Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem in big part stems from the business culture upstream. They're trying to produce a game, but what they're really after is e-sports money . They design multiplayer to be about organized pro play, which brings in all the cheating problems of professional sports, so they end up subjecting every player to e-sports-grade security like those anti-cheat systems, despite 99.9% of the player base not caring about p…
Nobody wants to play multiplayer (only) games with cheaters. It is that simple. Esports money...? Micro transactions is the money. Publisher driven esports is advertising.
> Publisher driven esports is advertising.
Yes, of course. E-sports is advertising. All professional sports are advertising. That's what makes money. Sales of tickets, merch, guides, coverage, etc. A successful sport is a self-sustaining money printing machine. Now, traditional sports are "frozen in time" relative to business timescales; meanwhile, in e-sports, it's entirely possible for a company to introduce a new game and turn it into a worldwide phenomenon over a couple of years, and then keep getting a cut from aforementioned money printer for many more years still, all while trying to introduce a new game to keep the money running.
And it's okay, I honestly don't mind. As far as the advertising-driven economy goes, sports (traditional or otherwise) is one of the more benign fields. The problem I see is the relentless focus on building a game optimized for professional play ruins it for vast majority of players, and I fail to see why companies keep doing it instead of bifurcating the multiplayer aspect into "casual play" and "pro play", allowing for the latter while also letting the former have their fun.
> Nobody wants to play multiplayer (only) games with cheaters.
My point is that most of the cheating comes from structuring the game around pro-play. You get a global ladder, which establishes an ordinal ranking that invites cheaters who just want to score higher for less effort. All those cheaters end up ruining the game for regular people, who don't care that much about the ranking. Most of those cheaters would go away if the ladder was removed - but that ladder is critical to the company and wannabe progamers precisely because the top levels of that ladder are a gateway to pro-level play.
You can't eliminate all cheating - there's always some people who, for whatever reason, enjoy ruining the game for others. Fortunately, such people are a very small fraction of the playerbase, and most of them don't enjoy it enough to bother if you throw some small obstacles their way. It's manageable. Competitive rankings, on the other hand, are something cheaters love much more than regular players, so by adding it, you're basically creating the problem.
This is true for all competitive endeavors - the bigger the reward, the more it attracts competitive players, some of which are going to resort to cheating, and attempts at fighting cheating further ruin things for those who don't care about competing in the first place. And yes, it applies to the market economy too.