5 ms·

The issue w/ competitive gaming (League of Legends, Deadlock, Overwatch) is if you take advantage of your prerogative and cheat, you make the experience worse f

by w0m 2y ago

The issue w/ competitive gaming (League of Legends, Deadlock, Overwatch) is if you take advantage of your prerogative and cheat, you make the experience worse for everyone else; and it hurts the game itself. The sad state of existence is that if you want to run a multiplayer game, you need to do shitty/controlling things or the game will turn unplayable as soon as it starts to become popular. Games like BG3 however - Who cares if someone is cheating? Just stick to those (great) games if you want more control

matheusmoreira 2y ago
It's unfortunate but at the end of the day they're just video games. They aren't worth sacrificing computer freedom over. We shouldn't end up becoming serfs in the digital fiefdoms of corporations just because people want to play online video games. These companies need to give up and let us play these things on our terms. I'd sooner see multiplayer games disappear than accept this sad state of affairs where our computers come pwned straight off the factory in order to please the so called stakeholders by denying us the freedom to do things that hurt their interests. That's a far more damaging outcome than silly video games becoming unplayable. Cheaters are a small price to pay for freedom and I pay it gladly. Besides, some games should be hurt. Plenty of "free" games out there employing literal gambling and drug dealer tactics to get people addicted to their product. Cheaters are doing us all a huge favor by speeding up their demise.
- skeaker 2y ago
  I saw your point in your original post of being wary of what games you install since some come with crapware, but you've completely lost me here. For many people, perhaps even most people, the whole point of practicing their digital freedom and even owning a computer is to enjoy a game. The use of games in society and the use of anticheats to games is very obvious by every measure. Yes, don't install crap; no, multiplayer games shouldn't and aren't going anywhere.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this. If you don't have the power to cheat at video games, it's because you do not actually control the machine. There's something above you preventing you from doing what you want. It's not your computer, it belongs to the game company. The computer does their bidding, not yours. So people are not "practicing their digital freedom", they are practicing only what the game company allows them to do. They don't "own a computer" either, the corporations own their computers, they're just letting people use them. In the end it's up to them to decide if games are worth their sacrifices. Personally I think that's an indignity. It means your PC is no different than a game console. I for one want to play games but don't want to make those sacrifices. I look for ways to make the game run on my terms instead of accepting the corporation's take it or leave it offer. It's pretty sad that people will just give up all their power just to play games but it can't be helped. I can only post these comments and try to convince others.
    - skeaker 2y ago
      And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the hands of people. No, we shouldn't be arguing in favor of murder. That's where you lost me. Instead of arguing for cheating in games or for the death of all multiplayer games, argue for something like server side anti-cheat and rally against games that include crapware instead of saying things like (paraphrasing) "all multiplayer games should die for my sake." Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.
      - matheusmoreira 2y ago
        Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence. > argue for something like server side anti-cheat I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me: > they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect. Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate. > rally against games that include crapware I do object to that as well. > Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point. I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything. The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits. Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
- kumiy 2y ago
  I'm not expert but I wonder if using blockchain technology to mathematically make impossible to cheat some information like the position or shooting direction is possible... that way maybe we don't need to give full control, and the most important things are still are not cheatable. cheating the skin is not that important but if they think that is important too, then they can just add more information to track somehow on the skins ahah
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Blockchain is not needed. A huge class of problems could be solved by simply refusing to trust the game client. Plenty of games do that to this day. https://youtu.be/AUjuefLqphY https://youtu.be/AUjuefLqphY You tell the server you're on the other side of the map and it just trusts you. Teleport hack. The other guy is on the other side of the map and behind a wall but the server is still sending you his position. Why send the client information it shouldn't have? They want to pwn your computer so that you can't tamper with the game. They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter.
