3 ms·

The other day I mentioned that it's not OK for games to be proprietary software and/or use unethical software like DRM (which tbh anti-cheats are as well). I go

The other day I mentioned that it's not OK for games to be proprietary software and/or use unethical software like DRM (which tbh anti-cheats are as well). I got accused that I wanted game developers to starve to death.

altruios 1y ago
that's where you turn and say: well, the game developer executives however... In all seriousness, DRM/anti-cheats => rootkits/rats. Don't fall for it. Demand better.
- AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
  Can't say for DRM, but there's much bigger demand to play a multiplayer action game without experiencing cheating than demand for a similar game that's not a rootkit. Cheaters are nasty. Devs make rootkit anti-cheats simply because there's no better alternative, not because they're evil.
  - altruios 1y ago
    We need to define nebulous terms like 'better'... to a company that's synonymous with what is 'cheapest' to their bottom line. To a player, that's a more effective anti-cheat. To my understanding, the latter is much more effectively solved server-side, but is more costly for the company to run. I'd rather play a game with server-side anti-cheat than player-side-anti-cheat.
    - AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
      All games are different, and for some game, this may be true, but what I, personally, have in my mind in a discussion about intrusive anti-cheats is a fast shooter with lag compensation like CS or CoD, and for them, this problem is not solvable only server-side. CS:GO actually have heuristics and ML to flag cheaters server-side, but that's only another line of defense - the majority of defense is on the client-side anti-cheat. It's called VACnet, and its bans are temporary - most likely because of false positives. It's unfortunate, but it is how it is.
zeta0134 1y ago
I'll chime in here as a game developer: my upcoming release will be an NES cartridge[0] and probably a Steam app. I'll be adding no DRM, because I generally trust that folks that weren't going to pay aren't going to be converted by its presence, and that honest folks want to support my work. Whether the storefronts I release on add their own is up to them, and frankly I don't care. Separately though, anti-cheat is another ball of wax entirely, and I have extremely mixed feelings in this field. Generally I favor "cheat detection should be serverside, don't trust the client" from a general security perspective, but... I can totally see a valid case in there, somewhere, for more rigorous clientside checks. Somewhere along that line though is rootkits and malware, and... well, no, please tell me up front that you loaded your game engine with these things so I can save my money and purchase something else, thanks. [0] Using a custom mapper, which will help initially to discourage low-effort bootlegs at the very least. It's open source though, and will not be too difficult to add to emulators, at which point the dumped ROM should play fine on them.
- Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
  > Generally I favor "cheat detection should be serverside, don't trust the client" from a general security perspective, but... I can totally see a valid case in there, somewhere, for more rigorous clientside checks. Yeah... The simple fact is, it's simply not possible to have completely server-side cheat detection simply because you'll be relying purely on heuristics which could very well be wrong. It's just not going to be possible to tell the difference between a cheater and a really good player. For any cheat detection to work, it has to be client-side.
  - zeta0134 1y ago
    And the counter is fairly straightforward: any client-side cheat detection has been broken. You can't trust the client. It doesn't work, your server just thinks it works because it's lying to you now. Client-side cheat detection can work for tournaments, but it's way simpler there: the tournament provides the hardware, and the players aren't permitted to install anything. This doesn't irritate me quite as much from a security perspective of course, because I am not about to log into my banking site on the presumably insecure tournament device. It's also imperfect: a sufficiently motivated pro player might bypass whatever locks you installed on the thing, especially if they get to spend any time with that device unmonitored. Even better than that, tournaments have a way better cheat detection method anyway: point a camera at the player's hands. It's suddenly really, really obvious if they're cheating!
whoisyc 1y ago
There are countries that believed farming should not be profit oriented and curiously they happen to be the ones to have breadlines. It is no coincidence that America and Japan, the two countries with the most draconian copyright protections, continue to be the dominant player in the game industry. Profit motive and the ability to reinvest previous profits into future products is the greatest force multiplier in our planet’s history bar none. You can either suck it up like China did in the 90s and convert to a capitalist economy, or stay in the breadline forever. Oh, in this case, I mean play tux racer forever :P
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  Oh, I've heard this one before! Steve Ballmer, is that you? I thought we were past the 'open-source is communism' and 'cancer on intellectual property' times...

altruios 1y ago

that's where you turn and say: well, the game developer executives however... In all seriousness, DRM/anti-cheats => rootkits/rats. Don't fall for it. Demand better.

AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
Can't say for DRM, but there's much bigger demand to play a multiplayer action game without experiencing cheating than demand for a similar game that's not a rootkit. Cheaters are nasty. Devs make rootkit anti-cheats simply because there's no better alternative, not because they're evil.
- altruios 1y ago
  We need to define nebulous terms like 'better'... to a company that's synonymous with what is 'cheapest' to their bottom line. To a player, that's a more effective anti-cheat. To my understanding, the latter is much more effectively solved server-side, but is more costly for the company to run. I'd rather play a game with server-side anti-cheat than player-side-anti-cheat.
  - AndriyKunitsyn 1y ago
    All games are different, and for some game, this may be true, but what I, personally, have in my mind in a discussion about intrusive anti-cheats is a fast shooter with lag compensation like CS or CoD, and for them, this problem is not solvable only server-side. CS:GO actually have heuristics and ML to flag cheaters server-side, but that's only another line of defense - the majority of defense is on the client-side anti-cheat. It's called VACnet, and its bans are temporary - most likely because of false positives. It's unfortunate, but it is how it is.

zeta0134 1y ago

I'll chime in here as a game developer: my upcoming release will be an NES cartridge[0] and probably a Steam app. I'll be adding no DRM, because I generally trust that folks that weren't going to pay aren't going to be converted by its presence, and that honest folks want to support my work. Whether the storefronts I release on add their own is up to them, and frankly I don't care. Separately though, anti-cheat is another ball of wax entirely, and I have extremely mixed feelings in this field. Generally I favor "cheat detection should be serverside, don't trust the client" from a general security perspective, but... I can totally see a valid case in there, somewhere, for more rigorous clientside checks. Somewhere along that line though is rootkits and malware, and... well, no, please tell me up front that you loaded your game engine with these things so I can save my money and purchase something else, thanks. [0] Using a custom mapper, which will help initially to discourage low-effort bootlegs at the very least. It's open source though, and will not be too difficult to add to emulators, at which point the dumped ROM should play fine on them.

Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
> Generally I favor "cheat detection should be serverside, don't trust the client" from a general security perspective, but... I can totally see a valid case in there, somewhere, for more rigorous clientside checks. Yeah... The simple fact is, it's simply not possible to have completely server-side cheat detection simply because you'll be relying purely on heuristics which could very well be wrong. It's just not going to be possible to tell the difference between a cheater and a really good player. For any cheat detection to work, it has to be client-side.
- zeta0134 1y ago
  And the counter is fairly straightforward: any client-side cheat detection has been broken. You can't trust the client. It doesn't work, your server just thinks it works because it's lying to you now. Client-side cheat detection can work for tournaments, but it's way simpler there: the tournament provides the hardware, and the players aren't permitted to install anything. This doesn't irritate me quite as much from a security perspective of course, because I am not about to log into my banking site on the presumably insecure tournament device. It's also imperfect: a sufficiently motivated pro player might bypass whatever locks you installed on the thing, especially if they get to spend any time with that device unmonitored. Even better than that, tournaments have a way better cheat detection method anyway: point a camera at the player's hands. It's suddenly really, really obvious if they're cheating!

whoisyc 1y ago

There are countries that believed farming should not be profit oriented and curiously they happen to be the ones to have breadlines. It is no coincidence that America and Japan, the two countries with the most draconian copyright protections, continue to be the dominant player in the game industry. Profit motive and the ability to reinvest previous profits into future products is the greatest force multiplier in our planet’s history bar none. You can either suck it up like China did in the 90s and convert to a capitalist economy, or stay in the breadline forever. Oh, in this case, I mean play tux racer forever :P

phoronixrly 1y ago
Oh, I've heard this one before! Steve Ballmer, is that you? I thought we were past the 'open-source is communism' and 'cancer on intellectual property' times...