Activision's new anti-cheat system for COD includes kernel level driver. driver already leaked.

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
949
Well if you want to play the game in question you kinda have to. I don't like this trash either but I don't have much of a choice....
huH? lol is your life gonna end if you can't play the latest COD? you ALWAYS have a choice. play last years or play some battlefield!!? BF2042 looks sweet if they can get the performance issue ironed out.

look you know how we end this kinda crap? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. don't buy into this crap and they'll figure something else out. wow, i really think we need to ban soy in this country. too many weak men

I don't play CoD but I do play Apex and it uses easy anti-cheat which I assume is similar.

no, it's not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3,160
huH? lol is your life gonna end if you can't play the latest COD? you ALWAYS have a choice. play last years or play some battlefield!!? BF2042 looks sweet if they can get the performance issue ironed out.

look you know how we end this kinda crap? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. don't buy into this crap and they'll figure something else out. wow, i really think we need to ban soy in this country. too many weak men



no, it's not.

I do vote with my wallet. I didn't pay for CoD nor do I play it.... Also didn't even pay for Apex.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,072
If the mouse-keyboard support is OK on a Xbox-PS5 nowaday, seem a good solution for people that

1) Have a big no-no issue with anti-cheat solution
2) Do not want to build a game only machine (with no or very limited local network access) cost wise (with the current gpu market), which if you are the type of player that play at that level sound like a good idea.

If you can find a new console that is. A lot of the talk sound like turning the PC into something very console like (from buying steam deck to support good TPM).
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,233
huH? lol is your life gonna end if you can't play the latest COD? you ALWAYS have a choice. play last years or play some battlefield!!? BF2042 looks sweet if they can get the performance issue ironed out.

look you know how we end this kinda crap? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. don't buy into this crap and they'll figure something else out. wow, i really think we need to ban soy in this country. too many weak men



no, it's not.

Why would you ban soy before alcohol? Alcohol is responsible for much of the world's manslaughter. And trans guys are often super cute.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,754
This sucks, and I hope Activision has a change of heart... but it's also a reminder of why I don't mind playing on a console.

It's a bit amusing to hear diehards shout "PC gaming only! PC gaming only! Kill consoles and choice forever!" and then whine about draconian PC-only anti-cheat measures (to deal with rampant cheating on PCs, of course). Not that developers don't keep an eye out for cheating on consoles, but if I'm going to play in a controlled environment, I might as well play in the environment that doesn't involve kernel-level anti-cheating drivers and other headaches.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,387
If any of you guys complaining about this every played a game with Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC) or BattlEye, guess what? You have had a kernel-level anti-cheat installed on your PC. And there are a lot of games that use EAC or BattlEye. PunkBuster was the big one back in the day.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
535
I think this is why it makes sense to have a PC that's dedicated to gaming (aka a powerful game console) and then you use another machine to do your business on. With computers being ubiquitous as they are anyone can totally do this.

My two cents.

And with more monitors featuring KVM's you don't even need a separate keyboard and mouse to switch between the two. Im running Linux and with all the anti-cheat stuff coming to here too and potentially making me just as vulnerable as a windows normie im also advocating people have two machines. Now that so many people stream, it's a good idea to have a secondary machine for checking social media in realtime so your not A-B'ing back and forward between capture windows to check things whilst your gaming it's also a backup.

Hard for all gamers to purchase two decent computers both in price and supply. Also wouldn't want your steam account being hacked in the unsafe sandbox computer.

But why do they need the second one to be ultra amazing ? Lets say hypothetically you purchase one of the many excellent budget Ryzen/Intel SFF mini PC's available. Outside of gaming those things will power through everything (even light gaming indie/2D and E-sports @1080p). So now you have a separate Mini PC for Banking, web/social-media (remember these anti cheat can look at your web history), productivity etc.. and it can always be on, using less than 15w idle or even on quick standby for like 0.5w.. wiggle mouse on KVM wake up machine.