    - Szpadel 2y ago
      Exactly this. But there are some cases where you just have to rely on client side. Like when other player position is partially obscured, server have to send it's position but it might be almost not visible by naked eye. Teleport hacks are unfortunately also not that simple, I think most of games do not trust client input but give some wiggle room for network latency, that can be exploited (it should be limitted to reasonable amounts to allow max like 200ms or so of latency) Most "pro" cheaters (there is market for this stuff) use protocol level tools that are invisible to anti cheat software as those work as proxy on physically separate computer.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      If you also offload rendering and stuff like occlusion culling to the server it might actually work. Wouldn’t be a great experience though. Especially not for a competitive game. > They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter. By making it effectively unplayable?
- coldpie 2y ago
  So... don't play them? Your reasons for not accepting kernel anti-cheat are completely valid, but so are other users' desires to not play games with cheaters.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    I already avoid multiplayer games. It's very rare for me to make an exception. I came here to warn others about these concerns and to cite virtualization with VFIO as a viable solution. I think people should understand what sort of nonsense they're bringing into their computers when they install these games. That's what my original post was about. I didn't mean to start another one of these discussions. We shouldn't have to justify ourselves. They're the ones barging in and usurping control of our computers because of "cheating" or whatever. You install some video game and next thing you know you've got some malware exfiltrating private information, taking screenshots, scanning your RAM and disks, making an issue of your developer tools. That's unacceptable behavior, the reason for it is irrelevant.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      > ones barging in Well.. no. They are for better or for worse explicitly invited.
      - matheusmoreira 2y ago
        The games themselves? Yeah. But nobody "explicitly invited" in a bunch of invasive anticheat nonsense. That stuff is a nuisance at best, just yet another annoying thing you have to install before you can enjoy the thing you actually paid money for.
        coldpie 2y ago
        Well, no. Anti-cheat exists to keep cheaters from ruining the game. If I paid to enjoy a multiplayer game, and cheaters keep me from enjoying it, then anti-cheat is a requirement to enjoying the game I paid for. It's fine if you don't think it's worth the trade-off, but it does serve a real purpose to make gaming better for players.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > play these things on our terms Due to some reason a lot of people want to use public servers and matchmaking. Likely they wouldn’t do that if anticheat root kits didn’t exist. I don’t particularly care about games like this either nor do I play them but that’s entirely besides the point. > for freedom and I pay it gladly. That’s great. Again a lot of people feel otherwise. Why do you feel that you have a moral right to impose your personal preferences on them?
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    I don't see how public servers and matchmaking are an issue. The public servers that are known to tolerate cheaters are themselves just going to get a bad reputation. The issue is the kind of game that doesn't allow you to host public servers, and which instead has an automatching system with an undisclosed algorithm. And since this also tends to be the kind of game that has DRM, doesn't even allow offline/private servers (is online only), and worse, engages into microtransactions and gambling, the sooner these games are made illegal, the better off the society will be.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > Why do you feel that you have a moral right to impose your personal preferences on them? Because we can't allow corporations to install rootkits and malware into people's machines? I find it weird that I even have to justify this. These ridiculous stunts were actual scandals not too long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... I wonder what changed in the last couple of decades. Why did this become acceptable? Why did people start defending corporations that do stuff like this? On Hacker News of all places? Why are you talking about "personal preferences"? These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people.
    - w0m 2y ago
      > Because we can't allow corporations to install rootkits and malware into people's machines? TBF - this is You dictating what tradeoffs others are able/willing to make in their off time. I grew up playing competitive FPS; and still have a 'gaming rig' for downtime. I would looove a better state-of-the-world; and am picky about what I will play (I won't run Rivals as an example as it requires Administrator; simply won't trust the developer that much) > These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people i agree most/all kernel level anti-cheats are garbage - but I also dislike strict "We can't allow..." overarching statements also. A world I dread is one where Consoles are our only legitimate home gaming option.

