5 ms·

The operating system should not allow Riot to do stuff like this. Sandboxing on the desktop is badly needed. Flatpak may have its problems but it's probably the

The operating system should not allow Riot to do stuff like this. Sandboxing on the desktop is badly needed. Flatpak may have its problems but it's probably the best effort so far.

circularfoyers 5y ago
I'm not sure this is even enough, when these anti-cheat systems rely on kernel driver implementations.
- setpatchaddress 5y ago
  It’s really unfortunate that Apple’s blown gaming so badly. I built a mid-high range gaming PC during the first year of the pandemic. The awful software that PC gamers have to put up with, from the basic stuff like NVidia’s driver software updates that they seem to want to be a social network to the ASUS labyrinth of random apps + UI just to update various bits of motherboard support where it’s not clear what you actually need and what’s actually cosmetic to the MSI daemons to support RGB lights on RAM modules that cause some games to crash at launch Just Because. Windows gaming is a real shitshow. But that’s where the games are. You can avoid running most of this crap. But you wouldn’t have to put up with it in the first place on the Mac, because there’s an assumed baseline of non-scummy software and vendors would get called out and shunned.
Barrin92 5y ago
I think the operating system should allow users to do whatever they want with it, as long as they consent to it. I'm honestly a little bit baffled how the discussion swings the other end when it comes to software like this, compared to say the Google Manifest V3 debate. If people value having fewer cheaters in their video games and they're willing to accept the trade-off of having software run at a low-level to be effective at detection that's their choice. Flatpak's are a great choice to have but I don't want to have the operating system force them on me.
- NotPractical 5y ago
  I agree. I want sandboxing technology that increases user control, not the other way around. I don't accept the trade-off you described and I don't think anyone else really wants to either, they're just forced to if they want to play the game. We shouldn't let this invasive kernel-level anti-cheat technology become normalized.
  - Strom 5y ago
    Now when you say want to play the game, do you mean getting instantly killed on spawn by cheaters? More specifically, given that you want the game to be playable without anti-cheat, do you imagine that the cheaters will just agree not to cheat? I think it's pretty clear that the choice in popular games is between a strong anti-cheat vs a strong cheat. For some types of games a lot can be enforced by the server (think chess), but for other types of games it is just inevitable that there is an arms race at the point of input. Nevermind rootkits, soon enough we'll have mandatory webcams monitoring that you're actually physically moving your mouse in a way that matches the signal coming out of your mouse.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    What people want are to only play games with other people running this anti-cheat software, and are more than willing to run it themselves to achieve that. Seems really like missing the point to argue that running or not running anti-cheat is a personal choice that doesn't impact anyone else. It totally impacts other people. In fact, that's precisely why folks want it!
- nyuszika7h 5y ago
  This is the exact opposite of consent. People are being forced to install the anti-cheat software. While you may personally find it acceptable, you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players, therefore it is not consent but simply an opinion. Installing the anti-cheat software on your own computer will provide you absolutely no benefits. It needs to be installed on the cheaters' computers for it to be effective. Obviously if there was actual consent involved and people were allowed to not install the anti-cheat software, then cheaters would simply not install it. There are plenty of valid reasons to be concerned about this, even for people who have no intention of cheating at all. While you may trust Riot, others may not. Even if Riot won't do anything nefarious with it, all software has bugs. It's only a matter of time until someone finds a vulnerability in Riot's anti-cheat software and actual malicious actors start to exploit it. I hate cheaters as much as anyone else, but an anti-cheat program running with kernel-level privileges is simply a ticking time bomb and should never have been approved by Microsoft. But of course, it's easy for gaming companies to brainwash the masses who have no awareness of security and privacy risks with "you don't want cheaters in your games, do you?" These are the same people who get brainwashed by arguments like "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide, therefore you should have no issue with your communications being surveilled 24/7 because it will help reduce terrorism".
paxys 5y ago
Disagree. Users should be able to do whatever they want on their PC, including installing a rootkit. Leave this walled garden bullshit on iOS.
- NotPractical 5y ago
  I should rephrase: the user should have control over whether or not Riot is able to do stuff like this, and the operating system should enforce the user's decision.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    The user does by not installing riot software or uninstalling it.
  - ncann 5y ago
    I don't get your point, if you don't want the anti-cheat on your machine then don't install and play the game, it's that simple. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    - rcoveson 5y ago
      You can indeed "have your cake and eat it too" if the platform is on your side. Take ad blocking software, for example. A browser that really works for you will let you visit websites that want to force ad views on visitors and will not display those ads. The same should be true of an OS. It should do its best to help you run software the way you want to run it. If that means gratuitously violating the TOS of some online game, then that matter can be settled by a legal team. The OS should just be a tool--your tool--throughout the whole ordeal.
    - __s 5y ago
      But you can have your cake & eat it too: install on a VM. OS level sandboxing ideally would allow running a program in a non-VM sandbox
  - alkonaut 5y ago
tapoxi 5y ago
Counter argument: The operating system should do this instead. PC gaming would be better off if Windows shipped with “Xbox Anti-cheat” that had similar protections but was baked into Windows instead of relying on a half dozen third party implementations.
- jamesgeck0 5y ago
  Microsoft did ship the Windows 10 "TruePlay" anti-cheat component for sandboxed UWP games. I believe it was removed because game developers largely ignored the UWP format.

