What? The current PC gaming model where things run on a machine controlled by the user is fundamentally against solving the issue of cheats. You can't prevent everything server-side.
The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property.
No one has a right to a business model.
They can do plenty enough server-side. It's not a blocking problem at all, it's just easier to take over all control of the users pc for your own convenience.
Everything, including all valid goals, is easier if you could just have the power to control whatever you want instead of having to cooperate and respect others and respect boundaries. It's no more valid than saying "Everything would be so much better if everyone would just do what I say.". Using that argument is invalid even if supposedly applied in service to some otherwise valid goal.
What a bizarre take. If people consent to installing these invasive anti-cheat systems, then it doesn't matter if anyone has a "right" to a business model or not; in that case their business model is working.
> They can do plenty enough server-side.
No, they can't. The amount of responses in these threads by people who have no idea what they're talking about is... well, probably not surprising, unfortunately.
This is the same (correct) argument against the effectiveness of DRM: if you put things in the hands of a user and client you don't control, then it is a cat-and-mouse game to try to maintain control of those things.
Sure, a naive cheat program of 20 years ago will today obviously look like a cheater. But if you have a cheat that statistically makes you look like a skilled non-cheating player (these things exist today!), the server isn't going to be able to catch you.
I'm not saying that justifies letting another party install what is effectively a rootkit on your hardware. I personally won't do it; I just live without games that require it, and that's fine. Maybe there is some middle ground where some form of client-side anti-cheat can reliably run without kernel-level permissions. But it's a lazy, ignorant argument to just say that game companies haven't come up with it yet because it's "easier" to write a kernel-level system.
The bizarre take is granting a shred of validity to anyone who says "I need the keys to your house and bank account and a webcam in your bath room to protect the marketable value of my game service so that other platers will rent server access from me."
I basically agree with this. Which is why I run a Linux box for gaming, and why I don't play games that have this problem.
I used to play Quake-likes, and there are people who are just that good out there, but it assuages the ego so much more to call them cheaters. I saw this all the time on CS - as soon as someone even halfway good joined, everyone called them a cheater and the game dissolved. I eventually realised that this is not an anti-cheating problem, but a community/personality problem with the people that like playing these games. So I stopped.
> The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property.
What the users want to use their ultimate ownership and control over their own property for is preventing cheating.
It's not like Riot is forcing this on people against their will, people just don't like playing against cheaters.
The only place I ever hear complaints about kernel anti cheats are people complaining because they want to use Linux and it isn't supported or forums like Hacker News, where people paradoxically care so much about peoples computing rights that they are perfectly happy to limit what gamers are allowed to do with their computers.
It is if you want to be allowed to play with other people because...
> The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property
...when you play a multiplayer game what happens on your property affects what happens on the property of the other players and often also on the property of the game company. If you want to be allowed to do that you might have to agree to do some things on your property because...
> No one has a right to a business model
...no one has a right to play any particular multiplayer game.
I'm not advocating for taking away users rights, just pointing out that the current model doesn't really jive with the desire to stop cheaters. This is going to be a never ending cat & mouse game.
I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that that wrong is no excuse for the other wrong.
There are infinite ways to attack any problem, and it's not a requirement but a choice to persue only certain ideas vs others.
For instance, these approaches are based on removing agency from all users for the supposed goal of dealing with the bad users.
But there is no law of physics that says that is the only way to do that.
You could go the opposite direction and empower all users to deal with bad actors themselves just like in real life where anbasshole simply gets avoided or punched in the nose, which works by the simple math that the bad actors are outnumbered by everyone else. They still always exist but they are relegated to operating in the corners and shadows.
But their low level presence is a fact of life no matter what. Oppressive regimes don't get rid of them either. The sales pitch is we'll protect you but in fact they don't any better than you could have yoirself.
A company that has an easier option and has no other value meter than money divorced from any consideration of how it is attained, simply has no incentive to bother doing anything but the easiest thing. That's the only reason they want the keys to your house, because you stupidly give them, not because they need them or have the tiniest right to demand them to protect their entertainment business.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but in this context there is no difference. If you know someone is cheating, you prevent further cheating by banning them.
Now I'll ask: how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? No human review and no false flags. Go!
> If you know someone is cheating, you prevent further cheating by banning them.
If you think it's statistically likely that someone might be cheating, but you're not sure, you can matchmake them with other people who might be cheating.
That seems flawed as you would punish people who are playing well. Statistics are great, but you'd inevitably match legitimate players with misfits, ruining their experience.
A prevention model would be like the xbox where technical measures are used to prevent user code. A detection model is server side and detects anomalies for bans.
This doesn't work well in real time games. The client needs to know another player is on the other side of that wall so it can
* Play sounds from their actions
* Actually be able to render them when either player comes around the corner without them obviously materializing out of thin air.