Cost ? most people have a smart phone how often do people pay to upgrade that + contract ? But they can't afford $350 on an ancillary laptop for secure tasks ? Most people pay X ammount for a console subscription a YEAR, But can't afford $400-$500 low powered SFF Ryzen brick that can crunch tasks close to that of the full Desktop counterpart ? And remember unlike subscriptions that continually climb, and the smart phones that are continually upgraded (for no real gain i may add) You get to keep that brick / laptop for 7 years or more.. and if Windows 14 stops working on it because reasons.. put Linux on it.

I mean the can't afford a seconding computing device is kind of a weak argument when for non gaming tasks an $80 raspberry-pi is (almost) at the level of satisfactory for everyday tasks. The pi400 even comes with a keyboard/hdmi and charge adapter. But a budget laptop or even Ebay / dumpster PC definitely is.

complex to setup ? So that's One extra hdmi into a monitor lol. No, the fact is, if you care about security/privacy then a second machine is the way to go in 2021 if your running these super invasive anti-cheat systems.
 
Last edited:

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
7,523
Hard for all gamers to purchase two decent computers both in price and supply. Also wouldn't want your steam account being hacked in the unsafe sandbox computer.
I'm typing this on a Sandy Bridge laptop. I do all my business transactions on this computer (more or less), including shopping email, messaging, blah blah. I'm typing on said machine. I don't need my gaming machine for any of this.

For what it's worth - I don't give a shit about COD or any game for that matter, so I really don't have a horse in this race. I'm just saying that it's very easy in this day and age to have your "vulnerable" machine be your entertainment machine.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,233
If any of you guys complaining about this every played a game with Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC) or BattlEye, guess what? You have had a kernel-level anti-cheat installed on your PC. And there are a lot of games that use EAC or BattlEye. PunkBuster was the big one back in the day.

No, I never have. It goes against my principles. Have you?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,387
No, I never have. It goes against my principles. Have you?
PunkBuster
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield Hardline
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Doom 3
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R.: Perseus Mandate
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Far Cry 3
Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Need for Speed: Pro Street
Need for Speed: Undercover
Prey (2006)
Quake IV
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

Easy Anti-Cheat
Far Cry 5
For Honor
Gears 5
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
iRacing
Outriders
Tom Clancy's The Division 2
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
World War 3

BattlEye
The Crew 2
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,233
PunkBuster
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield Hardline
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Doom 3
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R.: Perseus Mandate
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Far Cry 3
Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Need for Speed: Pro Street
Need for Speed: Undercover
Prey (2006)
Quake IV
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

Easy Anti-Cheat
Far Cry 5
For Honor
Gears 5
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
iRacing
Outriders
Tom Clancy's The Division 2
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
World War 3

BattlEye
The Crew 2

Out of that entire list I've only played Fear. But that was back when I was a stupid teenager and knew nothing about PCs.
These days I'd only play it on PS3.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,071
I'm unwilling to risk my computers stability or use for a game.

From the article:
"Besides, those concerns are more than hypothetical. In 2013, the ESEA revealed that a rogue employee was using their kernel-level software to turn users’ computers into Bitcoin mining machines. Valorant‘s Vanguard anti-cheat software was unintentionally blocking certain outside programs that shouldn’t have been blocked. Studies have also suggested that this kind of software could still be exploited by outsiders in order to turn a user’s OS against them or access sensitive information in other ways. We know that it is possible to exploit this kind of program."

That doesn't sound very silly to me. The risk sounds very real. If anything the most insidious kind of infection that tries to be as stealthy as possible until it's too late. My favorite virus found was one that stayed completely memory resident and didn't even write to the hard disk. Was found in a banking system.

There's enough nasty stuff out there. Installing anything like this is just asking for trouble.
Ok few things:

1) Kernel mode is in no way required for bitcoin mining. This is the kind of thing that any company could do to your system if you have software that is installed that communicates back to the company that installed it. Firefox, Chrome, AV scanners, Steam, most games, etc, etc. They can all download and execute things without asking you. What it comes down to is if you trust the company to be good to your computer. That is true of any software you install.

