Hacker News Reader

I saw your point in your original post of being wary of what games you install since some come with crapware, but you've completely lost me here. For many people, perhaps even most people, the whole point of practicing their digital freedom and even owning a computer is to enjoy a game. The use of games in society and the use of anticheats to games is very obvious by every measure. Yes, don't install crap; no, multiplayer games shouldn't and aren't going anywhere.

Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this.

If you don't have the power to cheat at video games, it's because you do not actually control the machine. There's something above you preventing you from doing what you want. It's not your computer, it belongs to the game company. The computer does their bidding, not yours.

So people are not "practicing their digital freedom", they are practicing only what the game company allows them to do. They don't "own a computer" either, the corporations own their computers, they're just letting people use them. In the end it's up to them to decide if games are worth their sacrifices. Personally I think that's an indignity. It means your PC is no different than a game console.

I for one want to play games but don't want to make those sacrifices. I look for ways to make the game run on my terms instead of accepting the corporation's take it or leave it offer. It's pretty sad that people will just give up all their power just to play games but it can't be helped. I can only post these comments and try to convince others.

> Cheating at video games is actually an exercise in computer freedom. The game is running on my computer. As the owner of the machine, I can change its memory. I can change whatever I want. I should be able to do this.

I agree, but there are other issues involved.

For one thing, this is an issue with the hardware and operating system design more than about anti-cheat software. The installation of anti-cheat software should be ineffective due to a better design of the computer, not due to the anti-cheat software itself.

Furthermore, there can be such thing as going to a room where they have a tournament with multi-players game, where they are not your computers, so they can set it up according to the tournament. (There is still then accusation of the tournament organizer giving someone unfair advantages or of someone tampering with the computer, but those are issues which must be managed regardless of such a thing anyways.)

Furthermore, for some kind of games they can install server-side anti-cheat software which does not own your computer (unless you are running the server yourself (e.g. in case of LAN play), but then you can choose if you want to put that anti-cheat software (or to put your own software)).

And, even more furthermore, sometimes people will manage to defeat and work-around anti-cheat systems and then cheat at the game anyways, so it still doesn't guarantee for sure, anti-cheating.

And, not having the anti-cheat software does not necessarily mean that you will cheat at this game, anyways.

Also, whoever runs the server might have the terms of service, that if you need an account on their server, they can still ban you from cheating or whatever, since it is their server and they can do what they want with it. However, doing what they want with it, should not include spying on your computer.

Due to all of these things, I think that you are right, that you should be able to change your own computer even if they have someone else's software.

I think you’re really quite confused about how video games or anti-cheat software works.

They don’t prevent you from editing your computer memory or even from cheating as such. Rather they merely inform the multiplayer server i.e. other players about that fact which allows them to make the choice to not play with you.

You’re free to edit your memory as much as you want or even “cheat” as long as you don’t impose your choices on unsuspecting victims..

And murder is an exercise in bodily freedom. If my hands are tied so I can't murder people, I am not bodily free. Yes, you're correct, we shouldn't bind the hands of people. No, we shouldn't be arguing in favor of murder. That's where you lost me. Instead of arguing for cheating in games or for the death of all multiplayer games, argue for something like server side anti-cheat and rally against games that include crapware instead of saying things like (paraphrasing) "all multiplayer games should die for my sake." Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.

Let's not compare video game cheats to murder. Let's avoid putting those two things in the same sentence.

> argue for something like server side anti-cheat

I have done that. Here's the direct quote from an earlier comment from me:

> they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers

There is no inherent problem with server side anti-cheating measures. Their servers are their computers. I'm not gonna tell them what software they can or can't run on their machines. I just wish they'd extend me the exact same respect.

Whether server side anti-cheating measures are effective is a completely separate issue. It's also completely irrelevant. The failure of server side anti-cheating software does not excuse their invasion of our computers to compensate.

> rally against games that include crapware

I do object to that as well.

