How Riot Games is fighting the war against video game hackers

Kernel-level anti-cheat: necessary evil or malware?

• One side argues kernel drivers + Secure Boot/TPM are currently the only effective way to combat modern kernel-level cheats (DMA cards, second-PC setups), reduce cheat prevalence, and keep competitive F2P shooters viable.
• Others view Vanguard-style drivers as “rootkit-like” spyware: unnecessary for a leisure activity, risky to system security/stability (reports of BSODs, crashes, broken games), and unacceptable in principle.
• Debate over terminology: some say “rootkit” is wrong because Vanguard is visible and user-authorized; opponents say that’s irrelevant given its power and potential for abuse.

Arms race: cheats vs detection

• Cheats increasingly use DMA hardware and computer-vision with external cameras; some say this will ultimately nullify kernel anti-cheat and force behavior-based/server-side detection anyway.
• Pro-anti-cheat posters stress “raising the cost”: forcing cheaters into expensive hardware/second PCs drastically reduces how many you meet per match.
• Others argue the problem is fundamentally unsolvable: if you treat the player’s machine as adversarial, motivated cheaters will always find out-of-band paths.

Behavioral / server-side and AI approaches

• Several advocate focusing on behavior analysis, ML, and human moderation (banwaves, replay review) instead of invasive clients.
• Counterpoint: behavior-based systems already exist and work best on blatant “rage” cheaters; subtle, human-like cheats are hard to distinguish from genuinely skilled players.
• Concerns raised that AI-based systems will produce false positives with poor support recourse.

Identity and account-level solutions

• Strong support from some for KYC/“Real ID for gaming”: government IDs, phone numbers, or bank-style identity verification so bans “stick” for years.
• South Korea’s national-ID login system is cited as reducing repeat offenders by raising the cost of re-entry, though it doesn’t help detect cheats.
• Others prefer simply charging for accounts or modest one-time fees to discourage disposable smurf/cheat accounts.

Cheating prevalence and player psychology

• Anecdotes range from ~1–20% of matches with obvious cheaters in popular shooters; some claim games like CS2 are “unplayable,” others think the issue is overstated.
• “Closet” cheaters create paranoia: players describe constantly questioning whether opponents are better or cheating, which ruins enjoyment even when cheating is rare.

OS security, user freedom, and platform politics

• Kernel anti-cheat is framed as part of a broader trend toward locked-down platforms (Windows Secure Boot, macOS driver model, Android attestation), trading tinkerability for security.
• Some welcome Microsoft’s planned kernel anti-tamper features that might enable effective user-mode anti-cheat; others see this as deeper vendor control and an attack on user autonomy.
• Linux and alternative OS users resent secure-boot and driver-version requirements that exclude them or force unstable drivers.

Riot, trust, and player responses

• Some uninstall all Riot titles or avoid any game with kernel anti-cheat, preferring single-player or consoles.
• Others note Riot’s games have grown since Vanguard’s introduction; for most players, fewer cheaters outweigh abstract privacy concerns.
• Riot is criticized as profit-driven and abusive (monetization tactics, moderation practices, handling of bugs/incidents), leading some to boycott regardless of technical merits.