EA needed a scapegoat it seems

  • go $fsck yourself
    link
    English
    235 minutes ago

    FYI - the owner of this site, gamingonlinux, was a mod on the [email protected] community until they were caught abusing their moderator powers. Then they deleted their account and complained on mastodon that it’s stupid design that mod logs are public. [Screenshot]

  • Cornpop
    link
    English
    126 minutes ago

    deleted by creator

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Anti-cheat is an arms race. We just find ourselves at a point where the arms race has progressed to the point where the best known strategy for securing a play session means ostracising custom hw/kernel configurations.

    But I have to think it’s only a matter of time before even that’s not enough, (since there already exist ways around kernel level anticheat, including AI-based techniques that are entirely undetectable).

    My guess is the logical conclusion involves a universal reputation based system, where you have an account with some 3rd party system (maybe VAC) that persists across all games you play. It will watch your gameplay, and maintain a (probably hidden) “risk of cheating” score. Then matchmaking for each game will use this score to always pair you against other accounts with a similar score.

    Actually, it might not be a “risk of cheating” score so much as a “fun to play with” score. From a gameplay perspective, it’s just as fun to play against a highly skilled non-cheating human, as it is a bot that plays identically. But it’s less fun to play against a bot that uses info or exploits that even the best non-cheating players don’t have access to (ex. wallhacks). So really, the system could basically maintain some playstyle-profile for each player, and matchmaking wouldn’t be skill-based, but rather it would attempt to maximize the “fun” of the match-up. If a player is constantly killing people unrealistically fast, or people who play with them tend to drop early, this would degrade their “fun” score and they would tend to be matched only with other unfun players.

    I think this would be the only practical way to fight cheating without even more invasive methods that will involve just deanonymizing players (which I think some studio will inevitably try in the near future).

    • Cornpop
      link
      English
      125 minutes ago

      Steam does this already with cs2

    • @Scolding7300
      link
      140 minutes ago

      Sounds like a mini social score IMO. Can companies invest into reporting tools and hire more people to monitor for cheating by reviewing reporta?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    189 hours ago

    well shiet 😂 seems i got unexpected +80gb storage space again, let’s see which indie studio will get a new customer. bye EA

  • subignition
    link
    fedilink
    169 hours ago

    If you can’t accept business plans that make a little less profit to include sufficient human moderation to avoid heavyhanded kernel level anti cheat - you shouldn’t be in the fucking publishing business, you greedy weasels.

    • @Ptsf
      link
      56 hours ago

      Wait… You want us to pay humans? - Every triple A gaming company since 2010.

      • subignition
        link
        fedilink
        36 hours ago

        At the very least they need to invest in server side anti cheat. If that’s not viable they should be obliged to adequately moderate their game.

  • @atmur
    link
    English
    1510 hours ago

    I’m so torn about stories like this and GTA online. Because on one hand, people play these games, and people won’t switch to Linux if they can’t play them.

    But on the other hand, I just cannot give a single fuck about live service trash like this. I struggle to understand how people play games products like these, and I absolutely don’t understand why anyone would waste their time cheating in them. And yet they’re absurdly popular.

    Despite gaming being such a big hobby for me, I feel so disconnected from what the average gamer values.

    • @atmur
      link
      English
      610 hours ago

      I occasionally think back to Rocket League, which I loved in its earlier days. I put close to 100 hours into it, which is a lot for one game for me. Then they added lootboxes, leaned harder into the competitive space, and just completely sucked the soul out of it. And yet it’s still hugely popular.

      I just don’t get it.

      • @BigDaddySlim
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Funny you mention that, I just installed it on my Steam Deck a few days ago to give it another try. Casual is not casual anymore, everyone’s a competitive try hard now. I remember when it was fun :(

    • CaptainBasculin
      link
      fedilink
      18 hours ago

      Used to play Apex Legends a lot, so could give some reasons why.

      A core part of Apex’s monetization is “keep the core gameplay F2P accessible and make super expensive skins for those who can pay”. The game would put items worth around 300$ multiple times in a single season. After that as long as the gameplay’s solid; F2P players wouldn’t find a reason to not play; and whales could flex their 300$ death box to all these players interacting with them. Hell, give F2P players tasks that take too long to unlock new skins; and maybe they’ll toss a few bucks in too. You’ve got yourself a neat money loop, and players are happy.

      As for cheating; most people i see cheating does it as a way of doing the unexpected in a video game. Cheating is not enjoyable to most if you do it all the time; but the cheat providers offer cheats with shorter time spans to hook the people that want to do just that. I recall an interview done with a cheat developer for a different yet similarly popular game, and they’ve said most of their sales come through these.

  • CaptainBasculin
    link
    fedilink
    810 hours ago

    That would’ve hit hard if they didn’t got my EA Account stolen via fraudulent support tickets a few months ago.