2) You are correct that it could be used as a backdoor if it isn't properly programmed, but that again is true of any like software, for example your anti-virus scanner. The question is if it is well developed and maintained. That doesn't make it a rootkit. That doesn't mean you want to install THIS software, but the idea that kernel = rootkit is stupid.


If you don't trust Activision to implement this well that is fair enough, then I recommend not buying the game. I'm not going to, though just because I don't like CoD these days. But people flying off about it being a "rootkit" just shows they are using words without understanding them.

Ultimately if we want effective anti-cheat, it probably is going to have to be really low level. Probably shouldn't be developed by a game dev, but by the OS developers instead.
 

t1337duder

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
283
Warzone is one of the best free multiplayer games ever released. But I've stopped playing it a long time ago for the same reasons all my friends eventually stopped playing it - there are too many cheaters. Anti-cheat, invasive or not, will make players happy. Will the anti-cheat get defeated? Sure. Is that a reason why they shouldn't try to stop it? Certainly not.

Frankly, since it is free to play, I think it would be in their best interest to make the anti-cheat as invasive and strict as possible. I wouldn't even mind them creating a more secure matchmaking platform requiring something like a Yubikey which is tied to your identity if that meant players had the option to experience less cheaters on average.
 

OutOfPhase

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
4,860
This is all a great commercial for fun single-player games.

Would you like a rootkit? Cheaters?

No?
 

schoolslave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1,056
Ok few things:

1) Kernel mode is in no way required for bitcoin mining. This is the kind of thing that any company could do to your system if you have software that is installed that communicates back to the company that installed it. Firefox, Chrome, AV scanners, Steam, most games, etc, etc. They can all download and execute things without asking you. What it comes down to is if you trust the company to be good to your computer. That is true of any software you install.
Agreed.
2) You are correct that it could be used as a backdoor if it isn't properly programmed, but that again is true of any like software, for example your anti-virus scanner. The question is if it is well developed and maintained. That doesn't make it a rootkit. That doesn't mean you want to install THIS software, but the idea that kernel = rootkit is stupid.
No, that's not stupid at all. Your antivirus scanner arguably can't get you OS/kernel-level access on a sensible OS even with unpatched vulns. More importantly you choose to explicitly install that antivirus scanner whereas this junk bloatware gets installed alongside your games (smells very much like malware/rootkit to me). These anticheat utilities presumably make lots of network connections, interface with questionable game services, and are usually not updated once the game reaches EOL for the publisher - even worse, the user can't even control the updates for this garbage. All this leaves us with a ridiculously large attack surface and potential for exploits to gain "root" (well really "supervisor" since we're in the kernel now) access; ie rootkit. We're not talking runs with administrator/elevated permissions here, we are talking about full-blown runs in kernel space.
If you don't trust Activision to implement this well that is fair enough, then I recommend not buying the game. I'm not going to, though just because I don't like CoD these days. But people flying off about it being a "rootkit" just shows they are using words without understanding them.

Ultimately if we want effective anti-cheat, it probably is going to have to be really low level. Probably shouldn't be developed by a game dev, but by the OS developers instead.
Oh fucking hell no.
The only effective anticheat is and always has been community servers with community moderation.
Of course that doesn't "scale" to the big and bloated game industry of today: yearly release cadence (and always the "next big shiny!"), GaaS, microtransations, layers upon layers of accounts and launchers, etc etc.
Which begs the question of do we actually want all of that bloated shit in our games? I certainly do not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
671
And with more monitors featuring KVM's you don't even need a separate keyboard and mouse to switch between the two. Im running Linux and with all the anti-cheat stuff coming to here too and potentially making me just as vulnerable as a windows normie im also advocating people have two machines. Now that so many people stream, it's a good idea to have a secondary machine for checking social media in realtime so your not A-B'ing back and forward between capture windows to check things whilst your gaming it's also a backup.



