Good, the sooner devs realize they need to do server side properly, the better
Evolutionary pressures on cheaters drives them to get better.
Eventually someone finds a stable chink in the server armor and it is exploited en masse.
The goal is to make it inconvenient to cheat on average.
There’s probably some ratio of games with cheaters to games without cheaters that players can tolerate that governs this.
VAC is a joke until they ban players and all start to cry on reddit/discord.
So I think it is fair to say the there haven't been billions of dollars of research spent on this problem.
[1] https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/anti-cheat-study-reveals-chea...
There are also the costs of the opportunities that cheating prevents from happening. Development would be much faster and more types of games could be made.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3099893/chinas...
Edit: I missed that you are the same commenter that I replied. sorry about that
Serial cheaters cheat just enough to give themselves an edge without making it obvious to the people watching them. By just looking at their stats, it can become very difficult (though not impossible) to differentiate a cheater from a pro player. This difficulty increases the odds of getting a false positive, necessitating a higher detection threshhold to avoid banning innocent players.
They try to make own matchmaking for possible statistical outliers so cheaters end up playing against each other. Of course, real good players can still get there and there are (at least used to) real humans on reviewing on those games to see if someone is actually a cheater. It is not a simple task, since you can cheat to be just slightly better than others and that is enough to be good.
And realistically, some real non-cheating players will by chance just have similar statistics to bots, especially since the bots will start doing their best to mimic real players.
Also many players don't need to cheat all the time; just in that critical moment when it really matters. Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win? Something like that probably applies to a many people and fields. This is even harder to detect with just statistics.
Also also reminds me of the "you can't respond in less than 100ms, and if start the sprint faster than that after the starting pistol then you're disqualified"-type stuff they have in the Olympics – some people can consistently respond faster and there's a bunch of false positives. Not great.
The difference is that IRL chess and a typical FPS game have very different availability of datasets. IRL chess has both fewer moves per game, and fewer games played in short succession than typical FPS games. Also, with FPS games there is a single metric to evaluate -- the shot landed or missed -- compared with chess where moves are ranked on a scale.
So I'd argue that it would be much easier to do a statistical model to predict a cheating aimbot than it would a cheating IRL chess player. I don't believe Magnus's proposition holds for prolific online chess players when they do dozens or more blitz/bullet games in a single day.
That's because he's an elite chess player. Him cheating once per game could make the difference between being number 1 or number 10 but either way he's up there.
But for you or me, cheating once per game wouldn't make a difference. We'd still be ranked as nobody plebs. To get ranked high enough for people to know our names we would have to cheat dozens of times a game, and experienced players would easily peg us as cheaters.
Try cheating on chess.com, if you cheat enough to make a meaningful difference their servers will automatically nail you with statistics.
Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win
Because if you force all the cheaters to hide well enough to look like "normal" players, no one will know, and the game feel will not be negatively impacted. Outside of the tippy top of competition where money becomes involved, it's kind of irrelevant if the game is technically fair, as long as it feels fair to everyone.
At the end of the day someone could be using hardware "cheats" but you can get down to a pretty good spot to stop or disincentivize cheaters without running rootkits on their devices.
At the very least, this is less capable than wallhacks from reading memory.
I would say that it takes few years still before people have good enough hardware before AI can be used in real-time. You can use OpenCV and train things against specific game to get a decent performance with image recognition, but it is not that reliable.
The average player isn't a developer and doesn't need such things, so some game devs defer to the side of caution. The false positives are a miniscule and acceptable fraction of players.
I think they intentionally have the knob turned all the way up to 0.1 initially, for PR and lube reasons.
They even claim to be able to fingerprint players according their playstyle, thwarting all methods of ban evasion. Skepticism should be abundant here, but this one of the oldest tricks in ML: categorization/clustering. I'm cautiously hopeful.
This would be server-side by nature.
Also if your guns aren't _perfectly_ accurate then the aimbot can't actually predict much of anything.
I suspect GTA VI may improve on these things and have centralised/dedicated/anti-cheat-guaranteed servers. Then again, it never impacted their profit margins so idk.
