The 'console experience' for who? Microsoft themselves, with their adaptive controller, should understand that sometimes people have to use the controller that works for them. I understand a pop...
Eventually, the unauthorized accessory will be blocked from use to preserve the console gaming experience.
The 'console experience' for who? Microsoft themselves, with their adaptive controller, should understand that sometimes people have to use the controller that works for them.
I understand a pop up letting you know your controller is unofficial, there's a lot of fakes out there and such, but blocking those devices? Either admit this is a move to block XIM style devices, which do hurt the gaming experience of other players, or just admit that it's about money. The PR speak for 'you don't own the thing you bought' is hilarious.
I'd bet money it is probably to do with XIM/Cronus devices, which are a scourge in many games. I wish they'd just say so if that was the case, this just seems like a stupid move otherwise.
I'd bet money it is probably to do with XIM/Cronus devices, which are a scourge in many games. I wish they'd just say so if that was the case, this just seems like a stupid move otherwise.
I vaguely remember last year(?) that someone had done something that they could detect the XIM/Cronus device that would flag the player as a cheater. I think it was Activision for the last COD...
I vaguely remember last year(?) that someone had done something that they could detect the XIM/Cronus device that would flag the player as a cheater. I think it was Activision for the last COD game for both the PlayStation and the Xbox. But like you had said that if it was the case then why not just announce that this is to combat that issue that has been around for ages now.
I believe Rainbow Six Siege added an input delay that would stack every time they detected you were using one. Let me see if I can find a source... Edit: Here it is. They called it Mousetrap which...
I believe Rainbow Six Siege added an input delay that would stack every time they detected you were using one.
Let me see if I can find a source...
Edit: Here it is. They called it Mousetrap which is kind of a sick name
That is interesting that Ubisoft had deployed that detection for Siege and that it did see a decrease of people using it. And I was right in my vague recollection of Activision deploying something...
That is interesting that Ubisoft had deployed that detection for Siege and that it did see a decrease of people using it. And I was right in my vague recollection of Activision deploying something similar called Ricochet. But that was released this year for COD and for Warzone after Ubisoft had done so. And I think it was in a (well one of two) large update with other anti-cheat features, which the YouTuber JackFrags covered in this video and this one (I don't remember which one that has the XIM detection). Both are interesting to watch even if you have no interest in COD, like myself.
There's been a few devs/publishers who have claimed they have ways to detect people using XIM/Cronus devices, but my worry is it will also block people from using accessibility devices.
There's been a few devs/publishers who have claimed they have ways to detect people using XIM/Cronus devices, but my worry is it will also block people from using accessibility devices.
Acessibility is incredibly important, but accessibility devices that can give an unfair advantage to non-disabled persons shouldn't be allowed in a competitive game. These Xim/Cronus detection...
Acessibility is incredibly important, but accessibility devices that can give an unfair advantage to non-disabled persons shouldn't be allowed in a competitive game.
These Xim/Cronus detection methods likely revolve around detecting movements that are impossible with a real joystick but easy with a mouse, so I wouldn't worry about many actual accessibility oriented devices triggering them.
They're clearly handling this poorly. The obvious solution, at least to me, would be to let developers choose whether unofficial accessories are allowed in their game. This would let fighting...
They're clearly handling this poorly. The obvious solution, at least to me, would be to let developers choose whether unofficial accessories are allowed in their game. This would let fighting games keep doing their thing while letting shooters actually deal with XIM players.
The article goes over that, and they probably won't be blocking XIM devices because for one thing, they do have legitimate accessibility uses, and for another, they can't really detect them. The...
The article goes over that, and they probably won't be blocking XIM devices because for one thing, they do have legitimate accessibility uses, and for another, they can't really detect them.
The author also speculates that this is related to MS expanding wireless capability licensing on authorized third-party devices. I am not convinced.
Stuff like this is a big part of why I moved to PC gaming years ago.
Trusted computing is such anti-consumer bullcrap. It's why I'm never buying another console. I hate how this crap is sneaking into other devices as well. Newer android phones let apps block...
Trusted computing is such anti-consumer bullcrap. It's why I'm never buying another console.
I hate how this crap is sneaking into other devices as well. Newer android phones let apps block screenshotting functions. This is immensely annoying, and is an ultimte signal to me that 'this is not your device'.
