> KR (Korea) requires national identity numbers for gaming, which opens up a convenient opportunity to ban cheaters at the “soul” level. It is remarkably effective at keeping them out of game for longer periods of time—cheaters have to buy whole new identities to keep playing, so the bans really stick.
I detest "real name" policies and believe pseudonymous/anonymous discourse is helpful, perhaps even vital. But I am starting to believe that tying accounts to a "soul" or more expensive to forge identity is going to be the only way we get out of the Commentdämmerung we have today on social media. Whether it's posting invective, hateful diatribes on a platform or cheating in online games, it has to be more expensive than an email address to participate, but somehow also effectively free for most average people.
Maybe that takes the form of Worldcoin, or maybe some clever zk-snark proof of uniqueness-without-disclosing-identity from state or national ID programs, I don't know. But the current situation of a minority of people making vast swathes of the internet unpleasant is really quite untenable.
Of course the second hard part is figuring out how to do that without fully giving into the people who would want to spy on us all.
rootusrootus · 9h ago
I may be missing some big downside, but my current thought on this is that I'd like to see the return of true walled gardens. Modern versions of Prodigy or Compuserve, something like that.
I would seriously consider paying to be part of a nice walled garden, somewhere that had tight controls over advertising, spam, anonymous trolls, etc. I obviously can't have anything like the Internet I grew up with (in the late 80s, early 90s), that ship has sailed, but I would pay actual money if someone could offer me an online experience that absolutely did not have scams, spam, incessant advertising, etc.
The biggest headache is probably the difficulty in maintaining communication with people who choose other gardens to join. Though perhaps that's more a problem if you want to communicate with people who want to stay outside the gardens and use only the 'free' Internet.
kg · 10h ago
Part of the problem is that "who's making the internet unpleasant" has a different answer depending on who you ask, and having a list of real identities and thus addresses to associate with your pet out-group is really appealing if the in-group has access to levers of power (or just firearms)
Dylan16807 · 10h ago
It wouldn't take a very complicated system to have a unique ID token per app that can't be traced to you but you only get one. Which OP addressed.
ordinaryradical · 10h ago
I think that’s overanalyzing where this comment is coming from.
At the level of something like spam or cheating, it’s not really a matter of opinion whether or not someone is participating in good faith. Someone who’s only ever one email address away from exploiting your platform that way really needs to be boxed out in a more permanent way.
AaronFriel · 9h ago
I don't think those real identities should be public or deanonymizable from outside a given platform.
notsylver · 10h ago
If CV cheats are good enough that people are using them (and then getting banned), and other people are willing to pay >$1000 for "undetected" cheats (that still get them banned)... wouldn't making custom hardware that is just a capture card and USB keyboard+mouse running one of those CV models that sends the inputs back over a "real" keyboard work?
avidiax · 10h ago
Those can also be detected.
If it uses a 2nd input device, that's just obvious.
If it properly mixes its input into your main device, there will still be hints.
A real mouse has a limited range of motion. It can't keep moving left or right indefinitely.
Real players don't immediately gravitate towards the geometric center of the head of every enemy.
Real players don't try to move the mouse to shoot at enemies on the loading screen.
Real players have coordinated or stereotyped mouse and keyboard movements. They don't react instantly with the mouse but after a delay on the keyboard, for instance.
ghxst · 9h ago
In my experience a good aimbot is impossible to tell from a normal player when you play ranked at a high competitive level, at least not with any degree of certainty that I think is worth banning people for. The cheaters you lose to at that level are the ones calling out your positions to their team because they can see you on the minimap while they aren't supposed to, things like that.
redox99 · 9h ago
Trigger bots (shoots when it detects an enemy using CV AND you are holding some key/pedal) are much harder to detect, almost impossible if effort is taken to make the time distribution believable.
