![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apologise for wall of text in advance, I understand some of you get pissy about long posts but in all fairness you can simply skip over this if you dont care, it includes responses I want to make to various people, most of this is address to the people quoted and not intended for you all to read, in short don't bother complaining if you cba to read it, no one cares.
This is precisely it, they need room to do their scanning of files and whatnot, but they reserve the right to basically do whatever they like on your machine, so maybe it's OK today but maybe tomorrow theres some cheats they cannot stop with current methods so they take it a step further, they've already reserved the right to.
Yeah it appears so, at least from what I can find online about it, I wasn't aware that was the case, with all games I've played so far punkbuster has always been an option to be installed or not, it's been made apparant that some additional 3rd party software is being installed, this was not the case with punkbuster intergrated into WAR.
I would not consider this the norm, this so far for me in the exception to the rule.
I never said I expect that, I expect to have the choice and I expect to be informed that this is happening without having to read through 50 pages of EULA which practically require a law degree to fully understand exactly what your rights are.
Most Anti Cheat of recent times has asked to be installed seperate to the application, thats how punkbuster has worked for the most part, I think WAR is more the exception for punkbuster.
Similar? You're being vague. I accept VAC as part of steam because I understand that online distribution specifically requires some kind of parent application like steam to stop abuse and so thats just a necessary evil, I don't especially like it. Included in that package is VAC which in the case of online distribution is linked with a secure system because in order to enforce anti cheat you first need to enforce authentication of users.
You've created a false dichotomy here, it's a fallacy of reasoning where you're proposing the only possible 2 situations are possible: either have incredibly intrusive AC which protects us well, or to have no AC at all and we all suffer.
There is a large grey area in the middle, first of all there is varying degrees of AC and to what level they are allowed to operate, some simply monitor the game files themselves and cannot interact with your computer outside of the games installed directory making inspection outside the games root dir impossible.
Not to mention that you completely overlook that this could be an entirely optional component, we should have the option to install this or not and we should be informed in a reasonable way that it's being done. No hiding it away in the middle of a massive EULA of legal jargon isn't being open and forward about it.
You're exactly right, it is MY responsability to secure my data, and part of that is not installing software which I have to agree to it being able to read my entire hard drive, quakelive wont be run on this machine (not that it works in windows 7 anyway) until they either make the AC optional or they re-word the EULA to be more reasonable in what they reserve the right to do.
I intend to, I've cancled my subscription to WAR I'm uninstalling it once I'm done gathering info on exactly what is going on with intergrated punkbuster, maybe it's more reasonable than having a service running 24/7 like the more traditional versions of PB
It appears so, whether this means we're accepting the same kind of EULA as we would be with quakelive I am unsure of, I can't find a copy of the EULA outside of reinstalling the game again to read it in game, I honestly dont want to have to read through pages and pages of that waffle anyway.
It doesn't PROVE that, but yes I get your point. And I agree most people simply do not read the EULA. Why? Because it's long and boring and most of us don't understand the exact meaning of some of the sections.
We accept it assuming that it's reasonable, and we do that because we realise that if it was unreasonable, that we'd know about it somehow, and this is exactly what we have here on the forums.
Yes it's our fault for making that assumptions, but most of us dont have the to read the EULA of every piece of software we install, it's not practical, even in the rest of our lives we don't understand 100% of the law, software isn't some special case.
You don't know their exact intentions for sure, both now and in the future, so please don't pretend to know. The reason given is to scan the computer for cheats and we all understand that but we're also aware that it COULD be used to breach our privacy.
Said in jest, I understand. But by accepting that EULA you would have no legal rights if they were to do that.
I agree with this, and in fact it's very much following in the footsteps of anti-piracy, the problems stems from control, you cannot fully control the end users computer, no matter how invasive you make your anti-piracy or anti-cheat, people can always code around it.
Anti piracy has got more and more invasive over the years to try and combat this, and it doesn't work to this day. Anti cheat is no different, if you're under the assumption that VAC and PB actually 100% stop cheats, you're incorrect.
I can only see this getting worse, originally anti cheat was built into game code, as script or compiled binaries that check itself for cheats, then we saw 3rd party anti cheat like PB arrive on the scene and they did all sorts of tricks monitoring game code and whatnot. Now we're seeing services that run 24/7 on your PC to scan for cheats and expect us to allow free scanning of our hard drives. Just like with anti-piracy with applications like starforce and things like limited installs I'm going to boycott any store bought games that force anti cheat on me. I've not completely made up my mind about online distribution yet, I think services like steam are possibly an exception to my rule, i'll think about that some more.
