However implementation of this over the years has failed because first of all latency causes huge problem and isn't easily fixed, and secondly it means the investment in hardware is done by the developer which makes operating costs massive and so subscriptions to these services is expensive. The clients at the edge of the network then send in controller/input signals, the code is processed at a server the provider operates in a controlled manner, and the output audio/video is streamed back. It's an inherent issue with allowing code to run on remote systems you have no control over, the only really decent way to stop it is to run the code locally on a server and then farm the frames out back across the wire to dumb terminals, this is very much akin to OnLive and similar game streaming services. Farming out the anti-cheat to experts at writing anti-cheat systems like Punkbuster for example, helps somewhat, but it only mitigates the problem. You can always write more and more complex code as the developers which attempts to detect changes to the system and catch out hackers and report them, but this is a game of cat and mouse where a single game development studio is completing against the entire world trying to hack their game, at the end of the day it's simply a matter of economics, they can only spend so much time and money trying to defeat hackers before it stops being financially viable. There have been attempts over the years to create systems which are trusted environments but people have always rejected these because the loss of control over your own hardware and loss of privacy are too much to sacrifice in order to get secure code running. Fundamentally once some piece of code has been released to a client you're no longer in control of how it executes on the target PC. If Denuvo can keep a game pirate free for more than a year, shouldn't a 3 month window of cheat free gaming at launch be a reasonable expectation?Īs Cory Doctorow has said in the past, we don't know how to make general purpose computers run the code we like but don't run the code we dislike. Instead of addressing the problem of cheating, game industry offers cheats for profit via micro's and preorder bonuses or any other P2W method. It was OK to push rootkits on customer's PC and force customers to be online so they can play single player game but if a problem doesn't effect the publisher and game studio directly, then I suppose the problem doesn't matter much. Yet addressing cheating is never given priority. Industry actively pushes it's DRM policies, the always online connection model, DLC's and micro transactions the game industry just recycles last year's PunkBuster and calls it a day? These newest titles are made in brand new engines or their newest versions, either the hackers are really good and insanely quick at adapting or. Especially when it occurs in different games, made by different studios and publishers like with BF1 and the Division before it. When hackers have working hacks ready for a open beta, we have a problem. I meant to post something like this for a while, never got around to it but it's clearly an old, ongoing problem.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |