Battledield now throwing an error because Valorant is already sitting in kernel memory. Time to buy your EA Battlefield PC but don’t forget your Valorant PC

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    It needs to be a mix. Have your clientside anti-cheat look for obvious attack vectors, have your serverside anti-cheat look for suspicious play, and let users report others. Then have humans review suspected cheaters and make the final call.

    But that’s expensive, and off-the-shelf anti-cheat gives them someone else to blame.

    • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I agree, there’s definitely some checks you can only do on the client and only some that work server-side. Ideally everything that can be checked on either, are checked.

      Currently it’s just all wrong, the client-side can’t be relied upon as heavily as it is.

      The benefit factor to the rootkits they install on our machines is nil. Just bloats our systems with garbage that is just waiting to be exploited by hackers.

      • Goodeye8@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        You’re viewing from the perspective of what would be best for the playerbase. These decisions are made based on what’s the cheapest possible solution to have the playerbase shut up about cheaters so they wouldn’t drive away potential customers.

        • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Good eye.

          I would think there’s money to gain by keeping your players engaged longer by having less cheaters, but I guess theres also an incentive to keep just enough cheaters that you can steadily ban them for more game sales (not that I think that’s happening, i hope not).

          Anyways they take our money, we expect whats best for us, within reason of course.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            I doubt the revenue from sales to cheaters is that significant compared to the risk of losing players. I think the simplest explanation is that catching cheaters is hard (read: expensive), so they’re happy with catching the most obvious cheaters with off the shelf solutions (i.e. the Pareto principle).

            • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah as I mention I don’t really believe it either, just brought it up because it’s a thought.

              And yup the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

              I do wish they would stop invading our systems with their current anti-cheats (invasive ones) though, that’s the main thing I am worried about.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 days ago

                I refuse to play them. If they want kernel level anticheat, they can submit the source under the GPL to the Linux kernel devs for consideration, because that’s the only way I’d consider using it. No game is worth compromising my system’s security.