Hacker News Reader

Comment by FactolSarin | Hacker News Reader

While I'm sympathetic to this idea, one thing that I get hung up on is game consoles. I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me. It's a pro, rather than a con.

View on HN

> I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me.

The issue here is that you're using "locked down" too generically. What you actually want is something like remote attestation. The device can assert with a signature that it's running a particular version of the OS and a particular version of the game and in so doing allows you to know that the user isn't cheating by using some other software.

That has nothing at all to do with whether you can install arbitrary software on the device or who gets a percentage of what. Even if you could install the Amazon store on your PlayStation and the install Cheat App from there, the device wouldn't then assert that you're running the official game (because you're not), and then the other players would know that and be able to boot you out. You don't need the other player's console to refuse to install an arbitrary app for that, only for it to be able to tell you when that has happened.

FYI you can reboot every retail xbox into DEV mode and run your own games and code:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...

Switching back and forth between retail and DEV mode is as easy as rebooting.

I don't see a huge issue there. You need not necessarily be able to run your code in parallel to game, the console could provide the option to run either your game or other code.

Of course you can now make the argument that any form of code execution increases the attack surface. And you're right but hypervisors can be quite effective. Also the XBOX One can be put in developer mode to run arbitrary UWP apps and has not yet had any major exploits (to my knowledge), where the PS4 has no similar features, but has had several firmware versions with significant security flaws.

Or you can just play with friends who don't cheat. Cheaters are only a problem if your friends are jackasses or you play with strangers.

So... we're gonna throw out the freedom to play with non-cheating strangers when your friends are all busy, in order that every computing device, instead of just lots and lots of them, can have arbitrary software installed on it?

This feels like losing options, not gaining them.

> we're gonna throw out the freedom to play with non-cheating strangers

Freedom? No. Opportunity? Maybe. I think communities would arise to fill the demand though. Pseudo-anonymous reputation systems tied to matchmaking could fill the roll. I have a group of pseudo-anonymous friends/acquaintances I frequently play games with online. None of us cheat and if any of us did, we'd stop playing with them. We don't need big brother. We don't need technical solutions to social problems.

Maybe they could form a company for this purpose, and then sell a product that fills that need?

That only works if you have friends to play both your teammates and the enemy team which is a very tall order. Most people play with strangers overall, and most people who play with friends just have them as teammates against stranger opponents.

So then the value add is that you can play with orders of magnitude more people than just the ones you happen to know and won’t cheat?

Do you have 150 friends to play battle royale?

Have you played games before? Even in a 5vs5 game, it's hard to gather 9 friends at the same time, with a similar skill.

Of course I have.

Then you should know that the option "just play with friends" is not entirely realistic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com