85
It's not about physical vs digital games, it's about ownership
(popcar.bearblog.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
85 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
86280 readers
2370 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Cheaters are preferable to your proprietary kernel-level anti-cheat and whatever sneaky plans you may have for users and their computers. Good luck winning an arms race.
If I ever do multiplayer (I hate networking) I plan to explore treating cheaters as a service problem, like pirates are to piracy.
Only some cheaters are a service problem. There are a number of different cheater archetypes and some of them do not respond to service offerings
And believe it or not, while kernel level provides a level of access that could be used for nefarious spying we actually do much MORE stuff people would find distasteful when we DON'T have kernel access, because we have to infer more without direct access to the places where cheat makers do their work
I'm unaware of any (1st party) game services being offerered to cheaters, or any explicit positive association. Best I can think of is a more neutural "anarchy" servers (i.e Minecraft). I imagine implimenting built-in "cheats" you would expect from 3rd parties (e.g. auto aim, wallhacks) but framed in a way that is hopefully tolerable to non-cheaters (perhapscalling it a handicap).
Having control over others' computing, even with good intentions, creates a bad incentive. One must resist the temptation to use that control for your own benefit at the user's expense. So no, I wouldn't believe devs typically act more immoral when they have less unjust power over others' computing.
As someone who works in this problem space, I promise you with 100% certainty that the type and quantity of data collection being done without kernel access would be far more distasteful than what's done with kernel access. You can take my word for that or not but I obviously can't say any more than that
Including cheating functionality in games is already done and people hate it: it's called pay-to-win microtransactions.
The archetypes for cheaters are such that they don't provide ways to please the a large portion of cheaters without harming players because harm is their goal. And the other group is trying to make money by charging for services for players and then cheating to complete those services as fast as possible. There are no in-game features that can be created to mitigate these people.
The only class of cheaters that can be dealt with as a service problem are those that are cheating to a) catch up to others or b) offset a skill shortfall or c) offset a time shortfall. This makes up only a subset of an cheaters