Always on Anti-Cheat, worst than always on DRM?

[Totallycasual]

See, shit like this is why i primarily play single player games, i just like to buy a game, do the day one patch download and then disconnect from the internet for months at a time. 

 

Just for clarity, i live off grid most of the time so if gaming ever heads in the direction of requiring always online or regular sign ins i'm fucked.  

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Was highlighting the gravity of the claim for regulation.

 

That's not even comparable, you are trying to compare a medical product people not only consume but have no way to understand to a piece of optional software that we already know what it does.   If someone wants to write  a piece of software that randomly deletes files from your hard drive and tells you exactly what it does what right do you have to demand they can't?  they aren't tying it to an essential service and they aren't playing with the health of people for profit.  

 

Why should anything stop them. regulation is to prevent companies taking advantage of consumers, not to dictate what non essential and completely optional products they can sell.

 

 

Because it's not ethical, you can't just decide a product should be regulated because you don't like it.  If you don't like it  don't buy it. 

I highly doubt most people who install valorant know that they are installing an always running anti heat that runs at a super full level like that. It would be more akin to a pharmaceutical company putting in the fine print that they dilute their drugs with harmful chemicals.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I highly doubt most people who install valorant know that they are installing an always running anti heat that runs at a super full level like that.

The problem is not the level it runs at but what it does,  unless it actually does something they say it doesn't,  then the level it runs at is irrelevant.

Quote

 

It would be more akin to a pharmaceutical company putting in the fine print that they dilute their drugs with harmful chemicals.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.  This is a product that does what they say it does, We have no evidence does anything nefarious and neither is their any fine print to that effect.   So no, it's not like that at all. 

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not by any stretch of the imagination.  This is a product that does what they say it does, We have no evidence does anything nefarious and neither is their any fine print to that effect.   So no, it's not like that at all. 

And consuming a root level privileged software won't potentially harm your health either so....

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

And consuming a root level privileged software won't potentially harm your health either so....

It might raise your blood pressure if it annoys you or something like that,  In that case just don't buy the thing.  It's not like they are forcing people to install a program that uses malware to harvest data.   I believe there are already consumer protection laws that hold companies accountable for faulty products and fraud and privacy abuse (at least in most of the world).

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

people always bring up the COD boycott players playing the game, i've sworn not to participate anything Epic, i've held true to it since 2 years, this isn't any different, there's sea of things i could be rather doing than playing this game, so should you. if you want to show them this ain't right, vote with your wallet. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

people always bring up the COD boycott players playing the game, i've sworn not to participate anything Epic, i've held true to it since 2 years, this isn't any different, there's sea of things i could be rather doing than playing this game, so should you. if you want to show them this ain't right, vote with your wallet. 

I did the same with ubisoft, a good 4 years now that I refused to play any of their games.  If they bring out one that looks like it's worth the price I will give them another chance, however if they screw me over like they did with HOMM (not being able to save or even play online games and refuse to fix the issue), it will be along time before I go back there.

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

If anti cheat devs are going so far as to put their program on the same level as the kernel (I don’t consider this acceptable in any way), would it be that much more trouble to just build an OS (probably a custom lightweight linux distro so as to use proprietary GPU drivers) that the game can run in, and have the PC boot into that whenever you want the game launched? One could achieve a lot more control over what can run without fudging around with the Windows install. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

If anti cheat devs are going so far as to put their program on the same level as the kernel (I don’t consider this acceptable in any way), would it be that much more trouble to just build an OS (probably a custom lightweight linux distro so as to use proprietary GPU drivers) that the game can run in, and have the PC boot into that whenever you want the game launched? One could achieve a lot more control over what can run without fudging around with the Windows install. 

That's  pretty awesome Idea,  They can have all the control over the game that they want without going anywhere near the rest of the OS.  Then people who only want one system for work and games can have that and have a hardware disconnect for the boot drive.   It would also make writing cheats harder again.

[Avcn42]

Riot Games goes Steamworks bye bye, always on anti-cheat. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry 

 

[bcredeur97]

wow lol. What have we come to?

 

Can we just appreciate the fact that hackers will go so far for something stupid like video game cheating that this is even a concept?

