[arendtio]

They are not, but both are symptoms of a consumer-disrespecting mindset.

- DRM does not serve the consumer, but the producer.

- Anti-cheat only serves the consumer if it is well-designed. However, if someone is able to design a game (technically) well, anti-cheat is unnecessary. And if someone cannot design a game, their anti-cheat is often a disservice to the consumer.

I don't like either DRM or anti-cheat solutions, not because I am not willing to pay the producers, but because I have been burned too many times by dysfunctional solutions.

[eropple]

> Anti-cheat only serves the consumer if it is well-designed. However, if someone is able to design a game (technically) well, anti-cheat is unnecessary.

That silly "speed of light" thing? Just design better.

[0x457]

There are cheats today that takes your monitor output and act like a hardware mouse. There is nothing you can do with game design about it.

[arendtio]

And some cheats happen on a different device. There is no way anti-cheat software can defeat those (even eye trackers are not perfect).

The design question is about software that abuses the game state, which is sent to the client, but not displayed to the player (e.g. wall-hacks), and software that sends impossible input (e.g. speed hacks). Anything that manipulates mouse input is very hard to counter.

In the end, all the technical solutions have limits and you need other means to solve the issue (e.g. play with friends/live events). However, anti-cheat software tries to counter many cases that can be solved by better implementations (e.g. servers that send very limited information to the client).

[eropple]

> However, anti-cheat software tries to counter many cases that can be solved by better implementations (e.g. servers that send very limited information to the client).

And now you can't provide client-side prediction between packets, so you get movement stutter all over the place instead of occasional updates and you get somebody popping into existence because they were behind a wall occlusion on your last packet and you've now strafed into line-of-sight. And they got theirs before you did, so you're dead.

Winning, winning result.

Consider perhaps that the people making this stuff aren't stupid and would try such obvious things if they were practical.

[IshKebab]

> However, if someone is able to design a game (technically) well, anti-cheat is unnecessary.

Nonsense. It's completely impossible to stop cheaters these days, but anti-cheat technology definitely raises the bar. It's only "unnecessary" if you're willing to accept a large number of cheaters.

Some anti-cheat stuff definitely goes to far but to dismiss the idea entirely is just naïve.

[aeonik]

Back in the day we had admins and communities of people. You'd get to know people more and establish trust. You could have registered brackets and independent tournaments with manual administration and banning for cheaters.

It worked pretty good, but all of that was taken away.

[arendtio]

> It's completely impossible to stop cheaters these days

On that part, we can agree, and if you think I want to 'dismiss the idea' you completely misunderstood the point. My point is, that the cases anti-cheat software tries to solve, are cases that a well-designed game has solved in the beginning (e.g. sending limited game state to clients, discarding impossible input, etc.).

On the other side of the coin, I have seen players who cheated even with anti-cheat in place (like you said), for some games I was unable to play games via proton because the anti-cheat didn't work and I was unable to play some games because the developers messed up their anti-cheat implementation. So there are drawbacks to a feature that has limited use and for which many cases can be solved by other means.

In the end, there are many cheat cases that anti-cheat software can't solve (e.g. using a secondary device) and which have to be solved by other means (e.g. spectator delays, live events, private servers).

[ekianjo]

> Nonsense. It's completely impossible to stop cheaters these days

on the user side, it's perfectly possible if you only play online with your friends.

The whole idea that we should be able to play with random people if we all accept to have a kernel rootkit needs to die. Ultimately that's exactly what the NSA and other agencies want you to support.

[IshKebab]

Sure but most people prefer not to have to spend their lives finding enough friends that some are always available when they have 5 minutes free to play one game of Rocket League.

I suppose you could argue that games could offer an "anti-cheat free" version that can only be used in private matches. But I think you can imagine how many downloads that would get.