But why do they need the second one to be ultra amazing ? Lets say hypothetically you purchase one of the many excellent budget Ryzen/Intel SFF mini PC's available. Outside of gaming those things will power through everything (even light gaming indie/2D and E-sports @1080p). So now you have a separate Mini PC for Banking, web/social-media (remember these anti cheat can look at your web history), productivity etc.. and it can always be on, using less than 15w idle or even on quick standby for like 0.5w.. wiggle mouse on KVM wake up machine.

Cost ? most people have a smart phone how often do people pay to upgrade that + contract ? But they can't afford $350 on an ancillary laptop for secure tasks ? Most people pay X ammount for a console subscription a YEAR, But can't afford $400-$500 low powered SFF Ryzen brick that can crunch tasks close to that of the full Desktop counterpart ? And remember unlike subscriptions that continually climb, and the smart phones that are continually upgraded (for no real gain i may add) You get to keep that brick / laptop for 7 years or more.. and if Windows 14 stops working on it because reasons.. put Linux on it.

I mean the can't afford a seconding computing device is kind of a weak argument when for non gaming tasks an $80 raspberry-pi is (almost) at the level of satisfactory for everyday tasks. The pi400 even comes with a keyboard/hdmi and charge adapter. But a budget laptop or even Ebay / dumpster PC definitely is.

complex to setup ? So that's One extra hdmi into a monitor lol. No, the fact is, if you care about security/privacy then a second machine is the way to go in 2021 if your running these super invasive anti-cheat systems.
Preferences. I like to develop on my best computer. Also, still sounds sketchy to have a computer relegated to insecure software unless you're a security researcher. Remember the steam account is on it
 

TrevorR

Gawd
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
832
Agreed.

No, that's not stupid at all. Your antivirus scanner arguably can't get you OS/kernel-level access on a sensible OS even with unpatched vulns. More importantly you choose to explicitly install that antivirus scanner whereas this junk bloatware gets installed alongside your games (smells very much like malware/rootkit to me). These anticheat utilities presumably make lots of network connections, interface with questionable game services, and are usually not updated once the game reaches EOL for the publisher - even worse, the user can't even control the updates for this garbage. All this leaves us with a ridiculously large attack surface and potential for exploits to gain "root" (well really "supervisor" since we're in the kernel now) access; ie rootkit. We're not talking runs with administrator/elevated permissions here, we are talking about full-blown runs in kernel space.

Oh fucking hell no.
The only effective anticheat is and always has been community servers with community moderation.
Of course that doesn't "scale" to the big and bloated game industry of today: yearly release cadence (and always the "next big shiny!"), GaaS, microtransations, layers upon layers of accounts and launchers, etc etc.
Which begs the question of do we actually want all of that bloated shit in our games? I certainly do not.
If a private server mod boots a cheating player from a private server, that cheating player will just join another private server after getting booted and start cheating again. Also, there are tons of instances where there isn't a server mod present when a player is cheating.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,233
If a private server mod boots a cheating player from a private server, that cheating player will just join another private server after getting booted and start cheating again. Also, there are tons of instances where there isn't a server mod present when a player is cheating.

That's why you add the good servers to your favorite servers list and avoid coming back to the ones that harbor cheaters.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,071
No, that's not stupid at all. Your antivirus scanner arguably can't get you OS/kernel-level access on a sensible OS even with unpatched vulns. More importantly you choose to explicitly install that antivirus scanner whereas this junk bloatware gets installed alongside your games (smells very much like malware/rootkit to me). These anticheat utilities presumably make lots of network connections, interface with questionable game services, and are usually not updated once the game reaches EOL for the publisher - even worse, the user can't even control the updates for this garbage. All this leaves us with a ridiculously large attack surface and potential for exploits to gain "root" (well really "supervisor" since we're in the kernel now) access; ie rootkit. We're not talking runs with administrator/elevated permissions here, we are talking about full-blown runs in kernel space.
Sure it can. Your AV hooks in to the OS at a VERY low level. Not only does it run in the kernel, but it enjoys a position of privilege where it loads quite early in the boot sequence. It has access to anything it wants. It has to have access to all memory to effectively scan for viruses. Also, any AV scanner worth its shit is on the network. At a minimum it download updates multiple times a day and really you want one that can do realtime checking on unknown processes. Guess what? Those updates can instruct it to change its behaviour, it could be ordered to grant the AV company remote access. Also given that these days usually it isn't your AV software, it is your endpoint security software, meaning it does firewall, HIPS, NIPS, etc you wouldn't know it had done it unless you had something on your network monitoring for it.

