[CircleSpokes]

I honestly don't understand why people act like this. Wanting to be able to ensure firmware isn't maliciously modified is a good thing. Open firmware is also a good idea obviously but there has to be a way to ensure firmware is signed either by OEM or your own keys like secure boot.

As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat. If you don't like that you don't have to play those games but no need to act like the way you are because other people want decent anticheat.

[kortilla]

>honestly don't understand why people act like this.

Because it’s social pressure to compromise your computer to a gaming company to get to play a game.

People don’t care about the anticheat on their computer, they want it foisted on everyone else who plays, which is a sucky proposition for privacy and security minded people.

It’s like advocating for the TSA to be controlling access to the grocery store because you want to feel safe there and don’t mind the privacy violation.

[CircleSpokes]

>People don’t care about the anticheat on their computer, they want it foisted on everyone else who plays, which is a sucky proposition for privacy and security minded people.

No they want games without hackers. Which kernel based anticheats helps with. Can it also impact privacy and security? Yes no doubt but so can any program running on the computer even in userspace. Remember we are talking about kernel anticheats on windows lol.

If you are really worried about it you could dual boot like many people. Either way this whole argument seems silly to me.

[1827163]

It's a bit of a stretch, but maybe we as a society should be considering the social pressure as being the problem. Why do we allow ourselves to be 'controlled' in this way by others? Especially young people? If we could learn to move past this?

[charcircuit]

>to compromise your computer

What do you mean by this? As the user you are intending to have the game and its anticheat run. Having to download and run a game on your computer isn't compromising your computer either. Maybe the only thing which doesn't give the game company power to run potentially malicious code on your machine is cloud gaming. That also solves the cheating problem at least.

[thomastjeffery]

1. It doesn't actually work.

2. All it actually does is keep users trapped in Windows. God forbid anyone actually use Linux, or even a VM!

The only actually effective anti-cheat is the original: moderation.

Now that users aren't able to host their own servers, they can't do moderation. Game studios don't want to do moderation themselves, so they keep trying (and failing) to replace it with automated anticheat systems.

[Cloudef]

This here. Cheaters will always find ways to cheat. Theres already cheats that run on completely separate machine so they cant be detected. Legimate customers keep getting screwed.

[selestify]

Why did hosting your own server stop being a thing?

[codedokode]

> As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat

Great, let's install a backdoor in every computer so that some people can play games and watch movies. No. Computer is a thing for computing numbers not a replacement for a TV.

[CircleSpokes]

I can't take people like you seriously. The anticheat isn't a backdoor. It doesn't ship with the operating system or come preinstalled in anyway. You opt into it when you play the game. Literally nothing is forcing you to use it or have it installed on your computer.

I understand this is the internet and being super dramatic is part of it but can we please be for real for one moment?

[makeitdouble]

> Wanting to be able to ensure firmware isn't maliciously modified is a good thing.

I'm not sure it's a good thing at its core. The intent seems legit on the surface, but digging into the implementation you'll always end up having an adversarial relation with your user's security and device ownership.

On games, I kinda see this as an argument for preserving a special status for consoles, where the maker keep a right to secure everything to insane levels. Doing the same on general purpose computing platform isn't acceptable. Banking and digital currencies are morr of a blurry line, but games definitely shouldn't be accessing the utter most secure system of the platform.

If anything, opening the door to a whole community to hack the base security of your computing life when litteral life and death applications also rely on those shouldn't be allowed.

[ekianjo]

> I honestly don't understand why people act like this.

Good anticheat? Just play with people you know instead of random strangers. Thats your anticheat right there.

[account42]

But how will this provide the game company with continous revenue streams from selling you database entries that you can show of to complete strangers.