4 ms·

Yes, but, the way their antilag works is identical to a cheat - it's actually hooking/detouring the game's own functions, which any anticheat will see as an obv

by paulmd 3y ago

Yes, but, the way their antilag works is identical to a cheat - it's actually hooking/detouring the game's own functions, which any anticheat will see as an obvious hack. NVIDIA's Reflex actually requires that it be integrated into the game code by developers (which they then provide) rather than trying to inject itself dynamically, but AMD wanted to have "works in every game!" as a selling point. Which would also be fine if they had talked to any of the developers and gotten their "cheat" whitelisted, but they didn't do that. Which is the bizarre part. OK, you have a cool thing you can inject into the game code... but you can't inject anything without bringing developers/anticheat in on the release. And literally everyone from the most basic modder upwards knows this. Gotta be real, real careful about what you inject into games with anticheat, or you'll eat a ban. Even stuff like reshade is a no-no - it's perfectly harmless, but the anticheat doesn't know that. This is basically "reflex as reshade" and has all the same problems around anticheat.

whalesalad 3y ago
> but AMD wanted to have "works in every game!" as a selling point. you make it sound like this is a bad thing?
- paulmd 3y ago
  marketing around half-baked features that get you VAC banned is not really ideal, no. kinda gives the impression that the marketing was given more focus than the product. it's also a very rookie mistake, like, you have to think it's either someone brand new they hired in, or someone more experienced really dropped the ball on devrel/etc. This is a situation where they absolutely should have known that they should talk to the gamedevs in advance.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    At some point you gotta do the thing and ruffle feathers and get/force buy in. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this approach. Shoot first, ask questions later. It's a successful strategy most of the time. Wrangling all game developers is arguably an impossible task. Building a one size fits all solution is not. Just because it flagged by some anticheat doesn't mean it's failed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bragr 3y ago
      The people whos entire steam collections are worthless with a lifetime VAC ban are just justifiable collateral in the name of a better future? Valve says they'll roll them all back but still
      - ziddoap 3y ago
        I don't have a particular opinion either way on AMDs approach here (yet), but I'm not sure your comment is making the point that I think you're trying to make. You start off with: >The people whos entire steam collections are worthless with a lifetime VAC ban are just justifiable collateral in the name of a better future? But end with the exact opposite conclusion: >Valve says they'll roll them all back So... In the end, no steam libraries are worthless and no one got a VAC ban because of it. It seems like the shoot first and ask questions later approach was somewhat successful again.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Yes, but, the way their antilag works is identical to a cheat - it's actually hooking/detouring the game's own functions, which any anticheat will see as an obvious hack. Which is to say that their anticheat system is defective because the method it uses has false positives -- as exemplified by this case, which is not an attempt to cheat.
- bragr 3y ago
  >their anticheat system is defective Is it? The ToS explicitly says that you will be banned if you inject any code into the game or otherwise modify it, and this injects code into the game resulting in bans. To me it seems more like a business choice to not differentiate between harmless mods and cheats rather than a technical issue with the system.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The ToS saying you will be banned even if you don't cheat doesn't make the thing a cheat. You can try to disclaim the harms from your defective anticheat system but that's certainly not the same thing as there not being any.
    - filterfiber 3y ago
      The anticheat isn't defective here. It's like running across the DMZ. Your intentions don't matter - ALL anticheat will ban you on sight. You MUST collaborate with the developers to not get banned. This is widely known. It is expected that _any_ software that does this will be banned, that's how anticheat works. They can't tell what your intentions are and they don't need to. If AMD worked with valve they wouldn't have to cross the DMZ at all, instead the engine would call the amd driver without any modifications at all.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > The anticheat isn't defective here. It's claiming someone cheated when that person did not cheat. > It's like running across the DMZ. It's like installing land mines in a residential neighborhood and then blaming the residents for stepping on one. It's not even reasonable if you warn them. > They can't tell what your intentions are and they don't need to. They kind of do need to though, because otherwise they punish the innocent. Which is bad. Regardless of whether or not they threaten you with it ahead of time. > If AMD worked with valve they wouldn't have to cross the DMZ at all, instead the engine would call the amd driver without any modifications at all. How is that supposed to work with existing games? There are games where the developers no longer even exist but people still play them.
croes 3y ago
So it works on any game even the ones that don't get updates anymore. It's a feature of the GPU and driver not the game.

by paulmd 3y ago

whalesalad 3y ago

> but AMD wanted to have "works in every game!" as a selling point. you make it sound like this is a bad thing?

paulmd 3y ago
marketing around half-baked features that get you VAC banned is not really ideal, no. kinda gives the impression that the marketing was given more focus than the product. it's also a very rookie mistake, like, you have to think it's either someone brand new they hired in, or someone more experienced really dropped the ball on devrel/etc. This is a situation where they absolutely should have known that they should talk to the gamedevs in advance.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  At some point you gotta do the thing and ruffle feathers and get/force buy in. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this approach. Shoot first, ask questions later. It's a successful strategy most of the time. Wrangling all game developers is arguably an impossible task. Building a one size fits all solution is not. Just because it flagged by some anticheat doesn't mean it's failed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bragr 3y ago
    The people whos entire steam collections are worthless with a lifetime VAC ban are just justifiable collateral in the name of a better future? Valve says they'll roll them all back but still
    - ziddoap 3y ago
      I don't have a particular opinion either way on AMDs approach here (yet), but I'm not sure your comment is making the point that I think you're trying to make. You start off with: >The people whos entire steam collections are worthless with a lifetime VAC ban are just justifiable collateral in the name of a better future? But end with the exact opposite conclusion: >Valve says they'll roll them all back So... In the end, no steam libraries are worthless and no one got a VAC ban because of it. It seems like the shoot first and ask questions later approach was somewhat successful again.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Yes, but, the way their antilag works is identical to a cheat - it's actually hooking/detouring the game's own functions, which any anticheat will see as an obvious hack. Which is to say that their anticheat system is defective because the method it uses has false positives -- as exemplified by this case, which is not an attempt to cheat.

bragr 3y ago
>their anticheat system is defective Is it? The ToS explicitly says that you will be banned if you inject any code into the game or otherwise modify it, and this injects code into the game resulting in bans. To me it seems more like a business choice to not differentiate between harmless mods and cheats rather than a technical issue with the system.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The ToS saying you will be banned even if you don't cheat doesn't make the thing a cheat. You can try to disclaim the harms from your defective anticheat system but that's certainly not the same thing as there not being any.
  - filterfiber 3y ago
    The anticheat isn't defective here. It's like running across the DMZ. Your intentions don't matter - ALL anticheat will ban you on sight. You MUST collaborate with the developers to not get banned. This is widely known. It is expected that _any_ software that does this will be banned, that's how anticheat works. They can't tell what your intentions are and they don't need to. If AMD worked with valve they wouldn't have to cross the DMZ at all, instead the engine would call the amd driver without any modifications at all.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The anticheat isn't defective here. It's claiming someone cheated when that person did not cheat. > It's like running across the DMZ. It's like installing land mines in a residential neighborhood and then blaming the residents for stepping on one. It's not even reasonable if you warn them. > They can't tell what your intentions are and they don't need to. They kind of do need to though, because otherwise they punish the innocent. Which is bad. Regardless of whether or not they threaten you with it ahead of time. > If AMD worked with valve they wouldn't have to cross the DMZ at all, instead the engine would call the amd driver without any modifications at all. How is that supposed to work with existing games? There are games where the developers no longer even exist but people still play them.

croes 3y ago

So it works on any game even the ones that don't get updates anymore. It's a feature of the GPU and driver not the game.