Hacker News Reader

Comment by ferminaut | Hacker News Reader

I've had the idea that a deposit in free to play games would be sufficient. Put some amount of money in, say $20. When you are done with the game, you get the $20 back. If you cheat, you lose the $20.

View on HN

Nowadays money is not a problem for full time cheat developers - they sell the cheats (often in a monthly subscription model) to the cheaters or they sell a service where the cheater joins you in the game and does all the cheating for you (so called carry services, e.g. in escape from tarkov a cheater joins your game, kills all your enemies and lets you take all the loot).

I have seen ads for cheats where a monthly cheat subscription costs more than a new copy of the game.

Who finds any of that fun?

I learned something watching a champion, a world class cheater, discuss bridge. He played the game to outcheat other cheaters. Regular players were more like bots, but the cheaters, those were the real players.

Oh I get the fun of finding loopholes and subverting expectations, but paying someone else to play a game for me... Where does that get fun?

Edit:. I think I get it maybe. I play games to play them, and if I cheat it is to enjoy figuring out the cheat. I kind of get how having an advantage in the game would be briefly fun for the sense of power. But in single player games that wears off quick. My guess is some people enjoy winning more than playing, or the status of gear more than playing to get it. I don't understand that, but that must be it right?

I think you're right. Feeling like you are the pinnacle of the game, at or near the top of the culture you're immersed in is probably a rush. I'm curious if the programmers making the cheats generally get their kicks the same way.

I think Valve uses the spending of some amount of money as a gate to some features of Steam but the free to play games seem to be free for all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com