ghxst · 10h ago
This article reads like it was written by an LLM and it doesn't mention how these "undetected" DMA cheats are actually caught. The anti-cheat teams join discords of vendors to get access to the cheats and flag users based on the heuristics they observe from the vendors firmware (that DMA card / hardware has to show up as _something_). So yeah, your setup can work (as long as you’re sticking to the drivers and input methods they tolerate), and the same goes for private DMA cheats.
typpilol · 10h ago
Yes the hallmarks of llm is there.
kg · 10h ago
The post doesn't seem to elaborate on how Riot detects and bans people using that sort of cheat, but you can detect some % of those people by analyzing their inputs. Humans don't play the way an aimbot does.
ghxst · 10h ago
The DMA cheaters are caught when riot gets access to the vendors firmware and ban the people that are using it, not by the cheats themselves. Colorbots run on the same PC so these can be caught in various ways.
syphia · 6h ago
> If a game is good, it’s going to attract cheaters.
I have started to consider that games should be inherently cheat-resistant, not protected by anti-cheats.
Chess and Go are less affected by cheats by their design. It's not nearly as frustrating to lose to a cheater when they're working with the same information you are, and when they perform actions that a human could reasonably perform.
I find that rulesets enforced by nature or by the design of the system are, to me, more interesting than rulesets enforced by agreement and punishment, even if the "agreement" is not to hack the game. It forces more creativity and makes games offer more relevant experiences instead of copying the same formula.
As for identity systems etc. to permaban cheaters, I think that if it takes increasingly strict levels of monitoring and crackdown and reliance on "trusted authorities" to keep these beloved games playable, it might be better to move on and find new games. Few (if any) individual games or genres of games matter enough to warrant this attention.
mentalfist · 4h ago
>Chess and Go are less affected by cheats by their design.
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this position?
jldugger · 10h ago
FWIW, this is from February.
LocalH · 10h ago
> but modern science has actually determined that cheaters do not have any discernable skill (otherwise they’d use it).
This is flippant, but incorrect in a general sense. Those who cheat are often near the top of their chosen game, and are looking for that edge to be "the best".
matthewaveryusa · 9h ago
Perhaps in sports and games where identities are known, but for gaming it's mostly teens pushing boundaries and having fun the way teens do. At least that was my experience gaming with cheaters in counter-strike and wc3 15-20 years ago
LocalH · 4h ago
In such circles, clout can be more lucrative than money
egamirorrim · 5h ago
Why is there an investment company team in a gaming house
Waterluvian · 10h ago
Has there been much analysis on why cheating happens so much more in some regions than others?
I’ve had a Brazilian friend say it was largely due to culture but I’ve got to imagine with all the data companies have, there’s been more rigorous studies.
gjsman-1000 · 10h ago
Vanguard has been clear they have buckets of cheating from Brazil in particular. Not a country otherwise known for income or cultural expectations.
My personal theory is that people just have more “real life” friends they are trying to impress; combined with Valorant being popular due to the ludicrous amount of import taxation.
blibble · 10h ago
looks like the conclusion from this article is if you want to cheat: do it over the winter holiday
stepupmakeup · 10h ago
Runescape players came to a similar conclusion if you want to duplicate items by overloading/crashing worlds: do it during the weekend and night hours in Cambridge where Jagex is
tcoff91 · 10h ago
Meanwhile it’s incompatible with other kernel-mode anti cheat. I hate this new world of rootkitting your pc to game
gjsman-1000 · 10h ago
Rootkit your PC… or the game is unplayable.
Or, have everyone literally cheat with reckless abandon… and the game is unplayable.
marcher · 10h ago
The latter is basically how it goes with Counter-Strike 2 which doesn't have kernel level anti-cheat.
Well, maybe not "everyone" is cheating, but there's very little punishment to cheating in that game for those who do. Do it too blatantly and get reported an cordoned off into "low trust" matchmaking, or just closet cheat with total impunity.
