of github. That is how they would do it either way, the time involved is in deciding which resource to use, and in making a UI for it.
These things are common to both.
Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words or phrases.
If you made the assumption that a word means a thing, and I say it means so nothing different, that is an argument of semantics.
That isn't what is happening here. You are assuming the developers would have to code a word processor from scratch, I am telling you outright that they would not need to do that.
And you are -as usual- mistaken.
The thing with semantic is that there need to be multiple valid use cases for the word or phrase. In a discussion on computer development, "coding" only has one meaning - writing computer code. Any other use of the word is just outright wrong, and the suggestion that this isn't the case is to suggest that people are now free to take any word at all, and apply any meaning they wish to it and still expect others to know what they are talking about.
This is plainly absurd, yet is literally what you are now suggesting.
If what you mean by "coding" is not actually coding, then rather that saying I made an incorrect assumption that the thing you say is the thing you mean, the appropriate thing for you to do is to say that you mis-spoke, and then correct yourself. It is not appropriate to expect others to read your mind - and it is not appropriate to say others are mistaken when it is in fact you that is mistaken.
You used the word "coding" as a catch all for development. That was incorrect, and a mistake on your part. Own that shit, rather than trying to make it appear as if others are at fault.
---
And even then, you are missing the point. Your argument was that a simple text editor would be easier to implement, my point is that it would be no easier than a RTF editor, as in both cases all that needs to be done is selecting the editor desired, dropping the code in to the game and working the UI scheme in to it.
It could easily be argued that a full on word processor would actually be easier, as the part of this process that would take the longest is in deciding exactly which editor to use, and there are fewer full RTF editors than simple txt editors - so that process will be far easier.
Should be easier to convey with the one word (especially in the game industry) than writing it all out in detail - except for asshats like yourself who like to argue over every little thing.
If what the OP is asking for is a simple text editor, I am OK with that. I am not "for" it. But, I also am not against it.
If what the OP is asking for is a "competent" word processor - which in IT is considerably more robust than a simple text editor - I think it's not worth the effort. A simple text editor should suffice. Developing and testing and implementing the UI to work with an RTF is more work than it would be for a simple text editor.
If what the OP is asking for is a spreadsheet, that, too, is probably not worth the effort and is immersion-breaking in a way that I think these devs will not implement it.
Again, I'm done with your absurd inanity in this topic.
You can win if you need to win.
Every time I have seen you say you are "done with" a poster or a thread, it has been a result of you refusing to clarify something you either mis-spoke on, or were not clear on, and rather than simply admitting it and dealing with it, you double down and point fingers at everyone else around you.
---
Once again, a comprehensive text editor would take Intrepid no more time than a simple one, because in both cases they would use an off the shelf plugin. If you can spend the same resources and get more functionality, that is a no-brainer. They would even be able to get a comprehensive editor with a built in spreadsheet if they wanted, so they could get all the functionality for the same amount of work as implementing a simple editor.