- #Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen driver
- #Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen software
- #Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen windows
Because in the end we'll just end up fucked. It's just like DRM discussion, we have the right to voice our opinion without having to be told "if you don't like it, don't watch this content".
Hell, you could introduce different AC levels, or tighten up the AC for higher faceit levels, I don't know. Forcing me to disable Hyper-V, making my computer really more annoying to use, is where I say "I don't care if run into slightly more cheaters, I don't want to nerf my computer". But we all have different conceptions of where we draw the line.
#Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen driver
I think that a lot of us tolerate a kernel mode driver for AC says a lot about cheating (think about how much control you're giving faceit over your computer, especially for a auto updated piece of software). No, but we can have a discussion about this. I believe there are many players who value AC quality more than privacy, and it is wrong to impose your own beliefs on others. But I also want to use the most powerful PC in my house - not an underpowered laptop on a kitchen table - for work. I love the concept of anticheats, hate cheaters. Simply stopping the active VMs (wsl -kill or smth.) isn't enough, which means you need to spend 5 mins reinstalling or change bios settings each time if you want to play faceit.
#Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen software
I can see how running the game and AC inside a VM could help you bypass (cos you can then reach in to the "hardware" more easily, reading memory locations from the "hardware" without detection) but I'm not sure how banning host VM software like hyper-v outright would help prevent it, as I would have thought that if you're running the game inside the VM you wouldn't see the hyper-v service running from inside the VM anyway - it runs on the host, and the guest is isolated from the host by design.Īlso weird is that both anti cheats kick - thankfully not ban - for the feature even being enabled. The Devs there just dismissed the concerns out of hand ( ). I ran into the same problem with BattlEye and Escape from Tarkov when I was playing that regularly too - apparently VMs are a really common way to try and bypass anticheat measures, though I don't fully understand how. I assume when I play my next few games I'll have to do the same :( A friend who I'm working with just reported the same problem - we're using WSL2 for our systems that we're building (rails and Golang, and elasticsearch) which uses hyper-v under the hood, and he had to disable it to play faceit. As long as gamers have physical access to their systems and consoles, they will be able to find ways around anti-cheat via kernel patches, hardware spoofing, registry entries, custom applications, etc. The only people affected are those that don't cheat.
It implies that you know better than the OS developers what should/shouldn't be turned on. And Anti-Cheat that is either reaching into the OS kernel (giving it access to block hardware if it wants) or demanding that OS features be turned off is overstepping their bounds.
#Faceit anti cheat makes pc blue screen windows
If you want users to only use their system for the games your software protects, then build a console.ĭon't expect average users to put of with deep windows settings they never touch and don't expect those of us in the tech field to put of with having to disable our development tools just to play a game (or on a server) that is protected by your software. HyperV on Windows, Flatpak and Snap on Linux-based system, etc.
Most Desktop OSes or software packaging tools are building in ways to isolate Desktop applications from the host system. What happens if/when Microsoft puts a critical component in a sandbox to protect it (or the OS) and you want users to disable an OS feature that is required by the OS. Old topic, I know, but HyperV is also used to Sandbox non-virtualized applications.
0 kommentar(er)
