Developers will be required to disclose if their game uses kernel anti-cheat. This applies to both new games and existing games. Non-kernel anti-cheat is encouraged to be disclosed as well, but it’s only mandatory for developers to declare if they’re using kernel anti-cheat for the time being.

It’s worth mentioning that many games use kernel anti-cheat on windows, but only use user space anti-cheat on Steam Deck and Linux.

  • mspencer712@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Now punish publishers who try to change the terms of sale after sale. “Want to play the single player game you bought a decade ago? Agree to this new arbitration clause.”

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Games that change their terms post-sale should present the customer the option for an automatic no-questions-asked refund. Leaving the customer with the options: Agree, Decline, Refund.

      • mspencer712@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Hmm, you have uncovered a problem with both of our ideas. Steam’s leverage is reduced after they have deposited sales proceeds, and is gone after the publisher isn’t selling games on the platform any longer.

        (I’m griping about Rockstar specifically but my point is still flawed in the general case.)

        • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          24 minutes ago

          Add a clause to the contract between Steam and the developer requiring the dev to reimburse Steam for refunds due to post-sale changes (ie, from that specific ‘accept, decline, refund’ option). If the dev doesn’t pay the bill, Steam can use the breach of contract as leverage.

    • narc0tic_bird
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      Include adding kernel level anti cheat to that. This should just give us an option to get a full refund.

  • sunshine@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    38 minutes ago

    It’s horrifying to me that any of these fucking games are running outside userspace. Is anti cheat the only reason why that is necessary? Why is it necessary for anti cheat?

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      Running in the kernel let’s anti-cheat see everything on your computer, let’s devs take screenshots or videos of your screen, and let’s the anti-cheat reinstall itself if the user tries to remove it. It also lets the developers secretly install additional software if needed for some reason. Overall it’s pretty effective at being able to catch user space cheat programs, the catch is that you’re permanently compromising the security and privacy of your computer, and nothing short of a full disk purge will guarantee it’s actually been uninstalled.

      The other catch is it’s can still be defeated by kernel-level cheat programs, which are now widely available thanks to the rise of kernel anti-cheat. It also can’t do anything about cheat programs that run on external hardware, such as aimbots that just look at your video feed and simulate mouse inputs to aim.

      So it really comes down to how bothered you are by cheaters in your games, and if you’re willing to give up your privacy and security to make it slightly more inconvenient for those cheaters to cheat.