Depends on the game. Apex, Riot, ubisoft, and EA all ban vm players. A list of other companies do as well.

Easy way to get yourself banned in online games just an FYI. Most online games will detect and ban virtual machines now since they’ve become commonplace in cheat/hack communities.

Reddit is dead to me, and given their stance on their apis, should be dead to pretty much all hobbiests deeply interested in self hosting.

I’d recommend against it. Apple’s software ecosystem isn’t as friendly for self hosting anything, storage is difficult to add, ram impossible, and you’ll be beholden to macOS running things inside containers until the good folks at Asahi or some other coummity startup add partial linux support.

And yes, I’ve tried this route. I ran an m1 mac mini as a home server for a while (running jellyfin and some other containers). It pretty consistently ran into software bugs (less maintained than x64 software) and every time I wanted to do an update instead of sudo whateveryourdistroships update, and a reboot, it was an entire process involving an apple account, logging into the bare metal device, and then finally running their 15-60 minute long update. Perfectly fine and acceptable for home computing, but not exactly a good experience when you’re hosting a service.

Wait… You want us to pay humans? - Every triple A gaming company since 2010.

I spot a furry.

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

Those words proved the folly of the “free as in freedom” open source many moons ago.

I will say I’ve never ever even once had an issue with my M1 pro 16", can’t say that about any other laptop I’ve owned (be it battery swelling, software bugs, or “issues” one learns to live with like sleep mode causing boot crashes or sleep mode draining battery %). Kinda amazing in hindsight.

How I imagine you responding to your singular downvoter:

Seems fine. They’re providing food, overtime pay, and pto for use at a future date. That’s a better deal than a lot of employees get. Obviously this isn’t how I think we should do work/living, but that’s about as fair of a compromise as you’re going to see in this particular industry at this time unless you’re extremely lucky.

I see what you mean and understand you. It’s very idealistic and I appreciate the thought of it, but it just won’t apply to a modern world full of varied people in the way you wish. The reality of it is that most people simply are not interested in participating and it’s not in the best interests of any project to expect to change that. Contributions from someone who shares no passion or interest will be less qualitative at best. That’s not even to mention that you’re likely missing the forest for the trees, as most open source software is built upon hundreds of other projects. You cannot reasonably expect participation on that scale. You can encourage, desire, or structure an income stream to support it; but you cannot expect it as it’s just not rational.

Not sure what part of the open source community you’ve been diving into, but the expectation of contribution to the project is not realistic nor logical as there’s not “always” something a person can contribute and you’d absolutely run afoul of “too many chefs in the kitchen” (even Wikipedia acknowledges this and has structured editing in a way to help alleviate the issues). Though open source for me, and a lot of others, has always embodied passion, a desire to aid the community, and a drive to prevent closed alternatives. None of that is based around “co-op” style expected contribution development. Hell, even Stallman famously addressed my “free as in beer” statement, saying that open source is more akin to “free as in speech” overall, but since this particular project is not monitizing and are GPL 2 licensed, they are absolutely free as in beer.

(https://www.wired.com/2006/09/free-as-in-beer/)

I understand this, but we need to be reasonable and avoid extremes. This software is extensively free (as in beer) and requires development support. As long as the prompt doesn’t cross any lines into exploitive territory I think it’s fine. It would be nice for them to have explored other fundraising avenues first though and have saved this as an exhaustive “final” option.

Is this the new embrace, extend, extinguish?

They love Linux*!

*the windows subsystem for Linux

Official support implies that they will do whatever necessary to take the device from an unworkable state to a workable one.

Thanks for the psa op

"I’d love to enjoy this free thing, but don’t feel at all like contributing in a way that would actually move the needle towards that goal and have gotten impatient with making any progress towards assisting with bug fixes or anything valuable I could contribute from my end. Instead I’m going to shit post and complain for adviews. " - Rock Paper Shotgun.

We don’t ignore them. We scope out implementation plans constantly, it’s just when they hit the MBA managers desk they tend to end up in the shredder.

Never underestimate the fleeting willpower of gamers in the face of exclusivity deals. It’s already captured a large section of the market (xbox consoles literally just run modified windows now) and will likely capture more. It’s all about adding enough of a marketing spin on it until the average gamer stops caring, or concedes the value proposition or their morals in favor of something they want more (like a next gen Skyrim reboot or something idk 🤷‍♂️)