Microsoft has long wanted to get vendors out of the kernel. It’s a huge privacy/security/stability risk, and causes major issues like the Crowdstrike outage.
Most of those issues also apply to kernel anti-cheat as well, and it’s likely that Microsoft will also attempt to move anti-cheat vendors out of kernel space. The biggest gaming issues with steamOS/Linux are kernel anti-cheat not working, so this could be huge for having full compatibility of multiplayer games on Linux.
Some games just need people back in the equation instead of relying on algorithms. Bring back the Game Master’s to MMOs etc, these people are willing to work for peanuts and be happy, yet they still decided to cut costs by replacing them…
…wait, games don’t have even a single person checking for cheaters, even casually? Like, they wholly rely on anticheat?
(PS, has been a decently long time since I played a game that needed anti cheat)
Depends on the game, really, but “relying” on anti-cheat is pretty common. Larger games tend to have teams who review cases that get flagged by the systems and players and do manual removal but these teams also tend to be quite small and unable to adequately handle the amount of cheating that occurs.
If gamers want to see cheaters less often, they need to pressure the companies to do human moderation in addition.
I’d argue the most effective anticheat is dedicated servers. Admin’ed a lot of CS, TFC, and Q3 servers growing up and it was easy enough to kick/ban any one hacking or being an unrepentant dick. Downside for the corps is, you can’t gate all that dlc as easy when users have control.
I’d argue the same, actually. It takes people to moderate people and dedicated servers make it easiest. Modern match made games could still have admins, the company needs to pay for them.
I think people can vote to kick people but that’s it really