4 ms·

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 decis

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
They are. They can choose not to install the game (which obviously has several parts, of which the anti cheat is one). I’m sure if someone feels tricked into buying it as they disagree with that part and only found out at install time, they can ask for a refund. Users are free to block the anticheat from running - but obviously the game should then not allow them to enter an online server. I mean how is this different from say, the users tampering with the game files? Of course no one stops users from manipulating the texture files in the game. It’s their system. They do what they want. But obviously the user that tampered with the textures will be blocked from joining the multiplayer game.

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

They are. They can choose not to install the game (which obviously has several parts, of which the anti cheat is one). I’m sure if someone feels tricked into buying it as they disagree with that part and only found out at install time, they can ask for a refund. Users are free to block the anticheat from running - but obviously the game should then not allow them to enter an online server. I mean how is this different from say, the users tampering with the game files? Of course no one stops users from manipulating the texture files in the game. It’s their system. They do what they want. But obviously the user that tampered with the textures will be blocked from joining the multiplayer game.