Now I'll ask: how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? No human review and no false flags. Go!
If you think it's statistically likely that someone might be cheating, but you're not sure, you can matchmake them with other people who might be cheating.
You don't tell the client the location of anything they can't see.
* Play sounds from their actions * Actually be able to render them when either player comes around the corner without them obviously materializing out of thin air.
The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property.
No one has a right to a business model.
They can do plenty enough server-side. It's not a blocking problem at all, it's just easier to take over all control of the users pc for your own convenience.
Everything, including all valid goals, is easier if you could just have the power to control whatever you want instead of having to cooperate and respect others and respect boundaries. It's no more valid than saying "Everything would be so much better if everyone would just do what I say.". Using that argument is invalid even if supposedly applied in service to some otherwise valid goal.
There are infinite ways to attack any problem, and it's not a requirement but a choice to persue only certain ideas vs others.
For instance, these approaches are based on removing agency from all users for the supposed goal of dealing with the bad users.
But there is no law of physics that says that is the only way to do that.
You could go the opposite direction and empower all users to deal with bad actors themselves just like in real life where anbasshole simply gets avoided or punched in the nose, which works by the simple math that the bad actors are outnumbered by everyone else. They still always exist but they are relegated to operating in the corners and shadows.
But their low level presence is a fact of life no matter what. Oppressive regimes don't get rid of them either. The sales pitch is we'll protect you but in fact they don't any better than you could have yoirself.
A company that has an easier option and has no other value meter than money divorced from any consideration of how it is attained, simply has no incentive to bother doing anything but the easiest thing. That's the only reason they want the keys to your house, because you stupidly give them, not because they need them or have the tiniest right to demand them to protect their entertainment business.
But skill based matchmaking type games where you're matched with random people is fundamentally incompatible with this model, that is why the person you responded to you said that you're suggesting that these games should cease to exist.
It is if you want to be allowed to play with other people because...
> The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property
...when you play a multiplayer game what happens on your property affects what happens on the property of the other players and often also on the property of the game company. If you want to be allowed to do that you might have to agree to do some things on your property because...
> No one has a right to a business model
...no one has a right to play any particular multiplayer game.
What the users want to use their ultimate ownership and control over their own property for is preventing cheating.
It's not like Riot is forcing this on people against their will, people just don't like playing against cheaters.
The only place I ever hear complaints about kernel anti cheats are people complaining because they want to use Linux and it isn't supported or forums like Hacker News, where people paradoxically care so much about peoples computing rights that they are perfectly happy to limit what gamers are allowed to do with their computers.
> They can do plenty enough server-side.
No, they can't. The amount of responses in these threads by people who have no idea what they're talking about is... well, probably not surprising, unfortunately.
This is the same (correct) argument against the effectiveness of DRM: if you put things in the hands of a user and client you don't control, then it is a cat-and-mouse game to try to maintain control of those things.
Sure, a naive cheat program of 20 years ago will today obviously look like a cheater. But if you have a cheat that statistically makes you look like a skilled non-cheating player (these things exist today!), the server isn't going to be able to catch you.
I'm not saying that justifies letting another party install what is effectively a rootkit on your hardware. I personally won't do it; I just live without games that require it, and that's fine. Maybe there is some middle ground where some form of client-side anti-cheat can reliably run without kernel-level permissions. But it's a lazy, ignorant argument to just say that game companies haven't come up with it yet because it's "easier" to write a kernel-level system.
Would I prefer a world where kernel-space anticheat is not needed for the games I like to play? Yes. Is that realistic? Probably no.
Would it be reasonable to only sell this kind of game on console like hardware? Sure, but people have and use PCs and will have to make this choice themselves. And its not like user space software is not bad for privacy as any process your user runs can read all your files and even memory of other processes.
Then we've achieved our goal.
I used to play Quake-likes, and there are people who are just that good out there, but it assuages the ego so much more to call them cheaters. I saw this all the time on CS - as soon as someone even halfway good joined, everyone called them a cheater and the game dissolved. I eventually realised that this is not an anti-cheating problem, but a community/personality problem with the people that like playing these games. So I stopped.