| |
| ▲ | anon7000 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves. Thing is, cheating is an existential threat to the entire business model. Games like Valorant rely on a player base that keeps coming back, and a competitive scene where if you work hard, you can move up the ranks and maybe even make money one day. Players quit over cheating. You log in, you play hard and good, but you just can’t win because there are cheaters. These are games you’re trying to be good at… It’s incredibly demoralizing. Happens enough times, and you’ll find a different game not plagued by the same issue. And then your game is dead. You make money off it being a live service, and so maybe your business is dead too. So it makes a lot of sense for a company releasing a new FPS game centered around competitive gaming to pull out all the stops to prevent that issue. Now, the bigger question here is why can I play a game like Overwatch 2 on Linux, but not Valorant? Does Overwatch have a bigger cheating problem? If not, then Valorant should take a look at why their anticheat is just as effective without requiring kernel access. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves. Users do not have meaningful choice. On most games that use Anticheat, it is required to play the game. I can’t choose to use a non-anticheat version of games. It’s either submit to it or don’t play. Not much of a meaningful choice. | | |
| ▲ | cowthulhu a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s a fair point, but I think the issue is that the other players don’t want to play with you unless you’re running the anti cheat.
Some games do have servers with anti cheat disabled, but a few minutes of playing on one of those servers will reveal why self-selecting into a population not running the anti cheat is not very fun. This is a long winded way of saying that there isn’t a good way to have a multiplayer game give you the choice while still being fun. | |
| ▲ | LoganDark a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This rhetoric comes up all the time. It goes like this: "if you don't like it, don't buy it." / "don't play it." / "find something else." It's everywhere: don't like non-repairable devices? Well don't buy those then. don't like proprietary operating systems? Well don't use those then. don't like games with anticheats? Well don't play those then. I've found this argument to be entirely antisocial because it completely ignores the biggest problem which is that the presence of those qualities entirely taints whatever it is attached to. The problem isn't that you can't use another operating system or play another game or buy another device. The problem is that operating systems and games and devices end up unusable. Sure you can start arguing about how most people don't care and will never care so it's not / will never be a problem, but at that point you are entirely leaving advice territory and entering cargo cult mentality. Here's an example. ARC Raiders recently added Denuvo. There's basically no game like it that doesn't have anticheat. None. You can't just go play another similar game that doesn't have anticheat, you just don't get to play those games Linux and some BSDs are basically the only free operating systems nowadays. Maybe HarmonyOS. Too bad most anticheats don't work with it, too bad most companies only release broken windows drivers and maybe mac drivers but not linux, etc etc. You just don't get to use that hardware or play those games or etc. Good luck getting anything like any iPhone or Android flagship that has a replaceable battery. When you choose something like pocophone you are giving up every piece of the bleeding edge to choose outdated components for their repairability. Which is repairable but not fast. Also depending on your choice of vendor you might lose out of netflix / google pay / etc because of course. Some like framework laptop can have better value for money because their upgrade model is to replace the entire computer (logic board) so they can still vertically integrate it / be decently fast. Nobody has tried that yet with phones It's terrible that we even have to deal with this. I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games. I don't want to be forced to use any operating system for anything (even though I genuinely believe mac is best). I don't want to be forced to replace a whole device when the battery dies etc. Or spend hours removing dozens of tiny screws in order to do it myself. And I certainly wouldn't put up with a slower device just because it's repairable or just because of nearly anything ever. ARC Raiders once forced me to update windows because it was too outdated or something, one of the system DLLs expired from their allowlist or whatever. Nobody cares, I should be able to play on windows 10 as far as they're concerned. Windows updates are a hazard nowadays, asking someone to update is asking them to risk all their data. I do everything in my power to block windows update. I never asked and I never consented. Meanwhile I update all my apple devices the day each beta releases because apple is not a stupid bonehead | | |
| ▲ | vel0city a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games. I don't want to be forced to play with cheaters due to some people's philosophical concepts of what software I should be allowed to run on my computer when there's technology to radically minimize their numbers for the games I'd like to play. If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that? | | |
| ▲ | laughing_man a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think the vast majority of people who install anti-cheat realize the extent to which they're opening the security kimono. | |
