This seems like the old “any imperfect solution is no better than doing nothing” argument. Moderation is expensive, hard to scale, and can only address problems after other users have bad experiences.

It’s like saying seatbelts are useless because some people still get hurt, so instead of seatbelts we need a lot more ambulances and hospitals.

Like any complex system, games have a funnel. These technical measures reduce (but not to zero) the number of cheaters. Then moderation can be more effective operating against a smaller population with a lower percentage of abuse.

> It’s like saying seatbelts are useless because some people still get hurt

Alternatively, it's like saying poisoning your customers is a bad way to reduce complaints, because some of them survive. Matter of perspective.

> This seems like the old “any imperfect solution is no better than doing nothing” argument.

Isn't this the argument used against non-kernel-level anticheat and server-side anticheat in the first place ?

Since the technical measures like TPM are very heavy, there's some better evidence needed that it reduces the number of cheaters, personally I don't buy it.

On the other hand, all the games / servers I've seen which are successful against cheater have some very good moderation.

Just see Valorent vs Counterstrike. Similar levels of popularity, similar kinds of cheat concepts. One has a kernel level anti cheat and has few cheaters, one doesn't and is overrun by cheaters.

Look at Counterstrike with regular VAC based matchmaking and then with kernel level anti cheat in FACEIT. One is overrun with cheaters and one isn't. It's the same game.

TPM security is broken on a lot of motherboards too.