It's all "in the name of security," like mandatory non-downgradeable bootloader updates. Security for whom, I ask?
Certainly not me, whom does not wish to be in the cage.
Having worked at Android during some of those anti-rollback firmware updates, it’s for the user. Do you want a phone with critical vulnerabilities that allow for cross-process information leaks?...
It's all "in the name of security," like mandatory non-downgradeable bootloader updates. Security for whom, I ask?
Having worked at Android during some of those anti-rollback firmware updates, it’s for the user. Do you want a phone with critical vulnerabilities that allow for cross-process information leaks?
I’m not completely on Google’s side. But the anti-rollback feature is not anti-consumer yet. Maybe one day it’ll be abused to stop adblockers but so far it’s used appropriately.
Ultimately, I'd like to think I could have a device that it wouldn't matter if there was cross-process information leaks because there isn't any executable code running that I didn't trust/install...
Ultimately, I'd like to think I could have a device that it wouldn't matter if there was cross-process information leaks because there isn't any executable code running that I didn't trust/install myself.
And yes I realize that ship has sailed and I'm in an insignificant minority that misses the Javascript-free web.
The problem is that the vast majority of people do not have the same digital hygiene, or even "good" digital hygiene. And taking a "let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity"...
Ultimately, I'd like to think I could have a device that it wouldn't matter if there was cross-process information leaks because there isn't any executable code running that I didn't trust/install myself.
The problem is that the vast majority of people do not have the same digital hygiene, or even "good" digital hygiene. And taking a "let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity" approach can lead to widespread collateral damage (i.e. a journalist's phone getting hacked and leaking the identity of a whistleblower)
That sounds like you don’t want to run Android at all. The OS was designed specifically to allow users to safely run code from a variety of 3rd party developers. It doesn’t always make good on...
That sounds like you don’t want to run Android at all. The OS was designed specifically to allow users to safely run code from a variety of 3rd party developers. It doesn’t always make good on that promise, but what I’m saying is it’s an OS for the 21st century Wild West world of rapid fire application downloads.
Pixel 3 has been the best iteration of the line still. 6 has been an absolute horrible buggy mess for myself and my brother. I've been considering trying the new one, but honestly downgrading...
Pixel 3 has been the best iteration of the line still. 6 has been an absolute horrible buggy mess for myself and my brother.
I've been considering trying the new one, but honestly downgrading might be better
I recently downgraded from my 6a to a Moto G7 Power, and I'm very satisfied. It hasn't had a security update in a bit, but once that starts to concern me (read: it should, but won't), I can always...
I recently downgraded from my 6a to a Moto G7 Power, and I'm very satisfied. It hasn't had a security update in a bit, but once that starts to concern me (read: it should, but won't), I can always put another OS on it. I never thought that I'd slowly turn into a Luddite, and maybe it's just something that happens in your thirties, but fuck all the downsides of this modern technological shit-show, of which there are a ton.
I really like the hilarious message of "...unauthorized accessories compromises your gaming experience. For this reason..." further highlighting that you don't own the hw you "bought". It may or...
I really like the hilarious message of "...unauthorized accessories compromises your gaming experience. For this reason..." further highlighting that you don't own the hw you "bought". It may or it may not, it is(possibly) my problem, not MS one.
Showing a one time message or possibly blocking them in multiplayer may have been reasonable or at least there could be arguments for it. Just flatly blocking them simply further highlights that despite any possible short term convenience or savings on the up-front "purchase", closed platforms are ultimately a losing proposition for the end user.
Again doing this in multiplayer only may have been justified by the cheater argument(possibly, still not great).
Edit: And personally I would bet against this actually affecting multiplayer cheaters who will just spoof some legitimate device. It will likely disproportionately affect legitimate uses.
Trusted computing is something I’ll always have a difficult issue with. On the one hand, yes, there is the noted loss in personal control over your device, and all of the nasty privacy issues that...
Trusted computing is something I’ll always have a difficult issue with.
On the one hand, yes, there is the noted loss in personal control over your device, and all of the nasty privacy issues that others, like rms, can explain in detail.
On the other hand, do I want a comprehensive technical solution that prevents cheating in competitive multiplayer games, and is some form of trusted computing environment the best way to achieve this? God, yes. Cheating is a multi-million dollar industry at this point.
