zlacker

[parent] [thread] 21 comments
1. gianca+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-03 17:32:56
> though not all developers elect to enable it.

Looking at you Rust.

Edit:

And the rest of you. If even Microsoft's Masterchief Collection supports it, I Don't understand why everyone else does not.

https://areweanticheatyet.com/

replies(3): >>Quantu+R1 >>jshear+u2 >>waffle+yx
2. Quantu+R1[view] [source] 2025-12-03 17:42:33
>>gianca+(OP)
First i thought you meant the video game Rust.

Then I saw the arewe…yet url and thought you meant Rust the programming language

Then I visited the arewe…yet link and realized it was the Rust game you meant after all

replies(1): >>gianca+w2
3. jshear+u2[view] [source] 2025-12-03 17:45:17
>>gianca+(OP)
> I Don't understand why everyone else does not.

It's because the Linux versions of those anti-cheats are significantly weaker than their Windows counterparts.

replies(1): >>tapoxi+a4
◧◩
4. gianca+w2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 17:45:39
>>Quantu+R1
I know what you mean, sometimes I google Rust specific things (the coding language) and get Rust the game.
replies(3): >>spulla+65 >>wincy+E6 >>JoshTr+3d
◧◩
5. tapoxi+a4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 17:52:52
>>jshear+u2
It's telling that Valve uses a user space anti-cheat (VAC) for Counter-Strike 2, but the competitive community overwhelmingly rejects that and ops to use a third-party Windows-only kernel mode anti-cheat (FACEIT).
replies(4): >>jshear+55 >>bee_ri+3l >>SirMas+Ns >>Draike+wu
◧◩◪
6. jshear+55[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 17:55:27
>>tapoxi+a4
I think even the "Major" tournaments that are officially sanctioned and sponsored by Valve, though organized by third parties, usually run on FACEIT or similar.
◧◩◪
7. spulla+65[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 17:55:28
>>gianca+w2
as a person that plays rust and writes rust I feel this all the time
◧◩◪
8. wincy+E6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 18:04:37
>>gianca+w2
For awhile googling “Swift” was like that with Taylor Swift results instead of the programming language.
replies(1): >>mikepu+H7
◧◩◪◨
9. mikepu+H7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 18:10:01
>>wincy+E6
Likely a case where Google figured out which one you meant through the telemetry of what you clicked on and how you refined your search, now that personalization is automatic. In my case, I get four regular results, which are the financial standard, the programming language, the wikipedia page for the programming language, and an ISP; then I get a "top stories" block that is all about the singer.

More tricky for the sibling comment with Rust, where either one could be valid.

◧◩◪
10. JoshTr+3d[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 18:36:26
>>gianca+w2
/r/rust, the subreddit for the Rust language, regularly (every 1-2 days at most) gets posts meant for /r/playrust, the subreddit for the Rust game. I genuinely don't know how people manage to get as far as posting without noticing where they are.
replies(3): >>robrts+fl >>eriker+wl >>rollca+d82
◧◩◪
11. bee_ri+3l[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 19:16:17
>>tapoxi+a4
Eh, some employers also have root for your work PC, that’s different from asking to install a rootkit on your personal PC.
◧◩◪◨
12. robrts+fl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 19:17:36
>>JoshTr+3d
It’s probably because the “create a Reddit post” form doesn’t require you to even visit the subreddit you are posting to. It DOES show you the rules/sidebar of the subreddit you are about to post to (for /r/rust it includes a link to /r/playrust for the gamers) but apparently many aren’t seeing that.
replies(1): >>SAI_Pe+ZK
◧◩◪◨
13. eriker+wl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 19:18:46
>>JoshTr+3d
It is hard to perceive that which you are not aware exists even with obvious evidence in your face
replies(1): >>Dylan1+9S
◧◩◪
14. SirMas+Ns[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 19:52:44
>>tapoxi+a4
Cheating in CS2 is rampant and VAC2 seems to be just about useless.

FACEIT is significantly more effective.

◧◩◪
15. Draike+wu[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 20:00:51
>>tapoxi+a4
I mean, people are dumb.

Anti cheats are as much a marketing ploy as they're actual anti cheats. People believe everyone is cheating so it must be true. People believe nobody bypasses the FACEIT anti cheat so it must be true. Neither of those are correct.

Riot revels in this by marketing their anti cheat, but there are always going to be cheaters. And sooner or later we will have vulnerabilities in their kernel spyware. I much rather face a few cheaters here and there (which is not as common as people make it to be on high trust factor).

You think tournament organizers or pro players know the first thing about anti cheats? They buy the marketing just like everybody else.

replies(1): >>enneff+HK
16. waffle+yx[view] [source] 2025-12-03 20:13:25
>>gianca+(OP)
Wow, what a cool site. Just learned that Hunt: Showdown is supported in Linux. And it wasn't the first time I checked. Will love to give it a try.
◧◩◪◨
17. enneff+HK[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 21:17:53
>>Draike+wu
The marketing works because online games get destroyed by cheats. Losing in online games can be full of “feel bad” moments, even without cheaters (network issues, cheesy tactics, balance issues). To think that your opponent won because they outright cheated just makes you wanna quit.

I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”

It would be great to see more of a web of trust thing instead of invasive anti cheat. That would make it harder for people to get into the games in the first place though so I don’t know if developers would really want to go that way.

replies(2): >>stalfi+6u2 >>Draike+o97
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. SAI_Pe+ZK[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 21:19:15
>>robrts+fl
"Banner blindness" applies to the rules/sidebar. The user sees it, notices it's not what they're looking to interact with, and ignores it. The same thing happens for modal dialogues where the user will click whatever button makes the message go away without bothering to read the message, only the button text.
◧◩◪◨⬒
19. Dylan1+9S[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 21:54:23
>>eriker+wl
That's not a great explanation when there's, you know, rust the material.
◧◩◪◨
20. rollca+d82[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-04 09:29:47
>>JoshTr+3d
You are an average person. A program you're using crashes.

The only non-generic word you see in the crash message is "SQLite".

You look it up, find SQLite, and you bother the developers for help.

The problem is as old as labels.

◧◩◪◨⬒
21. stalfi+6u2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-04 12:32:27
>>enneff+HK
To me the "web of trust" element frankly seems like the only viable solution. And in fact, its almost here already: https://playsafeid.com/

I predict that hacker news in particular will dislike using facial recognition technology to allow for permanent ban-hammers, but frankly this neatly solves 95% of the problem in a simple, intuitive way. Frankly, the approach has the capacity to revitalize entire genres, and theres lots of cool stuff you could potentially implement when you can guarantee that one account = one person.

◧◩◪◨⬒
22. Draike+o97[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-05 18:02:33
>>enneff+HK
The marketing works because of what I said: people are dumb.

Anyone that's not dumb will know (maybe after the heat of the moment) why they lost, but the vast majority of people will blame anything they can instead. Teammates, lag, the developers, etc. Cheating is merely one of these excuses.

> I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”

This entire idea is so dumb it makes my head hurt. You can't eliminate bad actors no matter how hard you try. It's impossible in the real world.

All these "if only we could prevent X with more surveillance/control" ideas go up in flames as soon as reality hits. Even if a single person bypasses it, we can question everything. Then all we're left with are these surveillance systems that are then converted into pure data exfiltration to sell it all to the highest bidder (assuming they weren't doing this already).

I applaud Valve for not going down the easy route of creating spyware and selling it as "protection".

[go to top]