Now that Stop Killing Games is actually being taken seriously - maybe we need to take a look at Stop Fucking Around In Our Kernels
I haven't really been personally affected by it before - I don't play any competitive multiplayer games at all. But my wife had her brother over, and he's significantly younger than us. So he wanted to play FortNite and GTA V, knowing I have a gaming PC. FortNite is immediately out of the question, it'll never work on my computer. Okay, so I got GTA V running and it was fun for a while, but it turns out all of those really cool cars only exist in Online. But oh look, now they've added BattlEye and I can no longer get online.
While this seems like a trivial issue (Just buy a third SSD for Windows and dual boot), it's really not. Even if I wanted to install Windows ever again, I do NOT want random 3rd party kernel modules in there. Anyone remember the whole CrowdStrike fiasco? I do NOT want to wake up to my computer not booting up because some idiot decided to push a shitty update to their kernel module that makes the kernel itself shit the bed. And while Microsoft fucks up plenty, at least they're a corporation with a reputation to uphold, and I believe they even have a QA team or 2. CrowdStrike was unheard of outside of the corporate world before the ordeal and tbh nobody has ever heard of it afterwards again.
So I think this would be a good angle to push. That we should be careful about what code runs in our OS kernels, for security and stability reasons. Obviously it'd be impossible to just blanket ban 3rd party kernel modules to any OS. However, maybe here in the EU at least we could get them to consider a rule that any software that includes a component running in the OS kernel, MUST justify how that part is necessary for the software to function in the best possible way for the user of the computer the software is running on. E.g I expect a hardware driver to have a kernel module, and I can see how security software needs to have a kernel module, but I do NOT see how a video game needs to have an anti cheat with a kernel module. How does that benefit me, the customer paying to be able to play said video game?
It should be said that I'm not against games detecting cheaters and banning them from online play. It's very specifically kernel-level anticheats that I can't stand on principle.
I'm against them being able to ban you from playing online in its entirety, which is something they can do because most online games don't let you run the servers yourself anymore. Sure, if someone cheats on official servers, ban them from the official servers. They should still be able to play, cheating or not, on the server they run themselves, but that's not an option we even have most of the time.
This one is such an overlooked part of this whole dilemma. The problem is NOT THAT the official servers not allowing clients without kernel level anti cheat. It’s just we don’t have an option to host our own servers anymore and we’re confined to following the rules.
It is "overlooked" because it is a non-answer.
Nobody wants to play with all the cheaters and the people who got banned because they couldn't stop talking about how much they love CSAM in the lobbies.
I mean, look at twitter. After the recent mass exodus to bluesky there is anger because they are realizing their quarantine zone is REAL shitty.
I do wish more games would provide player run servers as an option. but I am under no illusion that that is going to be good for anything other than "Hey, remember when we all played Chivalry 2 for a few years? What say we play that on Friday night and then ignore it for another decade?"
That's a strawman argument. First of all, plenty of people would be happy to self-host a game for their friends, if they were still allowed the option. Second, even people who want to run a public server would still be free to ban people (for whatever reason they wanted). We're not talking about being forced to tolerate antisocial fuckwads.
Exactly! Me and my friends often play on modded Factorio servers that one of us hosts. This is only possible because the developer doesn't lock things down to only the first-party (official) servers.
We don't play with cheaters either (you aren't getting invited to our server if you are). We play with our friends because it is fun, in a way no official server could hope to work.
As something nice to have? I fully agree (and said as much)
As an alternative to anti-cheat solutions/"solutions" as was being presented?
No, it is not an answer. Because it would indeed be forcing people to tolerate "antisocial fuckwads" or forcing people ti find private servers to play with each other like in the good old days.
No shit, Sherlock. That's exactly what I was advocating for.
I wouldn't call it "forcing," though -- that's another strawman. It's "allowing" the option.
Cool
Also, it isn't a straw man if you are arguing a completely different topic than the one the thread is about. But cool. You learned a word.
In my experience with TF2, many popular community servers have common-sense rules like no slurs, cheats, etc. The great thing about a player-run server is that, if you want, it can be stricter than official guidelines, as Valve for example is pretty hands-off beyond the obvious in-game cheats. It allows pockets of the community to shape the experience they want to have more adeptly than official servers ever could.
The problem is "pockets of the community".
Back in the day, I LOVED Unreal Tournament (.. I still do actually). And a lot of that is because I found servers with people who became friends I still chat with (hell, one of them is even in the same Warframe clan as I am).
But that is INCREDIBLY unapproachable and I know plenty of people who never "got int" UT or Quake or TF2 because they never found those communities and instead got stuck with random pubs full of assholes.
That said: That is not about anti-cheat. That is about matchmaking versus player run servers. Which is a very different discussion with nuances in all directions.