The ideal would be a restricted environment just for multiplayer games. Is that plausible, who knows.
Problem is, this is a console wide solution for a game specific problem. Xbox should have a switch that devs can toggle to "forceTrustedDevice" which will show that pop up when playing a game with...
do I want a comprehensive technical solution that prevents cheating in competitive multiplayer games
Problem is, this is a console wide solution for a game specific problem. Xbox should have a switch that devs can toggle to "forceTrustedDevice" which will show that pop up when playing a game with a ranked component or something but I should be able to use whatever I want, third party controller, banana, etc to play a single player game.
And plenty of other solutions work well without requiring to 'trust' the client. Namely, shadowbanning. You shunt all the cheaters together and pop some popcorn. You get the analyze how the cheats...
And plenty of other solutions work well without requiring to 'trust' the client.
Namely, shadowbanning. You shunt all the cheaters together and pop some popcorn. You get the analyze how the cheats evolve and get to see new ones pop up.
Shadow banning is hardly a preventative measure. It helps you keep the herd a bit thinner, but is a tiny weapon in their arsenal. CoD’s current main technique is a kernel level anticheat, their...
Shadow banning is hardly a preventative measure. It helps you keep the herd a bit thinner, but is a tiny weapon in their arsenal. CoD’s current main technique is a kernel level anticheat, their attempt at ensuring a trusted environment (hell, other kernel level ACs block drivers if they’re insecure, or require TPM to be enabled).
That's the thing, I don't believe in preventative measures. The great thing about matchmaking is they will float up to other cheaters or people who are good enough they don't care if the others...
That's the thing, I don't believe in preventative measures.
The great thing about matchmaking is they will float up to other cheaters or people who are good enough they don't care if the others cheat. Or they will be banned.
The only way its a problem if there is money on the line, and tbh that's an easy enough problem to solve.
Edit: Another tactic I like is the idea of injecting a fake invisible player slightly off-center of the screen on suspected cheaters. If they snap to it instantly, instaban.
It's great you don't believe in preventative measures, but given every single anti-cheat vendor on the planet has opted to go this way, I choose to believe that they have some idea of why they've...
That's the thing, I don't believe in preventative measures.
It's great you don't believe in preventative measures, but given every single anti-cheat vendor on the planet has opted to go this way, I choose to believe that they have some idea of why they've done so.
The great thing about matchmaking is they will float up to other cheaters
So, set an unbounded rating cap and hope that cheaters are good enough to float to a theoretically unreachable level? So, systems like VALORANT's Radiant, CS2's leaderboard, or Dota 2's MMR leaderboard (which has actively been used as a scouting mechanism for professional players) are just, off the table?
This is also naive to the type of cheating. Not everyone is spinbotting. People with wallhacks or radar hacks might not necessarily be good enough to reach high levels, because their mechanics are so bad.
Also, matchmaking algorithms have to manage matching players with match times. If you're, say at, rank 40, but only the cheaters at rank 1 to 5 are on, you're going to be matched against cheaters.
people who are good enough they don't care if the others cheat
This is a joke, right? "You'll be against cheaters that are impossible to kill because they can wallbang you before you see them, but that's fine ecause you're good".
The only way its a problem if there is money on the line, and tbh that's an easy enough problem to solve.
Outside of LAN events, you solve this with intrusive anti-cheats.
Another tactic I like is the idea of injecting a fake invisible player slightly off-center of the screen on suspected cheaters. If they snap to it instantly, instaban.
I didn't say it was a new idea, just one I liked. Yea, I am pretty much saying that public leaderboards are pointless and people ascribe them too much value. My implication with "money on the...
I didn't say it was a new idea, just one I liked.
So, systems like VALORANT's Radiant, CS2's leaderboard, or Dota 2's MMR leaderboard (which has actively been used as a scouting mechanism for professional players) are just, off the table?
Yea, I am pretty much saying that public leaderboards are pointless and people ascribe them too much value. My implication with "money on the line" is that we take the money off the table and let games be games again. But you also just you know....ban the cheats. It's not that hard to sus out what humans are and aren't capable of. And yes, an unbounded cap would basically be full of unkillable cheaters at the top(because if you can't die your MMR never goes down) and maybe one actual superhuman person who figured out how to beat them. So you just lop the top off the pyramid with shadowbans and hard bans.
