4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNow 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 agoWhat 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!