But as I said, you don't need to have a kernel driver to own a system. Chrome or Firefox could own you if they wanted. The software automatically contacts their servers, downloads an update, and installs it. That updater runs as the Local System account, which means it has admin access. It can install anything it wants, and does it without asking you. Unless your endpoint security solution is very crafty and happens to notice the browser doing something it shouldn't it can own your system hard.

Only way out of any of this, and it is only sort of a way out, is virtualization based security. You put critical OS functions and data in a hypervisor, and run the OS itself as a guest (Windows 10 and 11 can do this). Kernel mode is no longer the lowest level, there is now a "ring -1" that nothing inside the OS can get at. Of course all your data and running processes are still in that OS, so it doesn't really matter, you don't need to own the hypervisor, just own the OS and you have everything. Only way around that is to have good endpoint security that also gets to run in the hypervisor, an AV solutions that is now invisible to the OS... better trust that AV vendor though.

Oh and then if you want to feel more paranoid, that isn't the lowest level at all. System management mode is lower, ring -2 if you like. It is code that executes in a region of memory your OS can't access, doing things it can't see. Get malicious code in there and it is game over, nothing can find it.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,566
This sucks, and I hope Activision has a change of heart... but it's also a reminder of why I don't mind playing on a console.

It's a bit amusing to hear diehards shout "PC gaming only! PC gaming only! Kill consoles and choice forever!" and then whine about draconian PC-only anti-cheat measures (to deal with rampant cheating on PCs, of course). Not that developers don't keep an eye out for cheating on consoles, but if I'm going to play in a controlled environment, I might as well play in the environment that doesn't involve kernel-level anti-cheating drivers and other headaches.
A console is going to likely give games kernel level if they want it, cause there is nothing you can do about it, who knows what level games already have in a console...and now that device is also on your home network....at least on a PC I have a choice..console you get to do what they say you get to do, no other way about it.
 

OutOfPhase

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
4,860
But as I said, you don't need to have a kernel driver to own a system.
This is what I'd call out. While obviously root/kernel access is bad for a great many reasons - for all intents and purposes you can be "owned" without any admin level attack at all.

The files / data people use daily will almost never be admin-gated. It's their data or data they can easily access for their job, and if their account is compromised, all of the data is as well, to varying degrees, depending upon topology.

None of that requires administrative credentials.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,071
This is what I'd call out. While obviously root/kernel access is bad for a great many reasons - for all intents and purposes you can be "owned" without any admin level attack at all.

The files / data people use daily will almost never be admin-gated. It's their data or data they can easily access for their job, and if their account is compromised, all of the data is as well, to varying degrees, depending upon topology.

None of that requires administrative credentials.
We see a lot of malware these days that doesn't bother. It just owns the user account since on most systems, that does the trick and there are no issues with users noticing a request for admin access or anything.

That aside, unless people are judicious, getting admin is not hard. Most of the malware I've had to clean off systems in the last decade has been something the user has run. It didn't sneak in and run via some backdoor, the user ran it and if it got admin, it was because they clicked yes on the escalation box.

None of this is to say I want to see remote security holes opened, and ya, a poorly programmed kernel driver could be a hole for sure, but that this reaction is silly. The concern really should be about implementation, not that it uses a kernel driver.

A console is going to likely give games kernel level if they want it, cause there is nothing you can do about it, who knows what level games already have in a console...and now that device is also on your home network....at least on a PC I have a choice..console you get to do what they say you get to do, no other way about it.
Not on recent consoles. Games are heavily sandboxed. Consoles have very hardened OSes. The reason is anti-piracy and other DRM. They want NOTHING to have kernel access. To give a game kernel access is to give users a way to get it. They are tightly locked down platforms these days.
 