by w0m 2y ago

matheusmoreira 2y ago

It's unfortunate but at the end of the day they're just video games. They aren't worth sacrificing computer freedom over. We shouldn't end up becoming serfs in the digital fiefdoms of corporations just because people want to play online video games. These companies need to give up and let us play these things on our terms. I'd sooner see multiplayer games disappear than accept this sad state of affairs where our computers come pwned straight off the factory in order to please the so called stakeholders by denying us the freedom to do things that hurt their interests. That's a far more damaging outcome than silly video games becoming unplayable. Cheaters are a small price to pay for freedom and I pay it gladly. Besides, some games should be hurt. Plenty of "free" games out there employing literal gambling and drug dealer tactics to get people addicted to their product. Cheaters are doing us all a huge favor by speeding up their demise.

skeaker 2y ago
I saw your point in your original post of being wary of what games you install since some come with crapware, but you've completely lost me here. For many people, perhaps even most people, the whole point of practicing their digital freedom and even owning a computer is to enjoy a game. The use of games in society and the use of anticheats to games is very obvious by every measure. Yes, don't install crap; no, multiplayer games shouldn't and aren't going anywhere.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this. If you don't have the power to cheat at video games, it's because you do not actually control the machine. There's something above you preventing you from doing what you want. It's not your computer, it belongs to the game company. The computer does their bidding, not yours. So people are not "practicing their digital freedom", they are practicing only what the game company allows them to do. They don't "own a computer" either, the corporations own their computers, they're just letting people use them. In the end it's up to them to decide if games are worth their sacrifices. Personally I think that's an indignity. It means your PC is no different than a game console. I for one want to play games but don't want to make those sacrifices. I look for ways to make the game run on my terms instead of accepting the corporation's take it or leave it offer. It's pretty sad that people will just give up all their power just to play games but it can't be helped. I can only post these comments and try to convince others.
  - skeaker 2y ago
    And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the hands of people. No, we shouldn't be arguing in favor of murder. That's where you lost me. Instead of arguing for cheating in games or for the death of all multiplayer games, argue for something like server side anti-cheat and rally against games that include crapware instead of saying things like (paraphrasing) "all multiplayer games should die for my sake." Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence. > argue for something like server side anti-cheat I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me: > they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect. Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate. > rally against games that include crapware I do object to that as well. > Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point. I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything. The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it. Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits. Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
kumiy 2y ago
I'm not expert but I wonder if using blockchain technology to mathematically make impossible to cheat some information like the position or shooting direction is possible... that way maybe we don't need to give full control, and the most important things are still are not cheatable. cheating the skin is not that important but if they think that is important too, then they can just add more information to track somehow on the skins ahah
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Blockchain is not needed. A huge class of problems could be solved by simply refusing to trust the game client. Plenty of games do that to this day. https://youtu.be/AUjuefLqphY https://youtu.be/AUjuefLqphY You tell the server you're on the other side of the map and it just trusts you. Teleport hack. The other guy is on the other side of the map and behind a wall but the server is still sending you his position. Why send the client information it shouldn't have? They want to pwn your computer so that you can't tamper with the game. They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter.
  - Szpadel 2y ago
    Exactly this. But there are some cases where you just have to rely on client side. Like when other player position is partially obscured, server have to send it's position but it might be almost not visible by naked eye. Teleport hacks are unfortunately also not that simple, I think most of games do not trust client input but give some wiggle room for network latency, that can be exploited (it should be limitted to reasonable amounts to allow max like 200ms or so of latency) Most "pro" cheaters (there is market for this stuff) use protocol level tools that are invisible to anti cheat software as those work as proxy on physically separate computer.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    If you also offload rendering and stuff like occlusion culling to the server it might actually work. Wouldn’t be a great experience though. Especially not for a competitive game. > They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter. By making it effectively unplayable?
coldpie 2y ago
So... don't play them? Your reasons for not accepting kernel anti-cheat are completely valid, but so are other users' desires to not play games with cheaters.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  I already avoid multiplayer games. It's very rare for me to make an exception. I came here to warn others about these concerns and to cite virtualization with VFIO as a viable solution. I think people should understand what sort of nonsense they're bringing into their computers when they install these games. That's what my original post was about. I didn't mean to start another one of these discussions. We shouldn't have to justify ourselves. They're the ones barging in and usurping control of our computers because of "cheating" or whatever. You install some video game and next thing you know you've got some malware exfiltrating private information, taking screenshots, scanning your RAM and disks, making an issue of your developer tools. That's unacceptable behavior, the reason for it is irrelevant.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    > ones barging in Well.. no. They are for better or for worse explicitly invited.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      The games themselves? Yeah. But nobody "explicitly invited" in a bunch of invasive anticheat nonsense. That stuff is a nuisance at best, just yet another annoying thing you have to install before you can enjoy the thing you actually paid money for.
      - coldpie 2y ago
        Well, no. Anti-cheat exists to keep cheaters from ruining the game. If I paid to enjoy a multiplayer game, and cheaters keep me from enjoying it, then anti-cheat is a requirement to enjoying the game I paid for. It's fine if you don't think it's worth the trade-off, but it does serve a real purpose to make gaming better for players.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> play these things on our terms Due to some reason a lot of people want to use public servers and matchmaking. Likely they wouldn’t do that if anticheat root kits didn’t exist. I don’t particularly care about games like this either nor do I play them but that’s entirely besides the point. > for freedom and I pay it gladly. That’s great. Again a lot of people feel otherwise. Why do you feel that you have a moral right to impose your personal preferences on them?
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  I don't see how public servers and matchmaking are an issue. The public servers that are known to tolerate cheaters are themselves just going to get a bad reputation. The issue is the kind of game that doesn't allow you to host public servers, and which instead has an automatching system with an undisclosed algorithm. And since this also tends to be the kind of game that has DRM, doesn't even allow offline/private servers (is online only), and worse, engages into microtransactions and gambling, the sooner these games are made illegal, the better off the society will be.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  > Why do you feel that you have a moral right to impose your personal preferences on them? Because we can't allow corporations to install rootkits and malware into people's machines? I find it weird that I even have to justify this. These ridiculous stunts were actual scandals not too long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... I wonder what changed in the last couple of decades. Why did this become acceptable? Why did people start defending corporations that do stuff like this? On Hacker News of all places? Why are you talking about "personal preferences"? These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people.
  - w0m 2y ago
    > Because we can't allow corporations to install rootkits and malware into people's machines? TBF - this is You dictating what tradeoffs others are able/willing to make in their off time. I grew up playing competitive FPS; and still have a 'gaming rig' for downtime. I would looove a better state-of-the-world; and am picky about what I will play (I won't run Rivals as an example as it requires Administrator; simply won't trust the developer that much) > These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people i agree most/all kernel level anti-cheats are garbage - but I also dislike strict "We can't allow..." overarching statements also. A world I dread is one where Consoles are our only legitimate home gaming option.