I suppose this then drives people to third party matchmaking services like FACEIT that do use kernel level anti-cheat (which has its own separate game culture issues to replace the cheating issue).
kg · 10h ago
We had a third option in the old days: Play on private servers with your community, or on public servers where the community vote-kicks cheaters. It wasn't perfect, but it did work pretty good.
Unfortunately the industry decided to leave private/player-hosted servers behind, and modern genres like battle royale require unreasonably high player counts, so we're kind of stuck.
Rohansi · 6h ago
There are still lots of games that allow you to host private servers.
jchw · 10h ago
> The reason they need “a method” to move the mouse is because Vanguard already outright rejects input from your non-primary peripheral device, and the reason I’m not disclosing that method here is because this is not a tutorial on fastest ways to get banned.
I know this isn't the lowest hanging fruit but for literally a few USD you could get the necessary hardware (i.e. any microcontroller, like a Raspberry Pi Pico) to emulate an input device with perfect fidelity. What do you do when a device pops up that has the same VID/PID as a real physical mouse and looks identical from the perspective of the HID reports? This is not theoretical FWIW.
I think the gameplan for anti-cheat developers is to just pretend they can't hear this, and to keep ramping up the amount of end-user surveillance for as long as possible. Good luck guys, looking forward to when the cheaters discover Arduino.
edit: Also, while I'm here saying unpopular things, this smarmy blog post gets a lot wrong about cheaters, probably on purpose just to piss them off. For example, something you'll notice with many cheating scandals is that routinely, extremely skilled players choose to cheat to try to get more of an edge, and they're better at it than unskilled players most of the time, too. I think the real reason why most cheaters suck is because the distribution of cheaters is probably mostly because most players suck and some portion of players are prone to cheating. If you need any evidence that cheating can easily become widespread at higher skill levels, check any speedrunning community with a sufficiently bad cheating problem, like Trackmania.
galaxy_gas · 7h ago
You do also need to have it act such as mouse. Since if you plug two Real Mouse in, only primary / first Mouse will work. If you Arduino its the cheat device Mouse, it will be plugged in first, you will not be able to click through menu or click play with your Real Mouse. You allowed one HID.
Most people lazy for this
jchw · 6h ago
Personally I assert that if you're already running a model to classify pixels on the screen to try to aim, passing through mouse movements from another mouse in addition isn't really a big deal.
gjsman-1000 · 10h ago
If that was viable, they would have started with Arduino before trying DMA attacks.
One possibility: The Arduino added input latency cancelling out the cheating benefit.
jchw · 9h ago
> If that was viable, they would have started with Arduino before trying DMA attacks.
I'm not describing something theoretical. I didn't use it for cheating, but I have in fact used an RP2040 to emulate an HID mouse and tried to make it look "invisible" from the other end. I don't have code posted to GitHub, but other people do have similar examples. If you wanted to get obsessive about it, it probably wouldn't even be hard to emulate vendor-specific proprietary behaviors, like whatever custom HID reports are used for things like mouse profiles and firmware updates. It requires a bit of reverse engineering, but nothing that crazy.
You can also just do it with a normal Raspberry Pi too, if it's one that has USB OTG support. This is how a lot of those Raspberry Pi KVM solutions send inputs without needing much external hardware.
Let's say you are still not convinced, and assume that this method is doomed to be detected somehow. One last thing: you could always hack up a real USB gaming mouse and rig the sensor up to a microcontroller or FPGA. That is substantially harder and more expensive, but I'm just trying to illustrate that if people are really driven to cheat and cheating is really a big expensive industry, this can be done.
> One possibility: The Arduino added input latency cancelling out the cheating benefit.
I don't believe so, no. You don't have to stick to a specific hardware platform, but if there's one advantage that microcontrollers have over typical computers like Raspberry Pis it's latency. Even if their USB controllers are too limited or broken somehow, you can probably get away with bitbanging USB, especially on something with a nice and beefy microcontroller like the RP2350.
