Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach
Impact of Cheating on Games
- Many commenters argue cheating is an existential threat to competitive games: it drives players away, kills communities, and has already “killed” or badly damaged titles (CS, Arc Raiders, others mentioned).
- Strong anecdotal split: some say modern CS/Overwatch-style games are “infested” with cheaters; others (often higher-rank players) report relatively few obvious cheaters, especially with good trust systems or third‑party services.
- Third‑party competitive platforms (e.g., for Counter-Strike) with kernel anti‑cheat are cited as having dramatically fewer cheaters than official userland-only matchmaking.
Kernel Anti-Cheat vs User Freedom & Privacy
- One side: kernel anti‑cheat is an unacceptable overreach / “malware-like,” especially on machines used for private or work data. Concern centers on:
- Un-auditable ring‑0 code, attack surface, and potential for botnets or misuse.
- Trend toward locking down general-purpose PCs similarly to consoles or fully attested chains.
- Other side: players voluntarily accept this to avoid cheaters; “nobody forces you to play” is repeated, though opponents call this a fake choice when major genres have no non‑kernel alternative.
- Some argue anti‑cheat doesn’t add much new privacy risk versus ordinary Windows apps with admin rights; the main fear is control and reliability, not incremental data access.
Technical Arms Race Discussion
- Cheats historically used memory manipulation; anti‑cheat moved into the kernel, then cheats into kernel, hypervisors, DMA cards, external PCs, and “pixelbots.”
- Some say client–server design and cloud gaming can remove many vectors; others note you can still cheat via input manipulation and vision-based aimbots.
- Valorant’s system is cited as:
- Restricting input devices (single mouse, ignoring virtual mice, flagging unusual HIDs).
- Benefiting from modern OS features (IOMMU) to constrain DMA.
- Debate over whether Windows userland already allows extensive process memory access; some argue kernel is not strictly necessary, others stress kernel gives stronger visibility into low-level tricks.
Alternatives and Policy Ideas
- Proposed alternatives:
- Heuristic/AI-based replay and behavior analysis; concerns about false positives and ongoing arms race.
- Strong identity requirements (government ID, digital ID), with lifetime bans tied to real identity.
- More community-run / moderated servers instead of fully centralized matchmaking.
- Making cheating or cheat development a prosecutable offense, as in some countries.
- Skeptics counter that none of these yet match kernel anti‑cheat in practical deterrence.
Market, Lock-In, and Broader Tech Frustrations
- Several comments generalize beyond games:
- “If you don’t like it, don’t use it” is criticized as antisocial when most comparable products share the same flaws.
- Examples: non‑repairable devices, OS choice limitations, ISP apps replacing web admin, Linux locked out by anti‑cheat and proprietary drivers.
- Some PC users treat their Windows machine as a “semi-console” and isolate it; others refuse any kernel anti‑cheat and accept missing popular titles.