AC has already lost no matter how invasive they become, this is exactly the same problem as anti piracy faces, the punchline here is that PB does not stop all cheats, neither does VAC, no anti cheat does, theres always a running battle with coders who produce cheats and the only end result is that AC will become more and more invasive without offering the users additional protection.
Here's the false dichotomy again, your view about this is too black and white.
FACT is that cheats still exist to beat all know anti cheat systems and they're widely available, in fact several places make a business out of providing cheats so it's no longer just a hobby of some coders, it's become a business which is funded and backed with money.
The best solution to the problem has always been to play on a well admin'd server, most modern games do not have servers provided by the developers/publishers, but they rely on users to provide servers, they range in quality due to the open nature of provision and the freedom for anyone to do it. Some servers are better than others, some have admins 24/7 because a large admin base is used, this doesn't cost anything, people gladly do it for free.
FYI you can google cheats and go to paid sites and basically buy cheats that are guaranteed to work, anti cheat may eventually catch these "kids" using older cheats that are out of date, because anti cheat works like anti virus does, they need to understand what they're looking for before they can stop it (a "definition") Like viruses, cheats are still used until they're caught.
Being being more invasive doesn't significantly improve the situation, cheats are simply manufactured to get around these systems, most cheats are caught only once the anti cheat developers understand how the cheat works and write in a special case to stop it.
I don't think they do the job, I still see cheaters in valve games where VAC is running, I think they work no better than anti virus, until the signiture of the cheat is understood it cannot be stopped.
That doesn't concern me, there are plenty of other ways it could be a problem, what if they hire somoene who turns out to be untrustworthy and uses the systems for wrong doing? What happens if the company is bought by another company or individual and they decide to use that to snoop through millions of PCs. It's a security risk, the risk itself is small no doubt, but thats weighted against the severity of the consequences.
I'm going to set a certain level at which I deem acceptable, if a game surpasses that level It will be boycotted, if the EULA restricts the software to have boundries, or the software is optional then I will still buy/play.
Not in the case of WAR, I've double checked, it's intergrated into the game, I tend to check games after they've installed for additional running services, usualy punkbuster is included as optional, with an MMO I guess they don't care to give the users a choice and give us servers which lack anti cheat, such as is our choice with many other games, well their loss, while I still have a choice of what games to occupy my time with, I'm going to opt for ones that dont require me to give up my rights.
Truth.
I'd like to point out that this an exception, due to WAR not informing me outside of the EULA that punkbuster was being installed. Any games which prompt me for punkbuster installation (or in fact installation of ANY additional software that isn't structly required) are unticked. WAR is a special case of PB being intergrated with the game and as such I have no option to enable/disable it.
Using this as "proof" for any kind of generalization in my opinion is stupid, it maybe the case for some people but I put in a reasonable effort to ensure that only the game runs and nothing else, that includes piracy tools to stop anti-pircay from running, it includes stripping windows GFWL software off the machine and using hacks (modified GFWL dlls) so the game will still load without GWFL running, the list goes on really, again WAR is an exception to the rule, for me personally.
I agree with this actually, I think a lot of people probably are naive to the situation, but that doesn't make it all OK all of a sudden, just because you lived with something for a while and were OK because you were niave, doesn't mean you should ignore the problem once you're aware of it, this is a very bad argument to use and is essentially what some people here are pushing.
As long as good servers with admins exist, cheating isn't a problem online, bad servers are bad for many reasons and cheating is just one small fraction of the possible reasons, others might include bad latency times, slow CPU, undesireable addons etc. If you join a bad server and you dont like it then you leave and find a better one. AC isnt the perfect answer to cheats like its been made out to be here, cheating is still perfectly possible in all modern games with a reasonable player base. I'm sure FEAR 2 will have both good and bad servers, same as any other game.
Smartest person in this thread, honestly, it shatters Drexions false dichotomy. Given the option I always chose no for AC, and low and behold theres some servers with cheaters on, and some servers without because they're kicked instantly by admins. This does not differ in principle to games with anti cheat on, some bad servers are plagued with cheaters still, and other ones with good admins kick them straight away. All that really changes is the number of servers in either situation, i've never ever in my entire gaming history had trouble finding good servers.