| ▲ | LoganDark a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that? This is exactly why I choose Mac and iPhone. I actually trust Apple to do this. I do not however trust Microsoft or third-party app developers to do this. But I absolutely believe in that freedom and exercise it myself. |
| |
| ▲ | pibaker a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Comparing non reparable devices to games is a huge stretch. Not buying a phone or a car in many places means you can't get a job at all. But if you don't play games you lose little. There are more than enough games of all kinds to spend your time on. Plus you can always, you know, just stop staring at the screen and do something else. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark a day ago | parent [-] | | Low stakes vs high stakes version of the same problem. Sure it's not catastrophic if you simply can't play some or most games. But the basic idea is the same, and the common rhetoric is the same and the choices you're given are the same. Toxic thinking taints a product, making you no longer want to use it, but if you don't use it then you have to lose out on the entire product, not just the part you don't agree with. There are so many things out in the world, that are packaged together with such toxic thinking. So many things you have to miss out on, so many things you discover you'd otherwise want. It's related to an idea I've had for years. You know, I've always wanted a news site that only announces products that already exist. Like things you can actually buy. I'm so tired of hearing about new innovations that don't exist yet that I want to punch whoever posts about them. I'm so tired. I don't want to hear about the future ever again. I want to hear about the present. I want to hear about stuff I can actually buy. Likewise I am so tired of hearing about products that are harboring toxicity. I'll get so excited for something that seems so cool only to find out by surprise that I can't run it or wouldn't. And then I feel worse off than if I'd never heard of that thing. Yes there are some markets where you need something. Like now, if you're in the comcast monopoly you can no longer manage your network without a smartphone. They retired the website, and they ripped out big sections of the LAN admin panel with pointers to go to the app. If you don't have the app you just can't do it anymore. More of the world is becoming like this, it's so exhaustingly evil and it's so normalized that stuff like that's not even a footnote. I don't think the impact of not having a phone or car or etc matters in this discussion though. You can factor that into how badly you want/need one but in the end I'm talking about how shitty it is to have to miss out on something purely because it's tainted. Like if you miss out on a phone and you need one then you might be pretty sad you have to settle for something worse than what could've been possible. Same for a car or anything. It's just with a game you're not forced to pick an alternative and you can just be sad without having to settle for having to get something lesser. But being without the game you wanted is still sad. If that makes any sense. And I sometimes hear "vote with your wallet". Unfortunately the product I want doesn't exist so that's not possible. I can avoid paying for the one I don't want, but then I have nothing at all. And not paying for something has also never changed anything, since no one will think the same way I do, so I am the only possible difference. So I don't bother trying. A difference of 1 is so vanishingly insignificant that I couldn't even possibly be supporting anyone with all the purchases I've ever made, let alone hurting anyone with any of the purchases I could ever not make. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Thaxll a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Overwatch is a bit different though , it's not a pure hitscan fps such as valorant, cs or r6. Cheats in Overwatch are not as useful because the gameplay is different from other fps. | |
| ▲ | vel0city a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Does Overwatch have a bigger cheating problem? Yes, considerably. One can also look at Counterstrike running on Valve's matchmaking which uses userland cheat detection versus Faceit's kernel level anticheats for the exact same game. It's been incredibly rare for me to run into obvious cheaters on Faceit but I'll often run into cheaters in Valve's matchmaking. It's the same game, the same executables. | | |
| ▲ | laughing_man a day ago | parent [-] | | I finally stopped playing Counterstrike because of all the cheating. It was difficult enough to detect that I never knew when I got killed because someone was good, because they were lucky, or because they were cheating. | | |
| ▲ | frollogaston 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or smurfing. Whether someone is cheating or just insanely good, neither person is having fun. I learned a while back to simply avoid any video game marketed as "competitive" because it means people treat it like a job or sport. | | |
| ▲ | laughing_man 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Heh. I used to play Dota back when the tournament prizes were really large. There were a lot of Asian guys trying to get rich as a professional playing on the US West server because the competition wasn't as fierce in the US. They would get so angry if you were on their team and weren't playing the way they thought you should. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nobody is forcing you to play a game with kernel anti-cheat. I want to play the game, not deal with mass cheating. Unless the people against kernel-level anti cheat can provide an alternative with similar level of protection, there isn’t anything to discuss as far as I’m concerned. |
|