Wade88

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
502
PunkBuster
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield Hardline
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Doom 3
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R.: Perseus Mandate
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Far Cry 3
Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Need for Speed: Pro Street
Need for Speed: Undercover
Prey (2006)
Quake IV
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

Easy Anti-Cheat
Far Cry 5
For Honor
Gears 5
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
iRacing
Outriders
Tom Clancy's The Division 2
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
World War 3

BattlEye
The Crew 2
I'm pretty sure DICE has been using PunkBuster since about this time in 2002 when Battlefield 1942 came out.
 
D

Deleted member 89018

Guest
Someone like me probably wouldn’t flinch. But I absolutely get the backlash.

Serious question though, are there better ways to prevent hacking?

Allow customers to run their own servers, and the community accepts that there are:

1) servers where order is maintained by a dedicated team of volunteers who like the game, and where everyone is not jerks

2) servers where hax and griefing are rampant

But nooooooo, every game needs to have competitive ladder team based centrally managed matchmaker ai seasonal multiplayer modes.

Preventing hacking is just a cat and mouse game. This isn’t really about cheating anyways. It isn’t about giving players a good experience. It’s about revenue, and it’s just one piece of the “trying to squeeze as much as possible out of a game” puzzle.

Battlefield 2, for instance, still has a semi-active playerbase today (well, last time I checked was a year ago, but I’m just trying to use it as an example). Even though it’s 15 years old, even though official MP support ended in 2014 and one of the biggest unofficial methods stopped in 2017. It has legs. It’s practically legendary among some gamers.

But that doesn’t give EA a regular recurring revenue stream. So - centralize online play. Tie it in to services. Sell dlc and season passes. Lock it all to an account. Put anti-cheat software in to prevent piracy and anyone getting free stuff. Ban accounts so people can’t even play MP with other cheaters anymore, which makes other players think they do care (they don’t). And next year, release another game and do it all again.

That looks better to shareholders, and companies take the call of duty to them far more seriously than they do their customer base.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,754
A console is going to likely give games kernel level if they want it, cause there is nothing you can do about it, who knows what level games already have in a console...and now that device is also on your home network....at least on a PC I have a choice..console you get to do what they say you get to do, no other way about it.
I know. But first: it's not a Trojan hijacking the entire network... it's just a game system.

And more importantly, the point is that the "on PCs I have a choice!" is, frankly, a lie PC gamers tell themselves. You either accept the anti-cheat/anti-piracy/DRM you're not thrilled with or you shut yourself out of many major games. So, unless you stick to a relatively obscure set of titles, you're still dealing with intrusive code... just with the added complexity of a desktop OS.

PC gaming certainly has its advantages, but we shouldn't be under the illusion that it's a bastion of freedom if you intend to keep up with the gaming zeitgeist.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,248
It got leaked, I agree this is bad. But this will force them to change it enough that it cannot be hacked or made use of by nefarious 3rd parties. 3rd party government? They can already get into your stuff if they want, they don't need a video game to get in. Point: your information isn't safe just because you never play this video game.

The bigger issue here was the insider threat who leaked it. Someone on the inside with malicious intent can happen to any company.
 

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
10,981
It got leaked, I agree this is bad. But this will force them to change it enough that it cannot be hacked or made use of by nefarious 3rd parties. 3rd party government? They can already get into your stuff if they want, they don't need a video game to get in. Point: your information isn't safe just because you never play this video game.

The bigger issue here was the insider threat who leaked it. Someone on the inside with malicious intent can happen to any company.
Insider threat is always the biggest threat for any organization.
 

Wade88

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
502
You missed out 19 years ago then :). I was at Best Buy while my mom was buying toner or some crap for her office workers to use and per the usual I browsed the PC games. I saw the coolest box art and checked the system requirements, perhaps the best $39.99 I've ever spent.
 
Top