Correct.
This is precisely it, they need room to do their scanning of files and whatnot, but they reserve the right to basically do whatever they like on your machine, so maybe it's OK today but maybe tomorrow theres some cheats they cannot stop with current methods so they take it a step further, they've already reserved the right to.
Yeah it appears so, at least from what I can find online about it, I wasn't aware that was the case, with all games I've played so far punkbuster has always been an option to be installed or not, it's been made apparant that some additional 3rd party software is being installed, this was not the case with punkbuster intergrated into WAR.
I would not consider this the norm, this so far for me in the exception to the rule.
I never said I expect that, I expect to have the choice and I expect to be informed that this is happening without having to read through 50 pages of EULA which practically require a law degree to fully understand exactly what your rights are.
Most Anti Cheat of recent times has asked to be installed seperate to the application, thats how punkbuster has worked for the most part, I think WAR is more the exception for punkbuster.
Similar? You're being vague. I accept VAC as part of steam because I understand that online distribution specifically requires some kind of parent application like steam to stop abuse and so thats just a necessary evil, I don't especially like it. Included in that package is VAC which in the case of online distribution is linked with a secure system because in order to enforce anti cheat you first need to enforce authentication of users.
You've created a false dichotomy here, it's a fallacy of reasoning where you're proposing the only possible 2 situations are possible: either have incredibly intrusive AC which protects us well, or to have no AC at all and we all suffer.
There is a large grey area in the middle, first of all there is varying degrees of AC and to what level they are allowed to operate, some simply monitor the game files themselves and cannot interact with your computer outside of the games installed directory making inspection outside the games root dir impossible.
Not to mention that you completely overlook that this could be an entirely optional component, we should have the option to install this or not and we should be informed in a reasonable way that it's being done. No hiding it away in the middle of a massive EULA of legal jargon isn't being open and forward about it.
You're exactly right, it is MY responsability to secure my data, and part of that is not installing software which I have to agree to it being able to read my entire hard drive, quakelive wont be run on this machine (not that it works in windows 7 anyway) until they either make the AC optional or they re-word the EULA to be more reasonable in what they reserve the right to do.
I intend to, I've cancled my subscription to WAR I'm uninstalling it once I'm done gathering info on exactly what is going on with intergrated punkbuster, maybe it's more reasonable than having a service running 24/7 like the more traditional versions of PB
It appears so, whether this means we're accepting the same kind of EULA as we would be with quakelive I am unsure of, I can't find a copy of the EULA outside of reinstalling the game again to read it in game, I honestly dont want to have to read through pages and pages of that waffle anyway.
It doesn't PROVE that, but yes I get your point. And I agree most people simply do not read the EULA. Why? Because it's long and boring and most of us don't understand the exact meaning of some of the sections.
We accept it assuming that it's reasonable, and we do that because we realise that if it was unreasonable, that we'd know about it somehow, and this is exactly what we have here on the forums.
Yes it's our fault for making that assumptions, but most of us dont have the to read the EULA of every piece of software we install, it's not practical, even in the rest of our lives we don't understand 100% of the law, software isn't some special case.
You don't know their exact intentions for sure, both now and in the future, so please don't pretend to know. The reason given is to scan the computer for cheats and we all understand that but we're also aware that it COULD be used to breach our privacy.
Said in jest, I understand. But by accepting that EULA you would have no legal rights if they were to do that.
I agree with this, and in fact it's very much following in the footsteps of anti-piracy, the problems stems from control, you cannot fully control the end users computer, no matter how invasive you make your anti-piracy or anti-cheat, people can always code around it.
Anti piracy has got more and more invasive over the years to try and combat this, and it doesn't work to this day. Anti cheat is no different, if you're under the assumption that VAC and PB actually 100% stop cheats, you're incorrect.
I can only see this getting worse, originally anti cheat was built into game code, as script or compiled binaries that check itself for cheats, then we saw 3rd party anti cheat like PB arrive on the scene and they did all sorts of tricks monitoring game code and whatnot. Now we're seeing services that run 24/7 on your PC to scan for cheats and expect us to allow free scanning of our hard drives. Just like with anti-piracy with applications like starforce and things like limited installs I'm going to boycott any store bought games that force anti cheat on me. I've not completely made up my mind about online distribution yet, I think services like steam are possibly an exception to my rule, i'll think about that some more.
