Are hardware mods akin to in-game mods?

The Verge recently posted an article on how to modify an Xbox One controller into a throttle-and-stick setup with 3-D printed parts to make it easier to play Microsoft Flight Simulator.

In last week’s class we discussed unauthorized in-game mods; for example, mods created in Nintendo’s Animal Crossing by hackers. If a game developer takes issue with in-game mods on the basis that they disrupt the balance of the game, create unfair advantages, and/or interfere with the developer’s creative or artistic vision for the game (not an exhaustive list,) and if the developer intended for the game to be played with a particular hardware, then aside from the practical differences in policing in-game vs hardware mods, are modifications to hardware analogous in principle to in-game mods?

*Edit (October 7, 2020)* Hey everyone, some of the discussion raised in class today on this post made me aware that I may not have been sufficiently clear about my query in the post, so I’ll try to clarify:

While there are many interesting and valid perspectives from which to analyze the issue of whether hardware (controller) mods are analogous to in-game (software) mods (e.g. ownership, licensing, ability to police and regulate, cheating, developer tolerance, etc.,) my musing is confined to the narrow premise where if developers take issue with in-game mods on the basis that they result in a loss of control over the art, look, feel, and balance of their games (Nintendo is a good example), do controller mods present the same problem in principle if they cause a similar loss of control?

Hope I’ve made this clear as mud :p

*Edit #2 (October 9, 2020)* Here is a Reddit post from someone who makes controller mods. They are pretty impressive and you can start to see how those mods may allow in-game mechanics that may not have been possible otherwise.

 

 

One response to “Are hardware mods akin to in-game mods?”

  1. Evan

    I’m not in your class but here’s my thoughts…

    Hardware mods are fairly innocuous unless they specifically give an unfair advantage in a competitive situation. A lot of different fight sticks are banned from fighting tournaments and I’ve personally faced people who are obviously using macros such as turbo (when a machine registers continuous, fast button presses while the user only holds the button), which gave them a significant, unfair advantage. Video games (especially on console) rely on the merit that everyone is on the same playing field and that skill alone should let you succeed over an enemy. Software or hardware that changes that should be banned.

    That being said, I see no issues with game-altering hardware (or software for that matter) that changes the way a game is played for a single-player experience. If anything, game makers should appreciate and even encourage such endeavors, that only work to liven up their game and make it more enjoyable. Nintendo has always been so heavy handed in fighting against such things and it’s a shame.

    Legally, I’m not sure whether you could even track and punish somewhere who’s self-installed a mod to their controller. Back in hayday of Halo 2 I knew someone who would install buttons on their controller that would perform very specific tasks, such as the infamous “BXR” instant-kill or another input that required at least 5 inputs but would let you shoot your burst-fire gun without pausing or reloading. Would that fall under software manipulation or hardware? I don’t know.

    At any rate, I think hardware and software mods are very comparable in terms of policy. If it provides unfair competitive advantage, don’t do it. Otherwise, have fun. If I was a controller designer, I would think people modding their controllers is awesome! Speaking of which, check out this rad controller mod: https://gamerant.com/switch-gamecube-controller-mod/