> Seek nuance or find a middle ground instead of grandstanding on absolutism like this, it hurts your (fundamentally very good!) point.

I have no problem with nuance. I just refuse to compromise on many fundamental ideas. The fundamental idea I defend here is: I own this machine, therefore I can and should be able to do anything.

The idea that someone should be prevented, by his own computer, from cheating at video games, is offensive. Who are they to tell you what you can't do with your computer? It's your machine. If you want to freeze your character's health in memory so that you cannot be damaged, it's your god given right to do it.

Before I can consider nuances, I need to defend the above idea first. Because if I compromise on that, it opens the door to their invasive anticheat rootkits.

Because I'm not at all saying "all multiplayer games should die", I am saying they should die if that's the price of our freedom. Cheating is a literal non-issue compared to corporations policing what we do or don't do with our computers. If stopping cheating requires that, then just let people cheat. If they can't find a way to prevent cheating other than installing a literal rootkit in my Linux kernel, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.

> be damaged, it's your god given right to do it.

Just like it’s the “god given right” of the organization running the server you want to connect to to boot you from it for whatever reason they want to. Or do you disagree with that?

And you are free to do whatever even in most (AFAIK) games that use have anticheat software and allow you to turn it off. You just have to stick to single player mode which I assume makes “cheating” less fun.

Anyway what right do you have to deny anyone’s god given right to deny anyone the right to install software (even one that runs in the background and verifies/checks the memory of other processes) they chose to? After all it’s their computer..

I'm not expert but I wonder if using blockchain technology to mathematically make impossible to cheat some information like the position or shooting direction is possible... that way maybe we don't need to give full control, and the most important things are still are not cheatable. cheating the skin is not that important but if they think that is important too, then they can just add more information to track somehow on the skins ahah

Blockchain is not needed. A huge class of problems could be solved by simply refusing to trust the game client. Plenty of games do that to this day.

https://youtu.be/AUjuefLqphY

You tell the server you're on the other side of the map and it just trusts you. Teleport hack. The other guy is on the other side of the map and behind a wall but the server is still sending you his position. Why send the client information it shouldn't have?

They want to pwn your computer so that you can't tamper with the game. They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter.

Exactly this.

But there are some cases where you just have to rely on client side. Like when other player position is partially obscured, server have to send it's position but it might be almost not visible by naked eye.

Teleport hacks are unfortunately also not that simple, I think most of games do not trust client input but give some wiggle room for network latency, that can be exploited (it should be limitted to reasonable amounts to allow max like 200ms or so of latency)

Most "pro" cheaters (there is market for this stuff) use protocol level tools that are invisible to anti cheat software as those work as proxy on physically separate computer.

If you also offload rendering and stuff like occlusion culling to the server it might actually work.

Wouldn’t be a great experience though. Especially not for a competitive game.

> They should fix the game so that tampering with it doesn't matter.

By making it effectively unplayable?

How would block chain make this mathematically impossible? I do not think anyone knows how to do that and that is because it is not actually possible to do.

So... don't play them? Your reasons for not accepting kernel anti-cheat are completely valid, but so are other users' desires to not play games with cheaters.

I already avoid multiplayer games. It's very rare for me to make an exception.

I came here to warn others about these concerns and to cite virtualization with VFIO as a viable solution. I think people should understand what sort of nonsense they're bringing into their computers when they install these games. That's what my original post was about.

I didn't mean to start another one of these discussions. We shouldn't have to justify ourselves. They're the ones barging in and usurping control of our computers because of "cheating" or whatever. You install some video game and next thing you know you've got some malware exfiltrating private information, taking screenshots, scanning your RAM and disks, making an issue of your developer tools. That's unacceptable behavior, the reason for it is irrelevant.

> ones barging in

Well.. no. They are for better or for worse explicitly invited.

The games themselves? Yeah. But nobody "explicitly invited" in a bunch of invasive anticheat nonsense. That stuff is a nuisance at best, just yet another annoying thing you have to install before you can enjoy the thing you actually paid money for.