That is a perfectly valid use case for a video game that I paid for though. I do exactly that with games like 007: Agent Under Fire (in split-screen), and I played games like Rainbow Six 3 long after the official servers weren't there anymore. Agent Under Fire in particular is a lot of fun with all of the modifiers on, like moon gravity, and I wouldn't mind playing some multiplayer games with friends with cheats like that one on; things that you wouldn't want on in a ranked queue, but things that I should 100% be able to do with the product that I paid for.
Yes, that's part of the StopKillingGames agenda as well. Allow us to control our own servers! For fuck's sake, it's CHEAPER for them, because WE'RE paying for hosting. A dedicated server costs money! And it keeps people buying into the ecosystem after the initial sales high because you form communities and then tell people IRL how awesome the game is. Assuming you have time for real life friends of course.
I'm not against the existence of a matchmaking system, or even against it being the default. Just give us a tiny menu item "Dedicated Servers" somewhere and keep that one around forever, even when the publisher is long bankrupt because the CEO blew all their profit on sculptures of oddly shaped penises or something.
They see it as a threat to their business model. Without any other option, you have to be on the latest version, seeing the latest skins, and you're unable to bypass their store and mod them in yourself. If I can help it, not giving me the option to run the server myself will be a threat to their business model.
Game company: "Why don't you give that money to us and we will give you a server?"
Make a cheater pool and put anyone you detect using cheats in a separate matchmaking system that only matches cheaters with cheaters.
And never ban anyone, ofc.
"Butbutbutbut server side anticheat is haaaaaaard and requires us to actually think about what values are actually valid and understand our own internal game states. Kernel level anticheat ~~lets us be lazy~~ costs us less and requires less development time!"
Unless they deviate substantially from how they build games in genres like shooters, server side anti-cheat isn't going to catch everything that kernel level anti cheat does. However, kernel level anti cheat doesn't catch hardware cheating anyway, so if cheating is always going to be imperfect, we ought to stop short of the kernel.
Was it Delta Force that made everyone lose their shit because it "accidentally" warned people would be banned for usb thumb drives?
Because... that is coming. No, not the thumbdrive. But scanning your various devices to detect hardware based cheats. Which... is likely also going to be pushed by logitech and razer to get ahead of the crowd that are sick and tired of needing their bullshit software to properly use mice and are looking toward alternatives.
That's the thing, you're never going to catch everything. But anything important can be sanity checked by the server when the client checks in, all without opening a vulnerability in your customers' systems.
So much kernel level anticheat is about offloading the processing power to the customer, and unreasonable desires for control over the systems involved and overall game environment (and probably a decent amount of data mining).
A lot of cheats send completely legitimate information back to the server, and that's what they're seeking to stop with the client side implementation; I don't think it has anything to do with costs. I haven't heard of any data mining happening, and surely someone would have caught it with wire shark by now, but there are enough things that we know for sure about kernel level anti cheats to make it offensive.
I think the way to go about detecting cheats server-side would be primarily driven by statistics. For example, to counter wallhacks one might track how often a player is already targeting an enemy before they become visible. Or to counter aimbots one could check for humanly impossible amounts of changes in the direction of mouse movement, somewhat similar to how the community found out a bunch of cheaters using slowmo in Trackmania.
Add in a reputation system that actually requires a good amount of playtime to be put into the highest tier of trust for matchmaking and I think one could have a pretty solid system that wouldn't have to rely on client-side anticheat at all.
The problem is that the things that aren't caught? People don't say "Ugh. Easy Anti-Cheat suck". they say "Ugh, fucking Battlefield is un fucking playable. BOYCOTT IT!!!!"
There are alternative methods that may be even more effective (I personally think this is a genuinely great use case for "AI" to detect things like tracking players through walls and head snapping). They also have drawbacks (training and inference would get real expensive real fast since it needs to be fairly game specific).
Whereas kernel level bullshit? It clearly works well enough that the people who have the data (devs and publishers) are willing to pay for it.
And if it reduces the risk of a particularly bad exploit hurting the reputation of the game and tanking it harder than Concord?
Which is why "fighting back" is so difficult. We, as players, are asking for the devs/publishers to trust us. But we have also demonstrated, at every fucking step, that we won't extend even an iota of trust back and will instead watch thousands of hours of video essays on why this game sucks because of a bad beta.
Look if companies could implement successful anticheat without kernel access they sure as hell would, regardless of cost or effort. There is a TON of money to be made in competitive fps games alone, and they're pretty much all overrun by hackers
Here, step into this 200GB repo with about 50 third party plugins and someone else's game engine and find all the states that aren't exactly like they are on the design docs, and do it at scale, across a cluster of servers that all have to interact.
20 years ago, i'd be right there with you.
It's actually hard for a big game to do those things. The people making the cheats are as good as the developers and only need to find one nick it the armor every time.
FWIW, I'm against kernel-level anticheat, and I didn't downvote you :)
The one downvote from a cheater 👌