4 ms·

I think this underestimates the problem. Yes it's a people problem, but a game doesn't have the people-means to solve it, it only has technology. >Anti cheat s

I think this underestimates the problem. Yes it's a people problem, but a game doesn't have the people-means to solve it, it only has technology. >Anti cheat software because one needs to play with people one does not trust and so attempts to get good behavior from strangers by force. Same could be said about laws. Goes to show that we don't have it solved it, at all. Every single system that we have has active bad actors in it, with no chance for us to catch them, by any means that we have, technological or not. To add to this even more, it's not even a people problem, it's an animal problem - some of them also give out fake signals, in order to gain something.

j-bos 2y ago
I see your parallel with laws. My point is that laws force behavior in a society that we are obligated to share, whereas online games are a choice to share with certain people. The level of intrusion applied to protect a game seems over the top. Especially given many ways to enforce laws are often considered over the top, despite protecting more importent matters. If the match includes cheaters, it's a bad match.
- npteljes 2y ago
  >The level of intrusion applied to protect a game seems over the top I agree on a theoretical level, like, if it's my general purpose computer, then everything that runs on it should also answer to me, not other parties. This applies to anti-cheat, and also to DRM and other concepts like Trusted Computing and Secure Boot even, to a degree. I don't see how one could prevent cheating, if one allows a software abstraction layer between the game, and the user. If a software is allowed to manipulate another software, then that other software cannot have proof that it's not being manipulated. On one hand, this is the beauty of computing, but on a practical level, this makes cheating in online games very easy and undetectable. So, because I like playing online, I made the compromise that somehow this level of intrusion is okay.

j-bos 2y ago

I see your parallel with laws. My point is that laws force behavior in a society that we are obligated to share, whereas online games are a choice to share with certain people. The level of intrusion applied to protect a game seems over the top. Especially given many ways to enforce laws are often considered over the top, despite protecting more importent matters. If the match includes cheaters, it's a bad match.

npteljes 2y ago
>The level of intrusion applied to protect a game seems over the top I agree on a theoretical level, like, if it's my general purpose computer, then everything that runs on it should also answer to me, not other parties. This applies to anti-cheat, and also to DRM and other concepts like Trusted Computing and Secure Boot even, to a degree. I don't see how one could prevent cheating, if one allows a software abstraction layer between the game, and the user. If a software is allowed to manipulate another software, then that other software cannot have proof that it's not being manipulated. On one hand, this is the beauty of computing, but on a practical level, this makes cheating in online games very easy and undetectable. So, because I like playing online, I made the compromise that somehow this level of intrusion is okay.