4 ms·

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

by 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.