Re:Keyhole – Forge own Windows Store licenses
by card_zero on Saturday September 07, 2024 @11:45AM
(#41474536)
> 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.
Re:Keyhole – Forge own Windows Store licenses
by choo-t on Saturday September 07, 2024 @10:59AM
(#41474275)
> 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 ?
Re:Keyhole – Forge own Windows Store licenses
by realusername on Saturday September 07, 2024 @10:31AM
(#41474137)
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.
Re:Keyhole – Forge own Windows Store licenses
by vel0city on Saturday September 07, 2024 @11:26AM
(#41474417)
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.
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.