"We're still learning what is best for PC players"
Well PlayStation staff member, it definitely isn't having people create another account when they already have a Steam account.
Also gaming on a PC is 40 years old, what do they still have to learn?
How much less bullshit PC players are willing to put up with compared to their console counterparts, apparently.
Uhhhh, people install shit like Vanguard just so that they can keep having their mother insulted in the ingame chat.
And many people put up with cascades of different lauchers (and accounts).
So I am glad that there was some push back this time, but it's not like there would be some sane baseline of PC players in that regard.
Imagine doing this for all kinds of stuff like ads, over priced groceries, other games that required needless launchers.
Just surprising how this works so often and every time there are still people trying to convince everyone to just move on.
If people were capable of choosing long over short term value then the market might be working instead of the shitshow it is right now. IDGI either.
It's almost as if cheaters ruin hyper competitive games like Valorant. How dare they try to keep the game free from cheaters. The nerve!
I'd have a bit more symphaty if they at least tried to do the bare minimum before choosing the nuclear option.
Most notably, the PVE queues in LoL were infested with bots for years and you could tell them apart from real players before they even made their first move. Often times you'd be the only human player. If stuff like that wasn't caught, I have serious doubts about their previous efforts to catch "real" cheaters.
Also there could (and should?) be "simply" two launch options. One with "hardcore anti cheat" and one with some much simpler anti-cheat. Then a lobby option what you want to allow. You want to play competitive/league/whatever? Then require the hardcore anti-cheat. Otherwise: why bother.
Yup. At the very least, they shouldn't have made it a requirement for TFT. If it were possible to cheat there that'd be more of a game design problem anyway.
As someone who rehosts an old game after the official servers shutdown, we have a dedicated servers for cheating and real moderators for the non-cheat ones. It works great but big corps don't way to pay for mods.
I also wonder why big companies don't do it to train ML algorithms on the cheat server data too..
Besides that, statistics is an unbeatable tool against cheaters.
Agreed. For detecting cheaters, statistics work like a Dream
Only if you want to cap the skill limit. Otherwise you would typically have a hand full of players that are genuinely just good or rather far outside the normal skill range. I guess with a lot of data collection one might be able to determine if there was some kind of natual progress or sudden skill jumps, but all in all it could weed out legitimate players.
You can detect the hit ratio for shooters and win rates for games with matchmaking, those are really good indicators for cheating.
Honestly I'd rather have a cheater in my lobby than Riot Games deep into the sections of my PC they should never have accessed.
With that said, I do not play Valorant for this reason (and also because it would require me to dualboot since Vanguard cannot be ported on Linux, lol)
I'd be somewhat ok with Kernel anticheat if they would work, but the simple truth is that they do nothing of value. COD has Kernel anticheat with Riccochet and is flooded with cheaters. Valorant has only slightly less cause riot updates Vanguard more often.
But guess what, it usually takes 1-2 days for new cheats to reach the relevant forums, maybe a few days more until they are more widely aviable. At most cheaters have to spend another 5€ every 6 months, but that's it. They don't care, the amount of money spent on accounts every other month is already way higher.
The only two things anticheat like vanguard protects you from is script kiddies that google "valorant cheat .exe" and Linux only players. And the former could just as well be filtered out without Kernel level.
It's all a fucking smokescreen. Man, people just eat that shit up. Every time. It's almost like the game is saturated in satire and we're spooning it down ourselves.
Oh, wait. fuck.
"You guys actually want to play these things? Yeeesh."
They are used to playstation players who buy a console for twice the price it's worth through discord bots. I don't think they even know what a backlash is
Nowadays a console is just a locked down, less expensive pc. I think buying the components of a ps5 and assembling the pc is more expensive than just buying a console and liberating it, which is what I would do if I was to ever buy one.
which is why the steam deck was such a breath of fresh air, it's what consoles SHOULD be.
A computer built primarily for gaming, sold at a reasonable price, that merrily lets you switch to desktop mode and launch excel for some office work if you want to.
They are learning what level of bullshit PC gamers will tolerate.
Maybe a company that has (mostly) made consoles isn’t exactly playing games or has people on staff on the executive level that play(ed) on a PC. I’m 30 and outside of a brief time I tried to play on a PC I’ve pretty much been console my entire life. My first gaming experiences were all on console. It’s completely logical for a company to make a move like this when they have specialized in one area for a time.
