> They don't want you to cheat
Why do you think that is? I’m sure they wouldn’t bother with it if most gamers were fine playing against cheaters.
Why do you think that is? I’m sure they wouldn’t bother with it if most gamers were fine playing against cheaters.
Cheating? I don't care enough about most games to even consider it. I absolutely do consider it to be my prerogative, however. If they don't like it, they better run their "anticheat" nonsense on their computers, where it belongs. If they try to usurp control of my computer, I will do everything in my power to stop it.
This is gonna turn into yet another example of illegitimate customers enjoying a superior product while paying customers get treated like dishonest criminals. Legitimate customers get DRM and anticheat rootkits, pirates and cheaters get none of that. Guess which side I want to be on?
The sad state of existence is that if you want to run a multiplayer game, you need to do shitty/controlling things or the game will turn unplayable as soon as it starts to become popular.
Games like BG3 however - Who cares if someone is cheating? Just stick to those (great) games if you want more control
I'd sooner see multiplayer games disappear than accept this sad state of affairs where our computers come pwned straight off the factory in order to please the so called stakeholders by denying us the freedom to do things that hurt their interests. That's a far more damaging outcome than silly video games becoming unplayable. Cheaters are a small price to pay for freedom and I pay it gladly.
Besides, some games should be hurt. Plenty of "free" games out there employing literal gambling and drug dealer tactics to get people addicted to their product. Cheaters are doing us all a huge favor by speeding up their demise.
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.
Well.. no. They are for better or for worse explicitly invited.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I've spent weeks of my life getting kernel modules to build/sign/release properly in a secure boot environment :D
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.
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.
> 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.
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..
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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well yes, but millions of people feel otherwise.
Why do you think that game developers have some nefarious reasons for this and want to usurp your computer? To what ends?
I mean sure the current approach is flawed in many ways however without it many multiplayer games couldn’t really exist in their current form i.e. public servers, matchmaking etc. would become near impossible since the experience for most users would become extremely unenjoyable.
> pirates and cheaters get none of that
True in regards to single player games but I’m not sure how do you think this would work for multiplayer games? How can cheaters bypass the anticheat root kits and still play onlie?
Because that is what they do. They think we are all potential cheaters who need to be preemptively stopped and controlled lest we crack their games open. They feel absolutely justified in doing whatever it takes to "ensure" their precious games aren't "tampered with". There are no limits they wouldn't cross.
It's just what I've come to expect from the copyright industry as a whole. Our computers already come pwned straight off the factory just to appease "content creators". We really don't need game companies making the situation even worse.
> To what ends?
It doesn't matter. The result is we have to install their rootkits to play games we paid for. There are no excuses for that.
> many multiplayer games couldn’t really exist in their current form
Not a big deal. Maintaining control over our machines is more important. If that's the price I'll pay it gladly.
> How can cheaters bypass the anticheat root kits and still play onlie?
You'd have to ask them. I'm far from an expert on the subject. I just know that whatever it is that they do no doubt leads to their customers having to put up with a lot less game company malware than they would have needed to otherwise.
These rootkits are now considered the cost of admission to playing games, because gamers won't fight the practice, and they hate cheaters so much they are willing to accept anything.
Also consider: HN is full of software developers. If it's a choice between "What Software Developers Want To Do To Your Computer" and "What Users Want To Stop Them From Doing," HN commenters tend to be strongly on the side of the developers.
Thanks for replying. It's good to know that I'm not alone. That's the real reason why I comment these things.
I completely agree with you.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because if you apply this situation to pretty much any other consumer product it gets ridiculous fast. What if a car doesn't allow you to turn off an approved road? What if it limited your speed to posted limits? What if you could only use fuel from one brand of station? If parts used DRM so the dealership had to do your brakes and any repairs?
All of these things would cause a massive backlash.
But computers are so hard people can't be trusted with them. It's just nuts.
However, if you want to run a tournament then you can go in the tournament room where they should have the computer without cheating software, so that can be the "anticheat", instead of installing unwanted software in your own computer.