this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
1526 points (98.6% liked)

Games

40425 readers
1349 users here now

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

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

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

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

When starting a new game, don't include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting the licensing requirements is already a step in the process.

[–] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is a reason it's included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.

[–] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.

Saying to "just open source it" does not make sense.

What do you do about:

  • proprietary codecs
  • proprietary software that just does not exist as open source
  • the fact you need a copy of the game engine to actually build the game from sources
  • assets that have been bought on asset stores. Do the people who make those for a living not have a right to continue to make a living?

Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable

Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.

Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have "a server" but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some "servers" are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.

This initiative all comes down to the definition of "reasonable". What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This has nothing to do with open source.

Nothing.

Open source has zero relevance.

None whatsoever.

Nada.

Their licensing will change so that it doesn't restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can't be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That's it.

Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don't want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"That stuff" is often core to the game. Any anti-cheat library, for example. On the client site, libraries like physx, bink video, and others are all proprietary and must be replaced and tested before it can be released in a working state. Few companies would release a non-functional game and let reviewers drag them through the mud for it.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago

None of those things will be affected because this isn't about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.

[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you're telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don't need to sell me on it twice!

[–] mang0@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can't combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don't care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?

[–] dovahking@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Battlefield and cod have cheaters running rampant in their official servers despite using anti cheats. They could employ a team to monitor cheating reported by players. But clearly they just don't want to expend resources to combat that.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

EvE Online doesn't use root access anticheat software. I know it doesn't because it runs on Linux just fine. That particular player base is the worst hive of scum and villainy that you'll find outside of government. Clearly the anticheat software isn't as essential as game studios would have you believe. The only major cheating I'm aware of in EvE was the BoB scandal, and that involved Devs cheating because they were Devs.

[–] mang0@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can the EvE online method be applied to dissimilar games like e.g. fps games?

No clue, I just know that it exists and seems to work with the scammiest scammers that ever scammed

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games

Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It's not a necessary evil, it's just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you've already lost.

[–] mang0@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that's required to make an attack.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What you're referring to is deterrence, and it doesn't apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn't ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.

And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it's still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.

And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.

[–] mang0@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What you're referring to is deterrence, and it doesn't apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn't ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.

Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?

And the efficacy being so bad...

Source?

full access to the system itself.

What do you mean by system in "full access to the system"? Too vague to even say anything about.

And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.

The potential guys that can write the cheat software and how quickly it can be developed is the part that matters. Much like when it's easy to use an exploit once it's already discovered. Someone still has to discover the exploit.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere?

You made the comparison: "Much like every security system"

Source?

It's out there, my dude. It's a constant complaint in literally every competitive online game. If people are complaining about it, then it's not working well enough. This isn't an esoteric thought either. You ask anyone if cheating is a big issue in online gaming and anyone with knowledge about it will tell you it's a constant problem that's getting worse.

What do you mean by system in "full access to the system"?

If you own the hardware and have admin/root access to the OS. Then it's yours and you have "full access" to everything. And I do mean everything. You can modify the OS. You can read the values of protected parts of memory. And so on.

If you don't understand what I mean by "full access to the system" in the context of anti-cheat running on your own hardware, then there's nothing I can say in a short comment to get you up to speed.

Someone still has to discover the exploit.

The cheat and anti-cheat battle is a constant cat and mouse game. The advantage is always with the cheaters because they outnumber the developers 100:1 at the least. Plus they have the will and determination to find ways around anti-cheats. In fact, building security against exploits is by far way harder than finding exploits.

The reality is that client-side anti-cheat is a losing battle.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So just don't let them join/kick them from your server?

[–] mang0@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Before you can do that, you need to determine whether someone is cheating. This is the purpose of anti-cheat software.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Do you have spies behind you when playing cards too?

[–] Bravo@eviltoast.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is why code should be written to be library-agnostic. Or, rather, libraries should be written to a particular open source interface standard to make library agnosticism easier.