[matheusmoreira]

You're gonna be disappointed. People manage to cheat even on consoles which are designed to only run software if it's been signed by the manufacturer.

There's got to be a point where they ought to stop and say "okay, this is as far as we can go with this idea". That point is probably when they start making kernel drivers that own your system for the sake of trying to guarantee a video game hasn't been tampered with. Some of these things don't exactly have a friendly privacy policy either.

[dleslie]

They manage to, but there's far less of it.

You have a choice: roll down the knotted hill where you're certain to smear dog poop on youtself doing so, or roll down the hill that almost never has dogs on it and is frequently mowed and maintained.

[manicdee]

You left out the part where the gardener watches over your shoulder as you do your banking, apply for a passport, apply for a better job, yadda yadda.

Given my druthers I'd prefer the ability to block people I don't want to play with, and have no anti-cheat system.

As an example if you play Warframe on consoles you'll find that you are encountering the same people game after game. So a block list (as a way to punish cheaters) would be useful because you aren't playing with a random selection of the entire world. There's also the case that Warframe is a game where cheating doesn't matter (though some abilities have been modified to prevent griefing).

If a subscription to a game store means it's possible to prevent multiplayer games matching me up with certain other subscribers, I'd much prefer that over the game publisher wanting to install anti-cheat software that takes control over my operating system.