←back to thread

379 points mobeigi | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
LinuxAmbulance ◴[] No.41862747[source]
Excellent write up and solution. Cheating in video games makes for a wretched experience for those who don't cheat.

It's crazy how rampant cheating in multiplayer games, especially competitive ones has gotten. Ten years ago, I thought it was at an extreme, but it's only gone up since then.

Part of the problem is that for some software developers, writing cheats brings in a massive amount of money.

So instead of some teenager messing around making unsophisticated cheats, you have some devs that are far better at writing cheats than game developers are at preventing them.

It doesn't help that game devs have to secure everything, everywhere, but cheat devs only have to find a single flaw.

replies(2): >>41862854 #>>41865147 #
DJBunnies ◴[] No.41862854[source]
I think a better question here is: why is game code so exploitable?

A: laziness and cost. It just doesn’t matter the same way that baking code matters, I guess.

So they toss on some cheap anti cheat instead of architecting it safely (expensively.)

replies(11): >>41862902 #>>41862917 #>>41862922 #>>41862944 #>>41862966 #>>41863021 #>>41863103 #>>41863154 #>>41863221 #>>41863906 #>>41864021 #
colechristensen ◴[] No.41862966[source]
This isn't the better question.

When you have software running locally, you can arbitrarily modify how it runs.

Like an aimbot is a powerful cheat, and there's no amount of security that can prevent one from being used outside of an anticheat being able to look deep into what your system is doing, what it contains. The only way to prevent that kind of thing is to remove your control of your own computer.

replies(2): >>41863000 #>>41863090 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.41863000[source]
And even then you could do aimbot with camera pointed on the screen and either faking a mouse or providing sensor sufficient data somehow to simulate movement... That is reach super human reaction times and accuracy...
replies(1): >>41863400 #
1. drdaeman ◴[] No.41863400[source]
I wish I'd live to see the time of true cyborgs who will exceed ordinary human capabilities in some regard.
replies(1): >>41864737 #
2. colechristensen ◴[] No.41864737[source]
How attached and how technical does it have to be to be "cyborg".

Me with a pen and paper exceeds many human capabilites.

Likewise with wearables like a smartwatch.

Does it have to be direct neural integration to be a cyborg? Definitely people with profound brain injuries have been enhanced to the ability to interact again.

replies(1): >>41865433 #
3. drdaeman ◴[] No.41865433[source]
Good question! IMHO, it's a spectrum, of course, not a binary concept.

But if we have to define a criteria... I guess, integrated just enough so it can't be trivially removed, making it more of a "body part" rather than a "tool".

Point is, it'll certainly spark a discussion and re-evaluation of what's "fair", potentially shifting the consensus from somewhere around the current "glasses are fair game, but a programmable mouse is not" to somewhere more accepting of differently-abed individuals.