Helldivers 2 had one of the most insane weekends in gaming history after Sony decided to force all players on PC to use a PSN account to continue playing the...
Unfortunately that’s just the way the industry is going. They’d rather just have overreach and excessive power than deal with the back and forth fight of countering hackers and cheats. I understand why they’d go that way, it’s disappointing and concerning, but it’s becoming more and more common.
You could run such games on a separate machine (provided you had the funds), but that’s a big buy in for a single game.
Different people have different tolerances or are ignorant, not stupid. Maybe don’t be so condescending to people and you’d get better responses.
Lmao, I can think of exactly 2 publishers who do this and they’re getting shredded by critics, rn. Security experts think it’s a fucking joke for the company and the users alike. Hopefully not “the way the industry is going”, more likely to get banned in modern nations, soon.
Ignorance, especially willful, is not only a good definition of stupid but also a form of evil itself.
I guess you lose your sense of superiority if you actually listen to what other people say. Making others do their research for them must be the way they cling to their self-worth.
Lmfao from the first name on this list I can tell you that 7 days to die is not running kernel level anti-cheat. You’ve illustrated you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Kernel Level anticheat requires that it runs at startup of your computer. Examples are Riot’s Vanguard and nProtect’s GameGuard (which Helldivers 2 uses).
That was my first comment and all I did was share a list of games that have historically used EAC. If a game used EAC at launch then it’s pretty clear that its publishers have used EAC in their games. I made no statements about it being kernel-level or otherwise.
That said, EAC is a kernel-level anticheat, but unlike Vanguard it doesn’t run at startup. A tool being (or not being) kernel-level is a matter of which privileges it has when it runs, not when it starts up. Starting at startup allows an anti-cheat tool to perform more diagnostics and catch cheats that might otherwise go uncaught, but it’s also more invasive and increases the attack surface of people who have it installed.
I’m not even the same person you were originally responding to. Just saying, if your goal is to get ideas across it’s better to be nice. If you just want to dunk on people and sink to their level, then carry on.
I’m making a general statement, not really representing my opinion in this particular conversation. If you care about what you’re standing up for, you should do your best to get it across to people, the perception is as much the fault of the listener as it is on the conveyor of the information and how they do it.
Unfortunately that’s just the way the industry is going. They’d rather just have overreach and excessive power than deal with the back and forth fight of countering hackers and cheats. I understand why they’d go that way, it’s disappointing and concerning, but it’s becoming more and more common.
You could run such games on a separate machine (provided you had the funds), but that’s a big buy in for a single game.
Different people have different tolerances or are ignorant, not stupid. Maybe don’t be so condescending to people and you’d get better responses.
Lmao, I can think of exactly 2 publishers who do this and they’re getting shredded by critics, rn. Security experts think it’s a fucking joke for the company and the users alike. Hopefully not “the way the industry is going”, more likely to get banned in modern nations, soon.
Ignorance, especially willful, is not only a good definition of stupid but also a form of evil itself.
Easy Anti-Cheat is Kernel level. Lots more than 2 publishers are using kernel level Anti-Cheat.
I guess you’re evil now then? Oops.
Name a few.
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Easy_Anti-Cheat
Took me about thirty seconds to find that list.
I guess you lose your sense of superiority if you actually listen to what other people say. Making others do their research for them must be the way they cling to their self-worth.
???
Eh, never mind
Lmfao from the first name on this list I can tell you that 7 days to die is not running kernel level anti-cheat. You’ve illustrated you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Kernel Level anticheat requires that it runs at startup of your computer. Examples are Riot’s Vanguard and nProtect’s GameGuard (which Helldivers 2 uses).
That was my first comment and all I did was share a list of games that have historically used EAC. If a game used EAC at launch then it’s pretty clear that its publishers have used EAC in their games. I made no statements about it being kernel-level or otherwise.
That said, EAC is a kernel-level anticheat, but unlike Vanguard it doesn’t run at startup. A tool being (or not being) kernel-level is a matter of which privileges it has when it runs, not when it starts up. Starting at startup allows an anti-cheat tool to perform more diagnostics and catch cheats that might otherwise go uncaught, but it’s also more invasive and increases the attack surface of people who have it installed.
If you begin your comment with “lmao” it’s immediately condescending and you’re unlikely to convince anyone about what you’re saying.
From my perspective, they made an outlandish statement that I vehemently disagreed with, if anything my response was more civil than usual.
EDIT: they not you
I’m not even the same person you were originally responding to. Just saying, if your goal is to get ideas across it’s better to be nice. If you just want to dunk on people and sink to their level, then carry on.
Right, I’ll add an edit. Sometimes discussion aren’t meant for the other side, it’s for the viewers.
If you disregard facts because of emotion, that’s a you problem.
I’m making a general statement, not really representing my opinion in this particular conversation. If you care about what you’re standing up for, you should do your best to get it across to people, the perception is as much the fault of the listener as it is on the conveyor of the information and how they do it.