I believe the actual real reason why this wasn't a thing was because in the beginning for CV-based cheating, the CV part itself wasn't good enough. Now with computers having advanced a few more steps and with ML having advanced many many steps, being able to do very good classifiers in real time seems to be viable.
So really, the clock is ticking. There is no practical reason why the I/O part can't be done, so as long as the actual aimbot part works well enough. I'm willing to put my name on that.
nofriend · 9h ago
The potential upside to pure usb cheating is much smaller than dma cheats, because it only gives you aim hacks, not wall hacks.
jchw · 9h ago
Even though that's true, the fact that pixelbot/colorbot type aimbots are still popular shows that they are perfectly effective. In fact, if you really want to remain undetected for long periods of time, "wallhack" style cheats have the obvious downside that someone analyzing the replays can easily see that you are routinely locking onto (nearly) the exact positions of enemies behind walls. This is inevitable even if you try to avoid it because without actually looking at the pixels on screen it's going to be hard for an aimbot to be pretty sure that you can actually "see" the target behind whatever obstacles or fog is on screen. This obviously can't happen if you are cheating using only the actual game output.
In the end, what matters to the cheater is being able to win, so if a pixelbot will do the trick and be less detectable, it's probably worth more rather than less. I believe it's just a matter of time before the pieces come together. (Of course, it has to actually be effective in order to really be worth more, but I think that's largely a function of how good the actual aimbot portion can be, and I really think with how good and fast ML has gotten you could really do a lot better these days.)
nutjob2 · 9h ago
Isn't the best action against cheaters not banning but degrading accuracy? Then they are left blaming their cheats for not working. Making it inconsistent would make it highly effective and hard to detect.
neilv · 10h ago
Has anyone tried to go after online video game cheaters with lawsuits?
What about criminal charges (e.g., CFAA)?
jsheard · 10h ago
Not the cheaters themselves AFAIK, but game companies have successfully gone after cheat companies.
I'm sure such lawsuits will work wonderfully in Russian Federation
bigyabai · 11h ago
> Ultimately, it is inevitable that you will encounter a cheater eventually, but we will just keep banning them all over and over again until they finally work up the courage to run the uninstaller.
What a great message to send to your fans. "We know we installed Ring 0 anticheat on your PC and banned Linux/Steam Deck players, but look at how useless it is!"
jstummbillig · 10h ago
How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that it's useless? I don't know anything about the game, but if the numbers in this post are not made up, including the spike, it looks not only effective but absolutely vital for the game to be playable at all.
gjsman-1000 · 10h ago
Hacker News has always been bad at understanding the words “mostly effective.”
An anticheat does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
A DRM solution does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
A website block does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
And so on. “There’s a workaround” != “This is therefore mostly useless.”
Otherwise, let me tell you, seat belt laws and speed limits are the most useless things ever made. The workaround is just pushing my foot down harder!
lwansbrough · 10h ago
This is true of any online game ever. Games require integrity and there are plenty of people who would rather have game integrity than system integrity because, for them, the system is for the game.
I don’t think Riot is losing sleep over denying access to the 4 people who want to play Valorant on a Steam Deck.
charcircuit · 9h ago
And for macOS the OS itself provides enough system integrity that Riot don't need a kernel anticheat on macOS.
Steam Deck users need to ask Valve to similarly improve SteamOS's system integrity to prove to game companies that it's safe for people to run their games on it without compromising their game's integrity.
Rohansi · 6h ago
As a Steam Deck user I'd rather have the platform kept open like how it is now than lock it down. It's one of the significant advantages the Steam Deck (and PC gaming in general) has over consoles.
charcircuit · 58m ago
Allowing the OS to affirm integrity doesn't turn it into a closed platform. Checking integrity is an optional feature.
