this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
613 points (99.2% liked)
Linux
10191 readers
651 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can keep your kernel-level shit off my CPU.
Spend money on servers. Verify your players. I don't care how you do it, but you don't get kernel-level access to my machine because some asshole script kiddies are aimbotting. You can never trust the client. This is basic shit that game devs will make up a whole host of bullshit to try to justify. (FWIW: I spent a solid decade as a professional game dev and I was as disappointed in this horseshit then as I am now. At least players are starting to figure it out now, too.)
"Never trust the client" renders entire genres of games inaccessible for a big corporation. But those genres have billions of dollars of potential profit in them. So they will go as far as they can to make the client almost trustable. The average player of a first-person shooter doesn't really think about the implications of kernel-level anticheat at all so it's not a hard choice for them. 95% of them are on windows after all and that already gives kenel access to their PC to some entity they really have no good reason to trust.
No it doesn't. It makes certain engine implementations inaccessible. You can make a game in any genre that doesn't require trusting the client.
Ultimately you either have basically google stadia (with all its technical problems) or you are trusting the client to render the game.
Even if the client only has exactly the absolute minimum amount of information needed to draw all the things that are visible, that still allows a cheat to see the player coordinates and the coordinates of visible entities, which usually makes eg. an aimbot trivial to make.