[Pickles von Brine]

Anyone remember starforce? This has been done before:
 

 

[DeScruff]

Man this just seems like a shitshow of an idea...
If Microsoft doesn't block this right away, just wait until someone kinds out how to hack the driver. - Which will inevitably will happen just like how DRM gets squashed.
Once that driver gets hacked.. Congrats that is one glaring security hole asking for somebody to write malware for.

~~~~~~~ ULT1MAT3 CH3AT$ 4 VOLARANT FR33!!!!!~~~~~~~~
VvVvV ~&&&###-D0\/\/NL0D H3R3-###&&&~ VvVvV

Spoiler

 

[kirashi]

15 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

source: 

Riot's upcomming team based shooter with hero elements has been found, discovered and confirmed to implement an always on anti-cheat system.

the anticheat system starts when the machine boots-up, and has the same rights as an administrator

 

Since this is running at with high privileges and cannot be directly turned off. It can always monitor and really do whatever it wants on your system.

Someone could find a security vulnerability and turn this into a rootkit.

It's already reported to have bugs that negatively impact to other games.

 

so yeah, good things coming ahead of us. Of course the only way to stop this is to not install the game, but given the gamer mentality and ability to use an ounce of their grey matter to take a stand against such obviously negative practices. RIP everyone, expect this to come to LoL soon TM

 

 

 

Thanks for this information, as I hadn't yet heard of it. RiotGames networks are now permanently blocked at the firewall level across all my devices until they decide to smarten up. Additionally, I won't be supporting IT clients whose computers have Vanguard installed, and instead will be educating them on the perils of allowing closed-source drivers to operate at the root level on their systems.

 

14 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

im going to go on past experiences and say that this

--SNIPPED THE BOYCOTT MW2 SCREENSHOT--

still holds true to this day when talking about the general gamer

 

 

 

 

I miss the days when NT_Authority and team managed to reverse engineer IW's netcode, creating their own private servers, lobbies, and even a better anti-cheat engine than was initially included with the game. At least their legacy lives on by way of FiveM... Shame Activision had to file a cease and desist instead of working with them to improve their future games. (Then again, we're talking about the publisher & heads of a game series who didn't exactly see eye to eye on a few things, leading to a wee little lawsuit over corporate greed.)

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-23-activision-vs-vince-zampella-and-jason-west-inside-the-game-industry-trial-of-the-decade

 

1 hour ago, Pickles - Lord of the Jar said:

Anyone remember starforce? This has been done before:

 

 

 

 

 

MVG's content is spot on when it comes to providing a high-level overview of anti-cheat, copy-protection, and other such DRM software. He does a great job calling out the positive benefits that DRM software is supposed to provide game studios, without leaving out any of the negative side-effects that impact the paying consumer. If only the rest of the world cared to understand the basics of software running on their computers every day.

[Bananasplit_00]

I was honestly exited for Valorant, now not so much. Because of this it probably won't be runnable in Linux ever either, not that I'd want this on my computer in any OS

[Mihle]

Haven't heard about that game before now, definitely won't play it now

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I always thought that the way the game was giving out Beta keys was pretty shady; it screams stat-padding. It is any wonder how Amazon feels about it now.

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem is not the level it runs at but what it does,  unless it actually does something they say it doesn't,  then the level it runs at is irrelevant.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.  This is a product that does what they say it does, We have no evidence does anything nefarious and neither is their any fine print to that effect.   So no, it's not like that at all. 

People are reporting it negatively affecting the performance of other games so yes it does have unintended side effects that are not apart of the "it does what it says it does". Also yes it does matter what level it runs at because most wouldn't care if it simply ran at a higher level and therefore could be easily turned off when not playing valorant and also less likely to be exploitable. 

[ravenshrike]

On 4/14/2020 at 6:51 AM, jasonvp said:

The cheating epidemic is out of hand, across the board. 

You know what would REALLY help with that? Free dedicated servers with mods that have full access and can ban the obvious cheaters instantly.

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

You know what would REALLY help with that? Free dedicated servers with mods that have full access and can ban the obvious cheaters instantly.

I don't think "free" is required; rentals certainly are.  But it's not something game makers want to give us any longer.  They want full control over the server infrastructure, soup to nuts.  And that's an unfortunate reality of the gaming world we live in.  Gone are the days of, for instance, Dice handing the Battlefield server binary out to server rental agencies, who would then spin up servers based on folks actually paying money to rent them.  We're past that.  And I don't see it coming back, either.

 