AuthAuth · 10h ago
It can be beaten by a $10 piece of hardware that is plug and play.
gjsman-1000 · 10h ago
Not really, no; not without getting detected and banned. There are way cheaper ways to get banned.
grimblee · 5h ago
A game I can't play on linux means more productivity for me anyways, thanks to all the game devs who ignore us
sbarre · 10h ago
I dunno it seems better to be honest and up front about the reality of the situation - since most players experience it themselves - than to pretend like it's all roses and perfectly anti-cheat.
No comments yet
cute_boi · 10h ago
Is there any other solution to drive away cheaters without using TPM & Ring 0?
Thanks.
rcxdude · 9h ago
Yes, fast and effective moderation (it's be real nice if the blatent cheaters were banned before the game ended, as opposed to in 'waves' where they've already had plenty of time to cause problems). But that's expensive.
Crespyl · 7h ago
Allow private/player-run servers with votekick enabled.
stepupmakeup · 10h ago
There's a lot of ways the cheater problem can be mostly neutralized, for example a dedicated matchmaking pool for players who ONLY have allowed devices, hardware, drivers. No ifs or buts or stupid exceptions like for LAN cafes.
For years, gamers have been told install xyz rootkit for your safety, enable xyz option in your BIOS, get a TPM, install the latest versions of windows, it's all for your security to make your experience better and cheat-free with state-of-the-art technology! across like 3 or 4 different vendors, and the outcome has been the same ever since the beginning: cheaters find ways to skirt basic restrictions, because companies don't _want_ to actually put an end to cheating. Especially more so for companies like valve that get cheaters constantly re-buying their games or "premium" status, not sure if this exists in the valorant realm
Just end the "gary's pool cleaning" problem once and for all rather than continue to play stupid games just on the off 0.00001% chance Gary's business (incorporated last week) decided to branch out to software. Let Gary come appeal to Riot directly and let them manually analyze whatever they need BEFOREHAND.
They're focusing on DETECTION rather than PREVENTION.
bn-l · 10h ago
Is it technically illegal once someone’s installed anti cheat to use it for telemetry and data harvesting? I mean in the us.
yupyupyups · 10h ago
Murder is legal if it serves the powerful. Some goes with spyware.
Spyware is legal. As long as people who care about these things are a tiny minority, the law (and lawmakers) will never be compelled to change.
The best bet for those who play these games is to explore alternatives, or leave games altogether and socialize in the real world.
kg · 10h ago
The reputational risk involved in using their anticheat for that is pretty severe, and I can't imagine they'd make that much money by selling telemetry to advertisers compared to how much they make off Valorant itself.
At their scale it would also turn into one or more big class action lawsuits if they got caught trying it too, I expect. The lawyer fees would probably swamp any profits from selling telemetry data.
I detest "real name" policies and believe pseudonymous/anonymous discourse is helpful, perhaps even vital. But I am starting to believe that tying accounts to a "soul" or more expensive to forge identity is going to be the only way we get out of the Commentdämmerung we have today on social media. Whether it's posting invective, hateful diatribes on a platform or cheating in online games, it has to be more expensive than an email address to participate, but somehow also effectively free for most average people.
Maybe that takes the form of Worldcoin, or maybe some clever zk-snark proof of uniqueness-without-disclosing-identity from state or national ID programs, I don't know. But the current situation of a minority of people making vast swathes of the internet unpleasant is really quite untenable.
Of course the second hard part is figuring out how to do that without fully giving into the people who would want to spy on us all.
I would seriously consider paying to be part of a nice walled garden, somewhere that had tight controls over advertising, spam, anonymous trolls, etc. I obviously can't have anything like the Internet I grew up with (in the late 80s, early 90s), that ship has sailed, but I would pay actual money if someone could offer me an online experience that absolutely did not have scams, spam, incessant advertising, etc.
The biggest headache is probably the difficulty in maintaining communication with people who choose other gardens to join. Though perhaps that's more a problem if you want to communicate with people who want to stay outside the gardens and use only the 'free' Internet.
