I haven't really been personally affected by it before - I don't play any competitive multiplayer games at all. But my wife had her brother over, and he's significantly younger than us. So he wanted to play FortNite and GTA V, knowing I have a gaming PC. FortNite is immediately out of the question, it'll never work on my computer. Okay, so I got GTA V running and it was fun for a while, but it turns out all of those really cool cars only exist in Online. But oh look, now they've added BattlEye and I can no longer get online.

While this seems like a trivial issue (Just buy a third SSD for Windows and dual boot), it's really not. Even if I wanted to install Windows ever again, I do NOT want random 3rd party kernel modules in there. Anyone remember the whole CrowdStrike fiasco? I do NOT want to wake up to my computer not booting up because some idiot decided to push a shitty update to their kernel module that makes the kernel itself shit the bed. And while Microsoft fucks up plenty, at least they're a corporation with a reputation to uphold, and I believe they even have a QA team or 2. CrowdStrike was unheard of outside of the corporate world before the ordeal and tbh nobody has ever heard of it afterwards again.

So I think this would be a good angle to push. That we should be careful about what code runs in our OS kernels, for security and stability reasons. Obviously it'd be impossible to just blanket ban 3rd party kernel modules to any OS. However, maybe here in the EU at least we could get them to consider a rule that any software that includes a component running in the OS kernel, MUST justify how that part is necessary for the software to function in the best possible way for the user of the computer the software is running on. E.g I expect a hardware driver to have a kernel module, and I can see how security software needs to have a kernel module, but I do NOT see how a video game needs to have an anti cheat with a kernel module. How does that benefit me, the customer paying to be able to play said video game?

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The ship named "software does shit I don't like on my own hardware" sailed the day proprietary software became a thing.

Mind you, it's scary how many people applaud kernel-level anticheat. "This game was just ruined by hackers until they added kernel-level anticheat. Now it's great again!"

How would a campaign against kernel-level anticheat "succeed" exactly? More awareness? More people boycotting kernel-level anticheat? Laws prohibiting the practice?

Like, obviously I'm never running any software that involves kernel-level anticheat, but I'm a Gentoo neckbeard with an EFF-approved tinfoil hat surgically attached to my scalp.

(Hell, I think it would be great if most of the games out there had cheater and bot servers where it was encouraged to run your cheat tools and/or bots. If they allowed that but just kept it separate from non-tool/non-bot players, that'd be a fantastic way to get kids more interested in STEM.)

(Also, if anyone made and sold a boardgame that made players want to cheat (in a bug-not-feature kind of way), it would get negative reviews and no one would buy it. In a way, kernel-level anticheat can almost be considered a type of "externality". The game studio, rather than going to the trouble to tune their game to make cheating less appealing, they break their users' computers and invade their privacy. And the game studio then rakes in more money as a result.)

But how would we get through to normie 12-year-olds who just want to play Valorant and not have their face constantly rubbed in the dirt by "hackers"?

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

its never too late to start resisting something. Though it is too late if no one cares to do anything about it, not even yourself.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

But how would we get through to normie 12-year-olds who just want to play Valorant and not have their face constantly rubbed in the dirt by "hackers"?

I think it would be good for them to be told the truth: you aren't being killed by hackers, you just suck.

[–] Tidesphere@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We could add the fact that they don't work to the campaign. Why bother using them if there's just as much cheating happening?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] warm@kbin.earth 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know it's easy to say, especially in your case when its a kid, but just dont buy or play games with kernel AC.

These companies only understand money.

Anti cheat should be server side.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It is going to be hard to potentially have to make GTA 6 the first one I skip entirely (minus II and London I guess, I never got around to playing those. Or the stories).

I had 2000 hours in SA:MP in the ~one year I actively used xFire. I am an absolute GTA nerd.

I'll survive it, maybe borrow the console version off a friend who ends up buying it or something. But I know for sure I'll hate myself for having principles. Or I'll cave in and hate myself for having principles and caving in.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Yes

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Now that Stop Killing Games is actually being taken seriously

It is? They're still at 39%. Let's not call victory before reaching the start of the race. Getting to 100% will just be the beginning.

Also, kernel level anti-cheat seems like an easy thing to fix: don't buy the game. Be a little bit more principled and selective in your purchasing choices.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago

"Don't buy a game that ships with malware" is a perfectly correct decision, but it doesn't address the fact that games are shipping with fucking malware.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

It's a very recent development, but the consumer actually does have enough information just from the store page these days to know that a game uses kernel level software. The thing that still sucks is that it can be retroactive. In those cases, I suppose we just ask for a refund.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I was boycotting it before it was even in the news.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

And while Microsoft fucks up plenty, at least they're a corporation with a reputation to uphold, and I believe they even have a QA team or 2.

Lol. Lmao even

[–] Observer1199@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

CrowdStrike was unheard of outside of the corporate world before the ordeal and tbh nobody has ever heard of it afterwards again.

Maybe you're not coming across them regularly but they're well known outside the corporate world - not to the extent of Microsoft but it's not the last time they'll be in the spotlight.

but I do NOT see how a video game needs to have an anti cheat with a kernel module. How does that benefit me, the customer paying to be able to play said video game?

It doesn't but they don't care. People still buy the game and they make lots of money. They have no reason to stop doing it. Unfortunately, you're in the minority of those who care and will avoid installing a game if it has kernel anti-cheat.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

Maybe you’re not coming across them regularly but they’re well known outside the corporate world - not to the extent of Microsoft but it’s not the last time they’ll be in the spotlight.

Indeed, not regularly. I only had the pleasure of hearing about them when I had a job that mandated it. They are explicitly targeted at business users.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments