Client-side anti-cheat has always been a scam to offload server processing onto client machines.
This results in worse cheat detection and wastes client resources, but companies like EA can spend less on servers.
It also doesn't work. I know that's what the parent comment said, but it's a total scam at the company level too.
"Oh, server networking is hard to do right. Let's do it client side"
"Oh, people are cheating. Let's add anticheat"
Ensue 3 years of fixing network consistency bugs and playing whackamole with cheaters
I've developed games where the client is the source of truth, and games where it's the server. It is almost always better to do anything that will be developed for more than a few weeks serverside.
Also from an engineering perspective it makes LOADS more sense as you can apply patches to the servers instantly vs. requiring the users patch the game themselves.
Also, you can control the variables of the system it's running on.
Of course, it means when you fuck up, it affects everyone at once.
But with journaling file systems and kubernettes orchestration it's SO easy to revert changes with modern day Linux.
Oh, absolutely. I can't believe we deployed web apps on IIS for instance. What a shitshow that was. If you can run the important bits on something predictable like linux with all the serverside tools that gives you, why wouldn't you.
>client is the source of truth
>company doesn't like the clients truth
In the defence of client side AC; if the entire game runs on the server, then network delay makes FPS:es awful to play. Being able to trust clients and let them do hit detection is quite important in making online FPS:es responsive. In addition, cheats that remove walls/grass, highlight players or even autoaim are near impossible to detect server side. One could try to use heuristics and statistics but it would be difficult to tell the difference between cheaters and players who are just good at aiming and map awareness.
Client-side anti-cheat has always been a scam to offload server processing onto client machines.
This results in worse cheat detection and wastes client resources, but companies like EA can spend less on servers.
It also doesn't work. I know that's what the parent comment said, but it's a total scam at the company level too.
"Oh, server networking is hard to do right. Let's do it client side"
"Oh, people are cheating. Let's add anticheat"
I've developed games where the client is the source of truth, and games where it's the server. It is almost always better to do anything that will be developed for more than a few weeks serverside.
Also from an engineering perspective it makes LOADS more sense as you can apply patches to the servers instantly vs. requiring the users patch the game themselves.
Also, you can control the variables of the system it's running on.
Of course, it means when you fuck up, it affects everyone at once.
But with journaling file systems and kubernettes orchestration it's SO easy to revert changes with modern day Linux.
Oh, absolutely. I can't believe we deployed web apps on IIS for instance. What a shitshow that was. If you can run the important bits on something predictable like linux with all the serverside tools that gives you, why wouldn't you.
>client is the source of truth
>company doesn't like the clients truth
In the defence of client side AC; if the entire game runs on the server, then network delay makes FPS:es awful to play. Being able to trust clients and let them do hit detection is quite important in making online FPS:es responsive. In addition, cheats that remove walls/grass, highlight players or even autoaim are near impossible to detect server side. One could try to use heuristics and statistics but it would be difficult to tell the difference between cheaters and players who are just good at aiming and map awareness.