At the level of something like spam or cheating, it’s not really a matter of opinion whether or not someone is participating in good faith. Someone who’s only ever one email address away from exploiting your platform that way really needs to be boxed out in a more permanent way.
If it uses a 2nd input device, that's just obvious.
If it properly mixes its input into your main device, there will still be hints.
A real mouse has a limited range of motion. It can't keep moving left or right indefinitely.
Real players don't immediately gravitate towards the geometric center of the head of every enemy.
Real players don't try to move the mouse to shoot at enemies on the loading screen.
Real players have coordinated or stereotyped mouse and keyboard movements. They don't react instantly with the mouse but after a delay on the keyboard, for instance.
I have started to consider that games should be inherently cheat-resistant, not protected by anti-cheats.
Chess and Go are less affected by cheats by their design. It's not nearly as frustrating to lose to a cheater when they're working with the same information you are, and when they perform actions that a human could reasonably perform.
I find that rulesets enforced by nature or by the design of the system are, to me, more interesting than rulesets enforced by agreement and punishment, even if the "agreement" is not to hack the game. It forces more creativity and makes games offer more relevant experiences instead of copying the same formula.
As for identity systems etc. to permaban cheaters, I think that if it takes increasingly strict levels of monitoring and crackdown and reliance on "trusted authorities" to keep these beloved games playable, it might be better to move on and find new games. Few (if any) individual games or genres of games matter enough to warrant this attention.
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this position?
This is flippant, but incorrect in a general sense. Those who cheat are often near the top of their chosen game, and are looking for that edge to be "the best".
I’ve had a Brazilian friend say it was largely due to culture but I’ve got to imagine with all the data companies have, there’s been more rigorous studies.
My personal theory is that people just have more “real life” friends they are trying to impress; combined with Valorant being popular due to the ludicrous amount of import taxation.
Or, have everyone literally cheat with reckless abandon… and the game is unplayable.
Well, maybe not "everyone" is cheating, but there's very little punishment to cheating in that game for those who do. Do it too blatantly and get reported an cordoned off into "low trust" matchmaking, or just closet cheat with total impunity.
I suppose this then drives people to third party matchmaking services like FACEIT that do use kernel level anti-cheat (which has its own separate game culture issues to replace the cheating issue).
Unfortunately the industry decided to leave private/player-hosted servers behind, and modern genres like battle royale require unreasonably high player counts, so we're kind of stuck.
I know this isn't the lowest hanging fruit but for literally a few USD you could get the necessary hardware (i.e. any microcontroller, like a Raspberry Pi Pico) to emulate an input device with perfect fidelity. What do you do when a device pops up that has the same VID/PID as a real physical mouse and looks identical from the perspective of the HID reports? This is not theoretical FWIW.
I think the gameplan for anti-cheat developers is to just pretend they can't hear this, and to keep ramping up the amount of end-user surveillance for as long as possible. Good luck guys, looking forward to when the cheaters discover Arduino.
edit: Also, while I'm here saying unpopular things, this smarmy blog post gets a lot wrong about cheaters, probably on purpose just to piss them off. For example, something you'll notice with many cheating scandals is that routinely, extremely skilled players choose to cheat to try to get more of an edge, and they're better at it than unskilled players most of the time, too. I think the real reason why most cheaters suck is because the distribution of cheaters is probably mostly because most players suck and some portion of players are prone to cheating. If you need any evidence that cheating can easily become widespread at higher skill levels, check any speedrunning community with a sufficiently bad cheating problem, like Trackmania.
Most people lazy for this
One possibility: The Arduino added input latency cancelling out the cheating benefit.
I'm not describing something theoretical. I didn't use it for cheating, but I have in fact used an RP2040 to emulate an HID mouse and tried to make it look "invisible" from the other end. I don't have code posted to GitHub, but other people do have similar examples. If you wanted to get obsessive about it, it probably wouldn't even be hard to emulate vendor-specific proprietary behaviors, like whatever custom HID reports are used for things like mouse profiles and firmware updates. It requires a bit of reverse engineering, but nothing that crazy.
