11–20 of 161 posts
> banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files Seems like a smart way to catch inexperienced/up and coming cheat devs. How many non-cheat devs really have IDA on their gaming PC? I did and it was for developing cheats
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used x64dbg to crack some accounting software that went EOL and forced us to buy a new software based on a new subscription model. You can basically patch the executable to skip the function that locks you out
I recently saw that Roblox kids are trolling each other by putting "x64dbg" in their display names, because the game checks the window title of every running app and refuses to run if it sees that string anywhere :^)
A perk of gamimg on Linux is that none of these invasive anti-cheats work. I consider that a plus since I never care enough about a video game to surrender my privacy or my kernel over to it.
I, too, consider it a benefit of gaming on Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but that's a really narrow minded take. There are a lot of good reasons to have IDA or Ghidra installed on your computer, if only for fun and learning reverse-engineering. This should NOT prevent you to play others games. ( To everybody reading this : if you like computer and puzzles, you should absolutly try to reverse-engineer a simple binary at least once. It's fun !)
If you installed it to learn RE and the game refuses to run because of it, now you have a project to try your skills on.
Honestly, banning players because they have RE tools feels like a generally counter-productive idea. Best-case scenario is that it'll require an engineer who was actually going to RE game files to get another account, stalling them very briefly. Worst-case scenario is getting someone with technical skills and free time pissed off enough to actually start messing with the game (potentially, in a less respectful way than your average cheat developer might - looking for game-breaking exploits than just automating things or providing extra information to the player), even if they didn't mean to.
> banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files Seems like a smart way to catch inexperienced/up and coming cheat devs. How many non-cheat devs really have IDA on their gaming PC? I did and it was for developing cheats
Specifically those for single player games, I've used them to finish games so I can view the story/endings.
The better solution is often live admins with a cheat-report button, server-side physics reconciliation trip-wires/audits (no time-travelers), and using clipped areas for character buffering (x-ray vision attempts floods buffers and crashes the client.)
The only information an online game-engine should be pulling is the hashed GPU chip serial-number for account ban enforcement.
The worst part about cheats is they ruin the fun for themselves too, as a game becomes pointless and boring.
Installing a RAT has no justification on hardware people didn't pay for...
A perk of gamimg on Linux is that none of these invasive anti-cheats work. I consider that a plus since I never care enough about a video game to surrender my privacy or my kernel over to it.
I bought Marauders to play with my son, and had maybe 4 months of excellent fun play with him. Then the dev's enabled EAC... now I cant play it anymore :-(
I cant blame the mods, they never wrote the game to work on linux it was just a happy happenstance that i could use proton to play it before the EAC transition.
Every game i have in my steam catalogue is at risk of this (except for the native ones obviously)
Nothing ruins the fun faster than lag-switching lamers. Accordingly, one can never trust client side security enforcement, or you just create a tit-for-tat economy with cheat-code authors. The better solution is often live admins with a cheat-report button, server-side physics reconciliation trip-wires/audits (no time-travelers), and using clipped areas for character buffering (x-ray vision attempts floods buffers an…