I've played before anticheat was a thing and it is meaningless. Cheaters are going to cheat. The best anticheat systems are voting. The game kicks a winning vote total and then that server sends the rest of the servers it's results. Then that account is flagged as a cheater. The only way a cheater can exist is they hide and don't cheat and are obvious in it

Image Transcription: Meme

[The meme shows two fanart images of the character Sayori, from "Doki Doki Literature Club", with text to the right of each image.]

[In the first image, Sayori is wearing sunglasses and scowling, with her hand up in a blocking gesture. The text reads:]

Anti-Cheat

[In the second image, Sayori has her head up high, looking pleased, with a finger pointed to the right, where the text reads:]

Kernel Level Surveillance

I am a human who transcribes posts to improve accessibility on Lemmy. Transcriptions help people who use screen readers or other assistive technology to use the site. For more information, see here.

As long as there are people playing a game, there will be cheats. However, I decide what happens on my device, not a game or software developer. When the developer thinks he can set requirements, he is barred.

Not a single piece of software is worth risking my device for.

I wanna know they have to have low level shit making these checks on my device in the first place. Why can't the checks by on the god damn server, checking against what the developer knows is and isn't possible to do without cheating?

Edit: Er... I guess you wouldn't really be able to tell if they used walls or aimbots that way... 🤔

I've been in discussions regarding anti-cheats, and there's definitely an audience who outright complains if a game does not have anti-cheats.

The arguments usually being willing to deal with the risks, because they don't see a way to make games fair without it.

I'd never noticed before that the bow changes sides

I'm wondering if the reason why it's taken (taking) the anticheat companies so long to implement support on linux is just that they're scared that some linux kid will manage to completely circumvent the entire anticheat with some FOSS sandboxing tool.

They should just start doing more server-based anticheats instead of scanning on the client.

Up next: Hardware level surveillance powered by Intel ME

Welp... now Im expecting Linux kernel modules for anticheat.

Memes aside, cheats operate at driver level and as a result anti-cheat, if it wants to be effective, has to also.

Yup and to top it all off most online gaming communities are really toxic when it comes to any discussion of Anti-Cheat in this regard (it's considered the same as cheating to put down anti-cheat), and will usually defend it and the company behind it. I've even heard some of these chuds try and say linux is evil or used by criminals (you can tell these people are either kids or very immature) and that they should outright ban Linux users altogether.

Who wants to bet I'll get downvoted by these losers here or even attacked in comments for my statements?

Some games have a complicated enough Anti-Cheat that it'd be an absolute pain to get it working with Linux. Honestly, it's not worth it to gain 3% more players. I'd recommend just running a Windows VM in Linux.

The hate is mutual. Though I's hate it even I was a windows user.

KLS for short. Pronounced “kills”.