AC has already lost no matter how invasive they become, this is exactly the same problem as anti piracy faces, the punchline here is that PB does not stop all cheats, neither does VAC, no anti cheat does, theres always a running battle with coders who produce cheats and the only end result is that AC will become more and more invasive without offering the users additional protection.
Here's the false dichotomy again, your view about this is too black and white.
FACT is that cheats still exist to beat all know anti cheat systems and they're widely available, in fact several places make a business out of providing cheats so it's no longer just a hobby of some coders, it's become a business which is funded and backed with money.
The best solution to the problem has always been to play on a well admin'd server, most modern games do not have servers provided by the developers/publishers, but they rely on users to provide servers, they range in quality due to the open nature of provision and the freedom for anyone to do it. Some servers are better than others, some have admins 24/7 because a large admin base is used, this doesn't cost anything, people gladly do it for free.
FYI you can google cheats and go to paid sites and basically buy cheats that are guaranteed to work, anti cheat may eventually catch these "kids" using older cheats that are out of date, because anti cheat works like anti virus does, they need to understand what they're looking for before they can stop it (a "definition") Like viruses, cheats are still used until they're caught.
Being being more invasive doesn't significantly improve the situation, cheats are simply manufactured to get around these systems, most cheats are caught only once the anti cheat developers understand how the cheat works and write in a special case to stop it.
I don't think they do the job, I still see cheaters in valve games where VAC is running, I think they work no better than anti virus, until the signiture of the cheat is understood it cannot be stopped.
That doesn't concern me, there are plenty of other ways it could be a problem, what if they hire somoene who turns out to be untrustworthy and uses the systems for wrong doing? What happens if the company is bought by another company or individual and they decide to use that to snoop through millions of PCs. It's a security risk, the risk itself is small no doubt, but thats weighted against the severity of the consequences.
I'm going to set a certain level at which I deem acceptable, if a game surpasses that level It will be boycotted, if the EULA restricts the software to have boundries, or the software is optional then I will still buy/play.
And @ Frostex, Punk Buster isnt a process, its a service, so im pretty sure if you flip that tab in Task Manager you will very well see two services, PnkBstr A and PnkBstr B running
Not in the case of WAR, I've double checked, it's intergrated into the game, I tend to check games after they've installed for additional running services, usualy punkbuster is included as optional, with an MMO I guess they don't care to give the users a choice and give us servers which lack anti cheat, such as is our choice with many other games, well their loss, while I still have a choice of what games to occupy my time with, I'm going to opt for ones that dont require me to give up my rights.
Truth.
I'd like to point out that this an exception, due to WAR not informing me outside of the EULA that punkbuster was being installed. Any games which prompt me for punkbuster installation (or in fact installation of ANY additional software that isn't structly required) are unticked. WAR is a special case of PB being intergrated with the game and as such I have no option to enable/disable it.
Using this as "proof" for any kind of generalization in my opinion is stupid, it maybe the case for some people but I put in a reasonable effort to ensure that only the game runs and nothing else, that includes piracy tools to stop anti-pircay from running, it includes stripping windows GFWL software off the machine and using hacks (modified GFWL dlls) so the game will still load without GWFL running, the list goes on really, again WAR is an exception to the rule, for me personally.
I agree with this actually, I think a lot of people probably are naive to the situation, but that doesn't make it all OK all of a sudden, just because you lived with something for a while and were OK because you were niave, doesn't mean you should ignore the problem once you're aware of it, this is a very bad argument to use and is essentially what some people here are pushing.
As long as good servers with admins exist, cheating isn't a problem online, bad servers are bad for many reasons and cheating is just one small fraction of the possible reasons, others might include bad latency times, slow CPU, undesireable addons etc. If you join a bad server and you dont like it then you leave and find a better one. AC isnt the perfect answer to cheats like its been made out to be here, cheating is still perfectly possible in all modern games with a reasonable player base. I'm sure FEAR 2 will have both good and bad servers, same as any other game.
Smartest person in this thread, honestly, it shatters Drexions false dichotomy. Given the option I always chose no for AC, and low and behold theres some servers with cheaters on, and some servers without because they're kicked instantly by admins. This does not differ in principle to games with anti cheat on, some bad servers are plagued with cheaters still, and other ones with good admins kick them straight away. All that really changes is the number of servers in either situation, i've never ever in my entire gaming history had trouble finding good servers.
Correct.
