When I was younger I was more receptive to this sort of argument. I agree what you are railing about is poor design, but many times that poor security design i

When I was younger I was more receptive to this sort of argument. I agree what you are railing about is poor design, but many times that poor security design is done because syncing games is a Hard(tm) problem - especially latency sensitive games. Thus the clients are considered part of the whole "gaming system" - not to be altered - and I'm okay with that. Those are the rules of the game. Expecting game devs to be able to come up with a "fully secure" networking protocol simply means far less games are made. I'm alright with the low security tradeoff. It comes down to the simple fact that just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should. You can justify all the hacks you want with "well you shouldn't let me do that!" but to everyone else it's the same thing as playing Monopoly and you punching everyone else to take their money. Yeah, you can do that - and I suppose you'll nominally "win" - but it's really not playing the game we all agreed on so wtf is your point? You could also build a robot that uses a webcam and USB input for keyboard/mouse to play FPS better than most humans - an interesting project to be sure. But how is that even remotely interesting from a competition sense? Even though no modifications were made to anything, it's still cheating. Your chess example is someone else playing your opponents moves. That's obviously cheating - I can't have a grandmaster sitting next to me telling me my moves can I? How is this even a question in your mind?