Now that Stop Killing Games is actually being taken seriously - maybe we need to take a look at Stop Fucking Around In Our Kernels
I haven't really been personally affected by it before - I don't play any competitive multiplayer games at all. But my wife had her brother over, and he's significantly younger than us. So he wanted to play FortNite and GTA V, knowing I have a gaming PC. FortNite is immediately out of the question, it'll never work on my computer. Okay, so I got GTA V running and it was fun for a while, but it turns out all of those really cool cars only exist in Online. But oh look, now they've added BattlEye and I can no longer get online.
While this seems like a trivial issue (Just buy a third SSD for Windows and dual boot), it's really not. Even if I wanted to install Windows ever again, I do NOT want random 3rd party kernel modules in there. Anyone remember the whole CrowdStrike fiasco? I do NOT want to wake up to my computer not booting up because some idiot decided to push a shitty update to their kernel module that makes the kernel itself shit the bed. And while Microsoft fucks up plenty, at least they're a corporation with a reputation to uphold, and I believe they even have a QA team or 2. CrowdStrike was unheard of outside of the corporate world before the ordeal and tbh nobody has ever heard of it afterwards again.
So I think this would be a good angle to push. That we should be careful about what code runs in our OS kernels, for security and stability reasons. Obviously it'd be impossible to just blanket ban 3rd party kernel modules to any OS. However, maybe here in the EU at least we could get them to consider a rule that any software that includes a component running in the OS kernel, MUST justify how that part is necessary for the software to function in the best possible way for the user of the computer the software is running on. E.g I expect a hardware driver to have a kernel module, and I can see how security software needs to have a kernel module, but I do NOT see how a video game needs to have an anti cheat with a kernel module. How does that benefit me, the customer paying to be able to play said video game?
What is your argument here? Is it that Anti-cheat is good? Is it that Anti-cheat is necessary? Is it that it's bad but you feel my information is incorrect? Because you're all over the place. "I'll raise you" is you literally saying, malware can be spread without anti-cheat at kernel level so anti-cheat at kernel level is okay? And it's not relevant to the conversation because it's not about whether or not some threat actor can use other means to compromise a system or several thousand of them.
Like. Even if you feel you needed to add context you actually seem to be intentionally using inflammatory language in order to in some way try to discredit not my reasoning but my stance that Anti-cheat is invasive and should in fact see opposition.
My argument is that refusing to buy isn't going to fix the problem and I thought that was obvious from what I said, but apparently not. So, the question originally was "is it time to take a stand (not as individuals, but as a group) against kernel level anti-cheat. And my answer is that it's been time and bad things keep happening and have the potential to keep happening because of it, and no it doesn't matter if it's only a handful of users, especially if those users are rocking $3K worth of parts in a gaming rig.
You're suggesting that a security issue that is wholly ignored by both the public and the government as well as the industry that should be regulated is going to be fixed not by regulating it with laws and that's extremely confusing give. The fact that we know it's not how this works and "Uncle Gabe" has already implemented a solution and that solution is to make it apparent that games have kernel level anti-cheat so some of us are more informed. Because some random corp is going to do a better job than the government at regulating the industry.
I'm not sure why you think that's what's going to happen or even how you might believe it's any less of a pipe dream than these companies (Microsoft included) doing the right thing and safeguarding the data they are allowing access to. Anti-cheat at kernel level is running all the time regardless of whether you're playing the game that has it or not. It's not just one singular program. It's all different ones because there's not any regulation in this space to speak of. And companies don't want there to be. Valve is not strong enough in this space to make this go away by themselves.
People say crazy things about how powerful Valve has become in the PC gaming space. But while they have consumers generally on their side, Microsoft is older and has been in the space longer, and is definitely more powerful (money, connections, longevity of the business etc), and they have no real intentions of doing away with kernel level access for anti-cheat despite what few articles there were suggesting otherwise just after the crowdstrike fiasco.
You're right that corps don't care about individuals. But they care about the masses because we're the ones they exploit for money. That's literally why any type of organized opposition from millions of people is successful at making any changes at all. So again, what point are you making here?
