It's more costly to the developer when I dont buy their kernel AC game.
Comment on Kernel Anti-Cheat Is an Overreach
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 day agoServer side anticheat can’t detect lot of client side anticheat. Ideally you want to have both, if you want to catch most cheaters. One is not a full replacement for the other method. Local anticheat has the advantage of being much cheaper for the developer / publisher.
warm@kbin.earth 1 day ago
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Unfortunately we are in the minority. Most people don’t know the difference or even care. So like with physical media, they only care about the majority.
warm@kbin.earth 2 hours ago
Sure, in the grand scheme of things, but per user, not getting $70 from me costs them more.
Sir_Thominick_IV@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Depending on the implementation, client side anticheat isn’t needed at all. Take the game Speedrunners for example. There is zero need for the server to do anything other than accept player inputs, process them, and return them to the clients.
So if coded correctly, where the server trusts nothing and does the math itself, it is impossible to cheat while having zero anticheat on the client.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
That’s all well and good, but a smash brothers clone is very different to CoD or Battlefield in this regard.
Client side anti-cheat is absolutely needed in FPS/TPS. Without it, server side anti-cheat would have to do far more and quietly be much harder to do.