The operating system should not allow Riot to do stuff like this. Sandboxing on the desktop is badly needed. Flatpak may have its problems but it's probably the best effort so far.

circularfoyers 5y ago

I'm not sure this is even enough, when these anti-cheat systems rely on kernel driver implementations.

setpatchaddress 5y ago
It’s really unfortunate that Apple’s blown gaming so badly. I built a mid-high range gaming PC during the first year of the pandemic. The awful software that PC gamers have to put up with, from the basic stuff like NVidia’s driver software updates that they seem to want to be a social network to the ASUS labyrinth of random apps + UI just to update various bits of motherboard support where it’s not clear what you actually need and what’s actually cosmetic to the MSI daemons to support RGB lights on RAM modules that cause some games to crash at launch Just Because. Windows gaming is a real shitshow. But that’s where the games are. You can avoid running most of this crap. But you wouldn’t have to put up with it in the first place on the Mac, because there’s an assumed baseline of non-scummy software and vendors would get called out and shunned.

Barrin92 5y ago

I think the operating system should allow users to do whatever they want with it, as long as they consent to it. I'm honestly a little bit baffled how the discussion swings the other end when it comes to software like this, compared to say the Google Manifest V3 debate. If people value having fewer cheaters in their video games and they're willing to accept the trade-off of having software run at a low-level to be effective at detection that's their choice. Flatpak's are a great choice to have but I don't want to have the operating system force them on me.

NotPractical 5y ago
I agree. I want sandboxing technology that increases user control, not the other way around. I don't accept the trade-off you described and I don't think anyone else really wants to either, they're just forced to if they want to play the game. We shouldn't let this invasive kernel-level anti-cheat technology become normalized.
- Strom 5y ago
  Now when you say want to play the game, do you mean getting instantly killed on spawn by cheaters? More specifically, given that you want the game to be playable without anti-cheat, do you imagine that the cheaters will just agree not to cheat? I think it's pretty clear that the choice in popular games is between a strong anti-cheat vs a strong cheat. For some types of games a lot can be enforced by the server (think chess), but for other types of games it is just inevitable that there is an arms race at the point of input. Nevermind rootkits, soon enough we'll have mandatory webcams monitoring that you're actually physically moving your mouse in a way that matches the signal coming out of your mouse.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  What people want are to only play games with other people running this anti-cheat software, and are more than willing to run it themselves to achieve that. Seems really like missing the point to argue that running or not running anti-cheat is a personal choice that doesn't impact anyone else. It totally impacts other people. In fact, that's precisely why folks want it!
nyuszika7h 5y ago
This is the exact opposite of consent. People are being forced to install the anti-cheat software. While you may personally find it acceptable, you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players, therefore it is not consent but simply an opinion. Installing the anti-cheat software on your own computer will provide you absolutely no benefits. It needs to be installed on the cheaters' computers for it to be effective. Obviously if there was actual consent involved and people were allowed to not install the anti-cheat software, then cheaters would simply not install it. There are plenty of valid reasons to be concerned about this, even for people who have no intention of cheating at all. While you may trust Riot, others may not. Even if Riot won't do anything nefarious with it, all software has bugs. It's only a matter of time until someone finds a vulnerability in Riot's anti-cheat software and actual malicious actors start to exploit it. I hate cheaters as much as anyone else, but an anti-cheat program running with kernel-level privileges is simply a ticking time bomb and should never have been approved by Microsoft. But of course, it's easy for gaming companies to brainwash the masses who have no awareness of security and privacy risks with "you don't want cheaters in your games, do you?" These are the same people who get brainwashed by arguments like "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide, therefore you should have no issue with your communications being surveilled 24/7 because it will help reduce terrorism".

paxys 5y ago

Disagree. Users should be able to do whatever they want on their PC, including installing a rootkit. Leave this walled garden bullshit on iOS.

NotPractical 5y ago
I should rephrase: the user should have control over whether or not Riot is able to do stuff like this, and the operating system should enforce the user's decision.
- friedman23 5y ago
  The user does by not installing riot software or uninstalling it.
- ncann 5y ago
  I don't get your point, if you don't want the anti-cheat on your machine then don't install and play the game, it's that simple. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
  - rcoveson 5y ago
    You can indeed "have your cake and eat it too" if the platform is on your side. Take ad blocking software, for example. A browser that really works for you will let you visit websites that want to force ad views on visitors and will not display those ads. The same should be true of an OS. It should do its best to help you run software the way you want to run it. If that means gratuitously violating the TOS of some online game, then that matter can be settled by a legal team. The OS should just be a tool--your tool--throughout the whole ordeal.
  - __s 5y ago
    But you can have your cake & eat it too: install on a VM. OS level sandboxing ideally would allow running a program in a non-VM sandbox
- alkonaut 5y ago

tapoxi 5y ago

Counter argument: The operating system should do this instead. PC gaming would be better off if Windows shipped with “Xbox Anti-cheat” that had similar protections but was baked into Windows instead of relying on a half dozen third party implementations.

jamesgeck0 5y ago
Microsoft did ship the Windows 10 "TruePlay" anti-cheat component for sandboxed UWP games. I believe it was removed because game developers largely ignored the UWP format.