Is your intent to educate? Is it to say that I'm wrong for saying we should organize against Anti-cheat at kernel level? Is it that you think you have a better idea of how this works, and what changes should be implemented? Are you for keeping Anti-cheat because you feel it serves a purpose?
The point is that you are constantly spewing largely unrelated nonsense that mostly just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. But you are Righteous so anyone who points this out is clearly a bad person so let's whip out the ad hominem.
Because I see you working toward the same conclusions I increasingly see people make: You don't know what should be done and you don't care what it does to the game industry. You just want politicians to make laws to make the things you don't like go away.
And... I really don't understand how ANYONE can be privileged enough to think that is a good idea. Especially when the people who DO feel strongly enough to maybe educate themselves on a topic refuse to. But hey, 50-60 year old politicians who just want a handy from the nearest lobbyist are sure to act in good faith and make a great solution, right?
Again, this is the DRM wars. We lost. Used games are not a thing in the PC space and are rapidly fading in the console space. But what we did get was a removal of the genuinely bad DRM models (Starforce) and the more egregious activation models (formerly Securom, now Denuvo) are increasingly restricted to A-AAA releases. And that didn't happen because people got angry on a message board and thought about asking jack thompson to draft a bill for them.
It happened because there was actual discussion between devs and consumers. I don't like that EVERYTHING activates to an account with Valve (even if I like valve) but it is a really good middle ground that provides utility to all sides.
Rather than people throwing up complete nonsense that has nothing to do with the technology they claim to be against while also coming right off a studio being sent to the shadow realm harder than a themed deck user because of... a bad beta and character designs that weren't sexy enough.
A layman who doesn't know why the program was flagged and doesnt necessarily know the name of the Anti-cheat program or just hits delete all (which is probably thousands and thousands of people), you're telling me you wouldn't be extremely upset if a game you spent $60+ on suddenly wouldn't start or your account go auto banned because the anti-cheat software has been deleted by an antivirus program by mistake?
You don't have to assume. I linked the article.
You have failed once again to establish what this has to do with the original complaint, which is that kernel level anti-cheat allowed this security breach vector. And it has everything to do with the quoted text just below this from one of my previous comments:
This doesn't explain regulating industries. It doesn't explain why so many companies (including game development companies) spend so much money lobbying for the right to be free of regulations that should be covered by privacy law but aren't because these companies don't want that. And if you can't see the correlation here then you're a bit far gone because if they can lobby so can we. It has to start somewhere.
I would argue that the vast majority don't know. People like to act like gamers are in some way really tech savvy and they just know all the ins and outs of all that goes into the game and what is installed on their system. But the opposite is true for most people. They buy a game or program from a source they don't have a reason to distrust and they install it and give it whatever permissions it asks for. This is the main reason I'm arguing that people absolutely should be educated and they won't get that education from game developers because for the most part those devs prefer it this way.
People bought things with DRM because they didn't know, or there was not another option. And DRM was a significant thing even before the internet was a widespread thing which is why once it got it's foothold it kept it. The average consumer didn't know and wasn't intending to pirate anything so they didn't care.
Why is it asinine to tell the government I want a public industry regulated to protect my right to privacy? Because that's what it comes down to. It's my right to not just privacy but security of information. This would never be a question if a company were requesting it but when people do it it's somehow problematic?
Education wasn't your goal as far as I can tell because you're extremely combative. You make a lot of statements that you don't back up with anything. You assume a level of knowledge that you probably shouldn't. And you get upset when the other person doesn't understand, completely ignore their questions and points in favor of whatever crusade you happen to be on, and then double-down while ignoring the clarifying questions they ask.
There's not going to be a discussion between devs and consumers if we don't educate people on what's going on. That's literally what we're talking about. And you seem to assume that I'm just adverse to that without taking into account that I think we should have both things. We as consumers should have open dialog with the industries that rely on us to buy products. But we should also very much expect that our government that we pay taxes to regulates industries accordingly.
Because we've had so many data breaches in every industry but the ones in gaming have been pretty abundant and that's not okay. You seem to want to act like nothing is connected to anything else and that's a good way to go through life without getting anything done and with a giant target painted on your back.
I can't assume that every consumer is like me. You shouldn't either. And just because they got rid of other DRM that you view as worse doesn't mean that we're in the clear.