Or maybe your expectations from ai detection are too high.
rdri
joined 2 years ago
Developers have full control over servers in most cases. A viable server side anti cheat should be a thing. For every case of "client sending false data to server" we can come up with a solution to verify that to some degree. Finally, it should help a lot to rely on player generated reports and utilize replay recording on server.
But no, developers will continue to rely on 3rd party solutions (made by people who never developed a game), even infect their co-op-only games with it, and complain "uh oh we can't handle Linux cheaters".
No Steam?
That one was hardly legal, not sure about "safe".
What's more interesting is that DRM developers don't have enough experience with game development. They have no idea how the game code should really work for everyone to not be affected by something that is injected inside (and they are injecting a lot - some executables get inflated by more than 1 gb I think).
That's also a lie. There is no way it would be impossible to remove the protection code (or parts of it) or make it not execute. That alone makes him a clown.
The more you watch it the more hilarious details and transformations you notice.
They’ll adjust their usage downwards if other apps need the memory.
If it really works that way (which I doubt) then I don't want my apps to spend resources on constantly monitoring the RAM situation.
That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you're fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the "fucked" condition very differently?