3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > A world I dread is one where Consoles are our only legitimate home gaming option. Then you should agree with me. A computer you don't fully own and control is nothing but a glorified game console appliance. Don't you see? That's what they are trying to turn our computers into with their rootkit nonsense. They want to own our computers. Turn them into consoles, appliances fully controlled by them. It's 2025. The only difference between a console and a PC is the console refuses to run software not signed by the manufacturer. It only runs software they approve of. They literally have the keys to the machine, they're just letting us get some limited use out of it, on their terms of course. That's what they would reduce our PCs to. Glorified appliances that refuse to do what we want. What if you want to cheat at video games? Computer says no. Because the corporation said so. Averting that world is my objective. It's the reason why I wrote all these comments. The computer must say yes at all times.
    - w0m 2y ago
      > That's what they would reduce our PCs to. As I've spent weeks of my life getting kernel modules to build/sign/release properly in a secure boot environment :D
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people. Same applies to products such as CrowdStrike and similar stuff which in my opinion might be even worse (Anticheat rootkits at least provide some real value.. I’m not really an expert in corporate IT so I might be wrong). In both cases their users perceive that this software provides some direct or indirect value to them. Is it so hard to believe that some people might value the opportunity to play online games with less cheaters than retaining the control of their PCs? Would it be better if same software was running on strictly controlled devices like game consoles? If so what if some people treat their PCs effectively as mainly specialized gaming devices? > start defending corporations Let’s not get silly.. what makes you think I’m doing that? I’m merely pointing out that the world is not necessarily black and white and there is some space for nuance.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > Is it so hard to believe that some people might value the opportunity to play online games with less cheaters than retaining the control of their PCs? Hard to believe? Absolutely. This issue is just like privacy. It's one of those important issues where people not only refuse to care but actually look down on you as a loony if you do. They will suddenly start caring a lot when the corporations are fully entrenched and start exploiting them for profit. The problem is by that point there will be nothing they can do about it. They gave up control of the machines to play games. They will not be able to do a thing when the machines start extracting profit out of them. They are no longer in control. > Would it be better if same software was running on strictly controlled devices like game consoles? For some interpretations of "better". Consoles are a huge waste. They are all perfectly good computers which could do so much more. At least dedicated gaming machines at least keep the damage contained. I said this in my original comment. > If so what if some people treat their PCs effectively as mainly specialized gaming devices? I have no trouble believing Windows users think that way. If you use Windows, it's because you do not care. I seriously doubt someone who cared enough about computers to install and learn Linux will enjoy watching his omnipotent general purpose system get turned into a glorified gaming appliance just because corporations aren't happy about the fact he could theoretically use the system's immense power against them. > Let’s not get silly.. what makes you think I’m doing that? The words "moral right" gave me that impression. What gives these corporations the moral right to tell me what I can or can't do on my computer? The whole idea is comical. If I want to cheat, I will cheat. They can only hope that I choose not to. That's a truth they just need to accept. If they won't we'll make them accept it.

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.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  > A world I dread is one where Consoles are our only legitimate home gaming option. Then you should agree with me. A computer you don't fully own and control is nothing but a glorified game console appliance. Don't you see? That's what they are trying to turn our computers into with their rootkit nonsense. They want to own our computers. Turn them into consoles, appliances fully controlled by them. It's 2025. The only difference between a console and a PC is the console refuses to run software not signed by the manufacturer. It only runs software they approve of. They literally have the keys to the machine, they're just letting us get some limited use out of it, on their terms of course. That's what they would reduce our PCs to. Glorified appliances that refuse to do what we want. What if you want to cheat at video games? Computer says no. Because the corporation said so. Averting that world is my objective. It's the reason why I wrote all these comments. The computer must say yes at all times.
  - w0m 2y ago
    > That's what they would reduce our PCs to. As I've spent weeks of my life getting kernel modules to build/sign/release properly in a secure boot environment :D
wqaatwt 2y ago
> These corporations are shipping literal rootkits to people. Same applies to products such as CrowdStrike and similar stuff which in my opinion might be even worse (Anticheat rootkits at least provide some real value.. I’m not really an expert in corporate IT so I might be wrong). In both cases their users perceive that this software provides some direct or indirect value to them. Is it so hard to believe that some people might value the opportunity to play online games with less cheaters than retaining the control of their PCs? Would it be better if same software was running on strictly controlled devices like game consoles? If so what if some people treat their PCs effectively as mainly specialized gaming devices? > start defending corporations Let’s not get silly.. what makes you think I’m doing that? I’m merely pointing out that the world is not necessarily black and white and there is some space for nuance.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  > Is it so hard to believe that some people might value the opportunity to play online games with less cheaters than retaining the control of their PCs? Hard to believe? Absolutely. This issue is just like privacy. It's one of those important issues where people not only refuse to care but actually look down on you as a loony if you do. They will suddenly start caring a lot when the corporations are fully entrenched and start exploiting them for profit. The problem is by that point there will be nothing they can do about it. They gave up control of the machines to play games. They will not be able to do a thing when the machines start extracting profit out of them. They are no longer in control. > Would it be better if same software was running on strictly controlled devices like game consoles? For some interpretations of "better". Consoles are a huge waste. They are all perfectly good computers which could do so much more. At least dedicated gaming machines at least keep the damage contained. I said this in my original comment. > If so what if some people treat their PCs effectively as mainly specialized gaming devices? I have no trouble believing Windows users think that way. If you use Windows, it's because you do not care. I seriously doubt someone who cared enough about computers to install and learn Linux will enjoy watching his omnipotent general purpose system get turned into a glorified gaming appliance just because corporations aren't happy about the fact he could theoretically use the system's immense power against them. > Let’s not get silly.. what makes you think I’m doing that? The words "moral right" gave me that impression. What gives these corporations the moral right to tell me what I can or can't do on my computer? The whole idea is comical. If I want to cheat, I will cheat. They can only hope that I choose not to. That's a truth they just need to accept. If they won't we'll make them accept it.