Well PlayStation staff member, it definitely isn't having people create another account when they already have a Steam account.
Also gaming on a PC is 40 years old, what do they still have to learn?
How much less bullshit PC players are willing to put up with compared to their console counterparts, apparently.
Uhhhh, people install shit like Vanguard just so that they can keep having their mother insulted in the ingame chat.
And many people put up with cascades of different lauchers (and accounts).
So I am glad that there was some push back this time, but it's not like there would be some sane baseline of PC players in that regard.
Imagine doing this for all kinds of stuff like ads, over priced groceries, other games that required needless launchers.
Just surprising how this works so often and every time there are still people trying to convince everyone to just move on.
If people were capable of choosing long over short term value then the market might be working instead of the shitshow it is right now. IDGI either.
It's almost as if cheaters ruin hyper competitive games like Valorant. How dare they try to keep the game free from cheaters. The nerve!
I'd have a bit more symphaty if they at least tried to do the bare minimum before choosing the nuclear option.
Most notably, the PVE queues in LoL were infested with bots for years and you could tell them apart from real players before they even made their first move. Often times you'd be the only human player. If stuff like that wasn't caught, I have serious doubts about their previous efforts to catch "real" cheaters.
Also there could (and should?) be "simply" two launch options. One with "hardcore anti cheat" and one with some much simpler anti-cheat. Then a lobby option what you want to allow. You want to play competitive/league/whatever? Then require the hardcore anti-cheat. Otherwise: why bother.
Yup. At the very least, they shouldn't have made it a requirement for TFT. If it were possible to cheat there that'd be more of a game design problem anyway.
As someone who rehosts an old game after the official servers shutdown, we have a dedicated servers for cheating and real moderators for the non-cheat ones. It works great but big corps don't way to pay for mods.
I also wonder why big companies don't do it to train ML algorithms on the cheat server data too..
Besides that, statistics is an unbeatable tool against cheaters.
Agreed. For detecting cheaters, statistics work like a Dream
Only if you want to cap the skill limit. Otherwise you would typically have a hand full of players that are genuinely just good or rather far outside the normal skill range. I guess with a lot of data collection one might be able to determine if there was some kind of natual progress or sudden skill jumps, but all in all it could weed out legitimate players.
You can detect the hit ratio for shooters and win rates for games with matchmaking, those are really good indicators for cheating.
Honestly I'd rather have a cheater in my lobby than Riot Games deep into the sections of my PC they should never have accessed.
With that said, I do not play Valorant for this reason (and also because it would require me to dualboot since Vanguard cannot be ported on Linux, lol)
I'd be somewhat ok with Kernel anticheat if they would work, but the simple truth is that they do nothing of value. COD has Kernel anticheat with Riccochet and is flooded with cheaters. Valorant has only slightly less cause riot updates Vanguard more often.
But guess what, it usually takes 1-2 days for new cheats to reach the relevant forums, maybe a few days more until they are more widely aviable. At most cheaters have to spend another 5€ every 6 months, but that's it. They don't care, the amount of money spent on accounts every other month is already way higher.
The only two things anticheat like vanguard protects you from is script kiddies that google "valorant cheat .exe" and Linux only players. And the former could just as well be filtered out without Kernel level.
It's all a fucking smokescreen. Man, people just eat that shit up. Every time. It's almost like the game is saturated in satire and we're spooning it down ourselves.
Oh, wait. fuck.
"You guys actually want to play these things? Yeeesh."
They are used to playstation players who buy a console for twice the price it's worth through discord bots. I don't think they even know what a backlash is
Nowadays a console is just a locked down, less expensive pc. I think buying the components of a ps5 and assembling the pc is more expensive than just buying a console and liberating it, which is what I would do if I was to ever buy one.
which is why the steam deck was such a breath of fresh air, it's what consoles SHOULD be.
A computer built primarily for gaming, sold at a reasonable price, that merrily lets you switch to desktop mode and launch excel for some office work if you want to.
They are learning what level of bullshit PC gamers will tolerate.
Maybe a company that has (mostly) made consoles isn’t exactly playing games or has people on staff on the executive level that play(ed) on a PC. I’m 30 and outside of a brief time I tried to play on a PC I’ve pretty much been console my entire life. My first gaming experiences were all on console. It’s completely logical for a company to make a move like this when they have specialized in one area for a time.
It's called market research.