I saw your point in your original post of being wary of what games you install since some come with crapware, but you've completely lost me here. For many people, perhaps even most people, the whole point of practicing their digital freedom and even owning a computer is to enjoy a game. The use of games in society and the use of anticheats to games is very obvious by every measure. Yes, don't install crap; no, multiplayer games shouldn't and aren't going anywhere.
Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this.
If you don't have the power to cheat at video games, it's because you do not actually control the machine. There's something above you preventing you from doing what you want. It's not your computer, it belongs to the game company. The computer does their bidding, not yours.
So people are not "practicing their digital freedom", they are practicing only what the game company allows them to do. They don't "own a computer" either, the corporations own their computers, they're just letting people use them. In the end it's up to them to decide if games are worth their sacrifices. Personally I think that's an indignity. It means your PC is no different than a game console.
I for one want to play games but don't want to make those sacrifices. I look for ways to make the game run on my terms instead of accepting the corporation's take it or leave it offer. It's pretty sad that people will just give up all their power just to play games but it can't be helped. I can only post these comments and try to convince others.
> Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this.
I agree, but there are other issues involved.
For one thing, this is an issue with the hardware and operating system design more than about anti-cheat software. The installation of anti-cheat software should be ineffective due to a better design of the computer, not due to the anti-cheat software itself.
Furthermore, there can be such thing as going to a room where they have a tournament with multi-players game, where they are not your computers, so they can set it up according to the tournament. (There is still then accusation of the tournament organizer giving someone unfair advantages or of someone tampering with the computer, but those are issues which must be managed regardless of such a thing anyways.)
Furthermore, for some kind of games they can install server-side anti-cheat software which does not own your computer (unless you are running the server yourself (e.g. in case of LAN play), but then you can choose if you want to put that anti-cheat software (or to put your own software)).
And, even more furthermore, sometimes people will manage to defeat and work-around anti-cheat systems and then cheat at the game anyways, so it still doesn't guarantee for sure, anti-cheating.
And, not having the anti-cheat software does not necessarily mean that you will cheat at this game, anyways.
Also, whoever runs the server might have the terms of service, that if you need an account on their server, they can still ban you from cheating or whatever, since it is their server and they can do what they want with it. However, doing what they want with it, should not include spying on your computer.
Due to all of these things, I think that you are right, that you should be able to change your own computer even if they have someone else's software.
I think you’re really quite confused about how video games or anti-cheat software works.
They don’t prevent you from editing your computer memory or even from cheating as such. Rather they merely inform the multiplayer server i.e. other players about that fact which allows them to make the choice to not play with you.
You’re free to edit your memory as much as you want or even “cheat” as long as you don’t impose your choices on unsuspecting victims..
And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the hands of people. No, we shouldn't be arguing in favor of murder. That's where you lost me. Instead of arguing for cheating in games or for the death of all multiplayer games, argue for something like server side anti-cheat and rally against games that include crapware instead of saying things like (paraphrasing) "all multiplayer games should die for my sake." Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.
Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence.
> argue for something like server side anti-cheat
I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me:
> they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers
There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect.
Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate.
> rally against games that include crapware
I do object to that as well.
> Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.
I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything.
The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it.
Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits.
Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Just like it’s the “god given right” of the organization running the server you want to connect to to boot you from it for whatever reason they want to. Or do you disagree with that?
And you are free to do whatever even in most (AFAIK) games that use have anticheat software and allow you to turn it off. You just have to stick to single player mode which I assume makes “cheating” less fun.
Anyway what right do you have to deny anyone’s god given right to deny anyone the right to install software (even one that runs in the background and verifies/checks the memory of other processes) they chose to? After all it’s their computer..
