this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
957 points (98.3% liked)

Games

32321 readers
1887 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Now if only they could more clearly communicate when games are playable offline.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 43 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Because there are kernel-level cheats

What you proposed can very easily be bypassed without even needing kernel access by just editing the executable code that checks hashes to always return true

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Boo freaking hoo.

It's not like there are so many other ways to cheat, actually used in many games with anticheats.

We should all stop pretending it's necessary to put malware into your computer just so some company can claim they have no cheaters, which is never even true.

[–] xep@fedia.io 4 points 10 hours ago

The point of anti-cheat is to create a substantial barrier for cheating. If you have to go the extra mile to run an external hardware cheat so as to be "undetected" then surely this means the anti-cheat is working. If it were as ineffective as you imply, cheaters would be cheating on their main accounts.