3 ms·
>This is one of many reasons that anti-cheat systems do more harm than good. Once upon a time, anti-cheat simply meant choosing which players you are willing to
by tester756 3y ago
>This is one of many reasons that anti-cheat systems do more harm than good. Once upon a time, anti-cheat simply meant choosing which players you are willing to play with. That system had no trouble accommodating accessibility. Today, that's practically impossible, because servers are hosted and moderated exclusively by the game studios themselves.
uh what?
or maybe game devs could realize that this is an issue and provide some better configurability for such stuff?
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThey don't want to. They have chosen their path. It's likely they don't even recognize the advantages of player-based server hosting (moderation) that they threw away. Their biggest motivator is planned obselescence. By monopolizing the server software, they can eliminate (or shrink) the player base from an older game during the release of its sequel. For example, Battlefield 4 has a thriving online community (with player-hosted servers), but its sequel Battlefield 1 definitely struggled to keep servers full during the release of Battlefield 5.