The only realistic solution we're left with is good client AND server-side anti-cheat.  It has to be a 2-part thing, not an either/or.  And both of those solutions need constant updating, care, and feeding.  The cheat writers are very good at figuring out new and sleazy ways to work around the software mechanics put in place, so the game makers are then on the hook to keep a close eye on all of that.

[ravenshrike]

31 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

People are reporting it negatively affecting the performance of other games so yes it does have unintended side effects that are not apart of the "it does what it says it does". Also yes it does matter what level it runs at because most wouldn't care if it simply ran at a higher level and therefore could be easily turned off when not playing valorant and also less likely to be exploitable. 

Hopefully unlike Starforce it uninstalls when you uninstall the game. Back when X3:Reunion came out I bought it and my fps in WoW went from mid 80s to between 25-45. Once I narrowed down the problem I uninstalled the game thinking that would solve the issue. It didn't. Digging that shit out of my system was a bitch and a half. Getting my money back from Best Buy was also a fun time.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

15 hours ago, Newenthusiast said:

See, shit like this is why i primarily play single player games, i just like to buy a game, do the day one patch download and then disconnect from the internet for months at a time. 

 

Just for clarity, i live off grid most of the time so if gaming ever heads in the direction of requiring always online or regular sign ins i'm fucked.  

Well, you have every game at GOG to play, forever (provided you buy and download today). 

And there is of course always one other alternative that comes with its own issues. 

 

At some point we need to treat games that don't comply with what we consider best practices the same way we would treat games that are incompatible with our systems (console peasants surely have been there oh, wait, PC users as well worth console exclusives). 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

People are reporting it negatively affecting the performance of other games so yes it does have unintended side effects that are not apart of the "it does what it says it does".

Poor performance is not the same as malware or nefarious activity.

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also yes it does matter what level it runs at because most wouldn't care if it simply ran at a higher level and therefore could be easily turned off when not playing valorant and also less likely to be exploitable. 

Then don't install it,  don't play the game.  You  can't demand regulation for a program just because you personally think it is too much of a security risk.   You could argue the same thing for anti virus software, torrent programs, VPN services, etc.   So what you are actually arguing for is regulation over all software.  Government regulation is great for things that force consumers to use something they don't want or shouldn't have to pay extra for, but it will not help if you demand it just because you don't like what a program does. 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Poor performance is not the same as malware or nefarious activity.

Then don't install it,  don't play the game.  You  can't demand regulation for a program just because you personally think it is too much of a security risk.   You could argue the same thing for anti virus software, torrent programs, VPN services, etc.   So what you are actually arguing for is regulation over all software.  Government regulation is great for things that force consumers to use something they don't want or shouldn't have to pay extra for, but it will not help if you demand it just because you don't like what a program does. 

You're joking right? There are tons of regulation about safety and privacy so I do not see why this wouldn't be able to be regulated for similar reasons. I also wouldn't mind if they simply regulated it in a way where they had to clearly disclose that their program runs at all times and as kernel level access and therefore is a potential security risk. The problem here is alot of people have no idea what this program is doing and the potential security risk it poses. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

You're joking right? There are tons of regulation about safety and privacy so I do not see why this wouldn't be able to be regulated for similar reasons.

Those privacy regulations already apply to it.  What are you talking about?

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

 

 

I also wouldn't mind if they simply regulated it in a way where they had to clearly disclose that their program runs at all times and as kernel level access and therefore is a potential security risk. The problem here is alot of people have no idea what this program is doing and the potential security risk it poses. 

Again, the problem is you don't like it. you don't like that its running all the time (even though lots of 3rd party programs startup and run all the time),  you don't like it because it runs basically as admin (although no one can articulate why that should be regulated because it is not more of a security risk than any other malware or virus infection).   

 

And I will say it again, not liking something is not reason enough to demand it be regulated.  Having an actually nefarious attribute is a reason to regulate, but so far all this does is run all the time.