Now if only they could more clearly communicate when games are playable offline.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Adding kernel malware after the fact should entitle every single owner who requests one to a full refund no matter how long has passed.

      • TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        7 days ago

        Full agree. I do want some kind of policy for games that introduce anti-cheat both during early access and after release. Bricking a game you paid for should offer some sort of recourse.

      • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’d really like Valve to take an official policy on post-release changes that break games, but for what it’s worth they have not given me any hassle with refunds in these scenarios.

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yup. If it’s important enough that devs now have to add a disclaimer on the store page, surely devs shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that by adding it later. Since SteamDeck customers are affected by this the most, it’s weird that this isn’t already a rule, particularly for games that are SteamDeck verified.

  • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    However, it’s only being forced for kernel-level anti-cheat. If it’s only client-side or server-side, it’s optional, but Valve say “we generally think that any game that makes use of anti-cheat technology would benefit from letting players know”.

    I will always love Valve for their ability to use corpospeak against corpos.

    Your game has anti-cheat?

    Wonderful!

    I’m sure that always only results in an improved experience for all gamers, lets let them all know!

    =D

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 days ago

    I feel like they’re doing this because they are going so hard with steam deck. Regardless, good on Valve for doing this.

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      4 likes on him complaining that modlogs being public is something bad, cowards that only want to be shitty in the shadows.

  • Woodstock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 days ago

    Can someone explain like I’m stupid on kernel level anti cheat and why I should watch out for it? Not a dig at all, a genuine question!

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      6 days ago

      To put it very simply, the ‘kernel’ has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.

      It runs at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game’s publisher has software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system’s activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)

      It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        6 days ago

        And it’s worth noting that trusting the game developer isn’t really enough. Far too many of them have been hacked, so who’s to say it’s always your favorite game developer behind the wheel?

      • barlescharkley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        More importantly, if traditional anticheat has a bug, your game dies. Oh no.

        If kernel level anticheat has a bug, your computer blue screens (that’s specifically what the blue screen is: a bug in the kernel, not just an ordinary bug that the system can recover from). Much worse. Sure hope that bug only crashes your computer when the game is running and not just whenever, because remember a kernel-level program can be running the moment your computer boots as above poster said

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Easy, a bug in battle eye forced me to reinstall windows, this kernel access has to go.

  • corroded@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why is kernel-level anti-cheat even a thing?

    If I was trying to prevent cheating, I’d hash the relevant game files, encrypt the values, and hard-code them into the executable. Then when the game is launched, calculated the hash of the existing files and compare to the saved values.

    What is gained by running anti-cheat in kernel mode? I only play single-player games, so I assume I’m missing something.

    • kevindqc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because there are kernel-level cheats

      What you proposed can very easily be bypassed without even needing kernel access by just editing the executable code that checks hashes to always return true

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      They can prevent you from running cheats that other anti-cheats can’t detect. For instance, they could modify the value in memory so that your calculated hash always succeeds even when it’s modified. This doesn’t stop cheating though; it just means cheaters have to use cheat hardware that exists at a layer that even kernel anti-cheat can’t detect.

    • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Modern cheats for multiplayer games don’t modify local files (or attribute values in memory), since the server validates everything anyway. They’re about giving you information that’s available but not shown in the game (like see-through walls, or exact skill ranges), or manipulate input (dodge enemy damage, easy combos). Those cheat can run in kernel mode (or at least evade detection from user mode), so the anti-cheat needs kernel mode to be more effective.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      And then a game gets updated so the hashes don’t match and uh oh, everything is fucked. Oh, but we can change the hashes of the files in the executable! Yeah, so can they. People modding shit into the executable is basically a given. Let alone the fact that you’d need to sit through a steam “validation of files” length of time every time you’d need to launch a game (because validation works exactly as you have described).

      What is gained is that it has access to more information. Some cheats use an entirely different program / process that reads memory and outputs info that is available to the game but hidden from the player. Like a client needs to know where a person on the other team is to be able to draw their model. So you read that, you put a little box over where they are, and bang you have wallhacks.

      • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I think the popular thing now is to mod your mouse so it clicks on the enemy player’s head.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Probably a pessimistic take, but I don’t expect this to have any discernable impact on sales, or any other effects that would discourage publishers from these practices. The average user doesn’t care about or understand how these things work; they’ll see an anti-cheat warning on the store page and think “Okay, tell the colonel I’ll be on my best behavior then” and continue to buy the game.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      It will benefit those that care and won’t negatively impact the experience for those that don’t.

      Win, win.

  • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    Not to be annoying, but can someone please ELI5 how kernel level anti-cheat software actually works, or link good resources where I can read about it.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      It runs with higher priveleges than you have and can see anything that happens on your computer.

      It also creates a giant additional attack vector.

    • scoobford@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Eli5: your PC has different access levels a program can run at. This prevents a malicious or badly coded program from completely fucking your computer. Kernel level anti cheat runs at the lowest level access that exists under windows. It can do basically whatever it wants to your PC, and if a backdoor is coded in (happens way more than you’d think), it gives malware basically total access to your PC.