1460
Steam games will now need to fully disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1460 points (98.5% liked)
Games
32695 readers
641 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure you're right, but VAC is one of the worst examples for that... I think whatever Blizzard does with Overwatch 2 is a better example.
I would love to see any kind of documentation that can somehow prove OW2's AC is better than VAC, something that isn't based on vibes or immediacy bias.
I sure wish there was some empirical study regarding the same too. I'm very much going by anecdotal evidence from myself and others right now
So ... your previous assertion that OW2's AC is superior to VAC was in fact just based on vibes.
Anti Cheat developers typically do not like to explain how exactly they work, how effective they actually are.
Their data is proprietary, trade secrets.
There will almost certainly never be a way to actually conduct the empirical study you wish for, save for (ironically) someone hacking into the corporate servers of a bunch of different anti cheat developers to grab their own internal metrics.
But that should be obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of how Anti Cheats work, both technically and as a business.
... None of that matters to you though, you have completely vibes based anecdotes that you confidently state as fact.
Please stop doing that.
When someone has no clue what they're talking about, but confidently makes a claim about a situation because it feels right, this is typically called misinformation.
I mean, anybody could verify it by spending a few hours each on the respective games... But yes, any empirical data would be nice. For example, a study on the amount of blatant hackers found on lobbies joined in comparable ranks. Anyway, this isn't exactly misinformation to anybody who has played both games at any decent rank. It's unproved but immediately discernible information. Take that how you will, i don't really intend to argue about this here. This kind of pointless argument is the worst thing about Lemmy.
No, thats an anecdotal experience, and all it would tell you is the players' perception of how prevalent cheating is... not how prevalent it actually is, not how effective an anti cheat system is at blocking cheaters.
"It would be great if there was any valid data/research to back up or disprove that thing I said earlier, but there isn't, therefore I am completely justified in saying whatever as I want and acting as if its indisputable!"
Again, no.
You made a claim that a particular anti cheat system is better than another.
You keep saying that 'oh anyone can just tell'.
No.
What you are describing is again, at best, player perceptions of cheating prevalence.
The logic you are using is exactly the same logic that people who believe in astrology or woo woo nonsense medical treatments use to justify their efficacy.
... You have nothing but vibes and anecdotes, which you admit are unproved and have no basis in fact, beyond 'i think this is obvious'.
You're just bullshitting.
It is indeed pointless to attempt to get a bullshitter to admit they are bullshitting, when they've already backpedalled by moving goal posts, dismissing the importance of the discussion after being called out for making a specific claim which they can't back up.
You could just admit that ah well shit yeah, I guess I don't have any actual valid reasoning or data to back up my claim, but nope you keep trucking on, doing everything you can to talk around that point instead of addressing it.
I mean...bro was just giving an opinion man. He didn't even really say that much originally. I think claiming the "superiority" of something online alot of the times is vibes based. That ain't necessarily bad though. Are people not allowed to give more generalized or vague opinions?