Well, no. Anti-cheat exists to keep cheaters from ruining the game. If I paid to enjoy a multiplayer game, and cheaters keep me from enjoying it, then anti-cheat is a requirement to enjoying the game I paid for. It's fine if you don't think it's worth the trade-off, but it does serve a real purpose to make gaming better for players.

They don't prevent cheating, they just make it harder. Cheat developers are still gonna bypass it, after all it is their business. And even if they did prevent cheating, it wouldn't be justifiable because the software is so invasive it can be classified as malware.

It's just like DRM. Like copying, cheating simply cannot be prevented if we are in control of the machine. This technological arms race can only end in one of two ways. Either the corporations manage to own our computers or they lose. Neither result is particularly great but I know which one I'm willing to accept.

> They don't prevent cheating, they just make it harder.

TBF; it's net the same thing. People just need it to be hard enough that it (generally) doesn't ruin your game.

You're making the same logical argument people have made against wearing (and then mandating) seat belts, and in more recent times vaccines. It's a sad slope that's led to me being told over Christmas dinner that murder being illegal is stupid because people still kill. He was serious. Boggles the mind.

Seat belts and even vaccines are much more restricted in the kinds of side effects they can cause :

https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

Seat belts and vaccines are life saving items. They are approximately a trillion times more important than video games are and ever will be. They do not even belong in the same sentence.

Even those important life saving items have contraindications. They are well studied. We know their benefits. We know their risks. We know how to balance the two. Professionals do it every day. Most people voluntarily choose to use these items after the facts are explained. Forgoing their use doesn't stop your life either.

We know virtually nothing about anticheat systems. Their benefits, if any, are likely exaggerated to increase profits. Their costs and risks are "explained" in some annoying legalese document that pretty much nobody reads. You're forced to accept this nonsense. You can't play the game otherwise, might as well click next.

Their function is to take over your computer in order to control and limit what you can do with it. That's an affront to the user. Accepting this costs users part of their dignity. We can only hope that they will have lots of fun with their game afterwards. Otherwise their sacrifice will have been for nothing.

> That's an affront to the user. Accepting this costs users part of their dignity

I honestly love this. I want to hang out at a bar and get sloshed with you; maybe after hours at a conference. I legitimately think we'd be best buds.

As an aside though - 95% of PC users generally just don't care as long as ItWorks and its fun. It's easy to get mired in the minutia of the systems (technical and societal) instead of thinking about how it interacts with the average person.

Yeah man. I get it. But not everyone feels like you do. It's still the case that anti-cheat makes multiplayer games better for those who want to play them. It is an effective technology, otherwise they wouldn't use it. It's not like the game studios enjoy paying those licensing fees.

> 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?

> 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_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.

> 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.

You're elevating games to the level of security software. Isn't it an issue that a game is literally policing your entire system? If you had any passwords, or literally anything else, they can take it. This is about as far as a "trade off" can go.

> If you had any passwords, or literally anything else, they can take it.

They have done it before.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/fs-labs-flight-simulator-pas...

Shipped a browser stealer to users and exfiltrated data on an unencrypted channel.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1cibw9r/valorant...

https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/634974-...

Screenshots your computer screen and exfiltrates the picture to their servers.

Trusting these game companies is a huge mistake.

> elevating

And I shouldn’t have the right to do that because?

I don’t really play any competitive online games but I’d certainly rather install anti-cheat software than garbage like Crowdstrike if I was forced to choose. Anyway different people have different preferences, it’s their business.

> 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.

> it's because you do not care.

I personally do it mainly because I don’t want to be associated with certain types of loud ideological fundamentalists and zealots. I might occasionally use Linux or even BSD in private without telling anyone but certainly not where anyone can see, don’t want other people to think I’m a loon..

> What gives these corporations the moral right to tell me what I can or can't do on my computer?

Nobody and they obviously don’t have that right. Or are game dev company executives literally forcing you to install and play their game?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

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.