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?
No one is forcing you to install their game.
It's so easy to look up what kind of anti cheat games use.
You can't eat the cake and have it too.
They don't have a right to install anything without your consent. However. You pressed the "Install" button. And you boxed in "I understand" and clicked "I agree".
That doesn't really track here. My reasoning is simple. They are requiring access to something they didn't initially make public or allow an informed decision on, and they did that on purpose. While I don't currently own or buy games that have kernel level anti-cheat, that doesn't make the obfuscation any better.
I actually have not pressed the install button, nor have I pressed the purchase button. However, I also want you to look up the phrase "eat cake and have it to" and figure out what you mean. I'm buying the cake. I'm buying the fork to eat the cake. Neither the cake company nor the fork company should be able to tell me what to do with the product from the other company. You don't have to agree with my stance, but understand that this is the argument that I am making.
People need to take responsibility of their own machines.
While they might not hold out a sign that says "KERNEL LEVEL ANTI CHEAT". There is information available to make an informed decision.
Your cake and fork argument makes no sense at all. The game company isn't telling you what you can and can't do with your hardware. But they are telling you what you will be installing. It's there if you know where to look. And if you don't know where to look. You have the combined knowledge of the world at your fingertips for guidance.
I don't know what you do. But when I buy a cake. I look at the ingredients to see what and how much it contains of various things. If I don't like what I see, I won't be buying it. Because I certainly won't be eating it.
And I'm also not going to buy a plastic fork to eat it with. See how I made that decision. The cake company didn't make me buy a certain fork, and the fork company didn't make me buy a certain cake. I decide.
It's ultimately your responsibility to understand what you are installing. Information is available.
You did not read what I wrote in my response and it shows. I have taken responsibility for my machine. I don't buy games with kernal level anti-cheat. I specifically view them as an attack vector for malware. They started the cake vs fork argument and my response was directly related to them using such a poor expression for the context of the conversation we were having and therefore it took that to its logical conclusion based on the argument they made.
Since you didn't read and decided to downvote I am choosing to not discuss this with you further, having vetted the ingredients of your cake. Have a good day.
I read your comment. I didn't downvote.
I'm using the "you" in the colloquial sense, i see that wasn't apparent to you. (You as in you the singular individual)
I understand you are against kernel level anti cheat. That's ok. That's an opinion. But your argument that it's some kind of secret which games have it or not, is not a matter of opinion. It's verifiable. And It's just not true. It's not a secret. You can easily find out if you want to.
You can make the argument that platforms should make publishers divulge that information on the games page. And I say sure, why not.
But it always will be your responsibility to make sure you know what you're installing.
Unfortunately. It is an armsrace against cheaters. And 1 single cheater can easily ruin the entire experience for hundreds of players. I understand why games might want it. I hope they can find more clever ways of detecting cheats without it.
As a final word. Lemmy is a big place. It's utterly ridiculous of you to assume I'm the one who downvoted.