You can also just do it with a normal Raspberry Pi too, if it's one that has USB OTG support. This is how a lot of those Raspberry Pi KVM solutions send inputs without needing much external hardware.
Let's say you are still not convinced, and assume that this method is doomed to be detected somehow. One last thing: you could always hack up a real USB gaming mouse and rig the sensor up to a microcontroller or FPGA. That is substantially harder and more expensive, but I'm just trying to illustrate that if people are really driven to cheat and cheating is really a big expensive industry, this can be done.
> One possibility: The Arduino added input latency cancelling out the cheating benefit.
I don't believe so, no. You don't have to stick to a specific hardware platform, but if there's one advantage that microcontrollers have over typical computers like Raspberry Pis it's latency. Even if their USB controllers are too limited or broken somehow, you can probably get away with bitbanging USB, especially on something with a nice and beefy microcontroller like the RP2350.
I believe the actual real reason why this wasn't a thing was because in the beginning for CV-based cheating, the CV part itself wasn't good enough. Now with computers having advanced a few more steps and with ML having advanced many many steps, being able to do very good classifiers in real time seems to be viable.
So really, the clock is ticking. There is no practical reason why the I/O part can't be done, so as long as the actual aimbot part works well enough. I'm willing to put my name on that.
In the end, what matters to the cheater is being able to win, so if a pixelbot will do the trick and be less detectable, it's probably worth more rather than less. I believe it's just a matter of time before the pieces come together. (Of course, it has to actually be effective in order to really be worth more, but I think that's largely a function of how good the actual aimbot portion can be, and I really think with how good and fast ML has gotten you could really do a lot better these days.)
What about criminal charges (e.g., CFAA)?
https://www.ign.com/articles/call-of-duty-cheat-maker-ordere...
What a great message to send to your fans. "We know we installed Ring 0 anticheat on your PC and banned Linux/Steam Deck players, but look at how useless it is!"
An anticheat does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
A DRM solution does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
A website block does not need to be 100% effective to be worth something.
And so on. “There’s a workaround” != “This is therefore mostly useless.”
Otherwise, let me tell you, seat belt laws and speed limits are the most useless things ever made. The workaround is just pushing my foot down harder!
I don’t think Riot is losing sleep over denying access to the 4 people who want to play Valorant on a Steam Deck.
Steam Deck users need to ask Valve to similarly improve SteamOS's system integrity to prove to game companies that it's safe for people to run their games on it without compromising their game's integrity.
No comments yet
Thanks.
For years, gamers have been told install xyz rootkit for your safety, enable xyz option in your BIOS, get a TPM, install the latest versions of windows, it's all for your security to make your experience better and cheat-free with state-of-the-art technology! across like 3 or 4 different vendors, and the outcome has been the same ever since the beginning: cheaters find ways to skirt basic restrictions, because companies don't _want_ to actually put an end to cheating. Especially more so for companies like valve that get cheaters constantly re-buying their games or "premium" status, not sure if this exists in the valorant realm
Just end the "gary's pool cleaning" problem once and for all rather than continue to play stupid games just on the off 0.00001% chance Gary's business (incorporated last week) decided to branch out to software. Let Gary come appeal to Riot directly and let them manually analyze whatever they need BEFOREHAND.
They're focusing on DETECTION rather than PREVENTION.
Spyware is legal. As long as people who care about these things are a tiny minority, the law (and lawmakers) will never be compelled to change.
The best bet for those who play these games is to explore alternatives, or leave games altogether and socialize in the real world.
At their scale it would also turn into one or more big class action lawsuits if they got caught trying it too, I expect. The lawyer fees would probably swamp any profits from selling telemetry data.