Pro circuits looking for esports can do it the old-fashioned way: In-person tourney with company-provided hardware for qualifiers.
Let's make it clear. You think they are pointless. Leaderboards of many kinds have been used to scout people, who are interested in playing the game competitively. I think they contain a decent...
Yea, I am pretty much saying that public leaderboards are pointless and people ascribe them too much value.
Let's make it clear. You think they are pointless. Leaderboards of many kinds have been used to scout people, who are interested in playing the game competitively. I think they contain a decent amount of value.
But fine, we can get rid of them.
My implication with "money on the line" is that we take the money off the table and let games be games again.
... it is perfectly possible for both to co-exist. I absolutely want competitive gaming to continue being a thing, as it has for... the past 20 years? There are equally plenty of non-competitive games, if that's your vibe.
But you also just you know....ban the cheats. It's not that hard to sus out what humans are and aren't capable of.
Yes, because we have completely solved this problem. This is why game makers have stopped trying with their anti-cheat, the problem is already solved!
(I mean, seriously, practically every vendor on the planet is beefing up their anti-cheat solution, because it turns out, this is a hard problem.)
an unbounded cap would basically be full of unkillable cheaters at the top
Good, we've dealt with the obvious aim hackers (in theory, only). Wallhacks/radar hacks, what about those?
(EDIT: before anyone points it out, you can do stuff like Riot's Fog of War to limit the impact significantly, but these can provide advantages. Additionally, my point is - there is a wide range of cheats that aren't just "360" aimbots, such as minor aim correction. You need to deal with all of them)
Pro circuits looking for esports can do it the old-fashioned way: In-person tourney with company-provided hardware for qualifiers.
Yes, but we still need qualifiers to determine what teams should be there. If you want there to be physical LANs for the qualifiers, in every geographical location (or make players fly in), you will bankrupt esports even more than it already is.
The 'console experience' for who? Microsoft themselves, with their adaptive controller, should understand that sometimes people have to use the controller that works for them.
I understand a pop up letting you know your controller is unofficial, there's a lot of fakes out there and such, but blocking those devices? Either admit this is a move to block XIM style devices, which do hurt the gaming experience of other players, or just admit that it's about money. The PR speak for 'you don't own the thing you bought' is hilarious.
I'd bet money it is probably to do with XIM/Cronus devices, which are a scourge in many games. I wish they'd just say so if that was the case, this just seems like a stupid move otherwise.
I vaguely remember last year(?) that someone had done something that they could detect the XIM/Cronus device that would flag the player as a cheater. I think it was Activision for the last COD game for both the PlayStation and the Xbox. But like you had said that if it was the case then why not just announce that this is to combat that issue that has been around for ages now.
I believe Rainbow Six Siege added an input delay that would stack every time they detected you were using one.
Let me see if I can find a source...
Edit: Here it is. They called it Mousetrap which is kind of a sick name
Edit 2 It seems to have been really effective, too. I only ever played on PC so I was never affected by this, but I stopped playing entirely about two years ago.
That is interesting that Ubisoft had deployed that detection for Siege and that it did see a decrease of people using it. And I was right in my vague recollection of Activision deploying something similar called Ricochet. But that was released this year for COD and for Warzone after Ubisoft had done so. And I think it was in a (well one of two) large update with other anti-cheat features, which the YouTuber JackFrags covered in this video and this one (I don't remember which one that has the XIM detection). Both are interesting to watch even if you have no interest in COD, like myself.
I used to play Paladins a lot, with the crossplay I figure a lot of the suspicious deaths I had were due to similar cheating devices.
There's been a few devs/publishers who have claimed they have ways to detect people using XIM/Cronus devices, but my worry is it will also block people from using accessibility devices.
Acessibility is incredibly important, but accessibility devices that can give an unfair advantage to non-disabled persons shouldn't be allowed in a competitive game.
These Xim/Cronus detection methods likely revolve around detecting movements that are impossible with a real joystick but easy with a mouse, so I wouldn't worry about many actual accessibility oriented devices triggering them.
They're clearly handling this poorly. The obvious solution, at least to me, would be to let developers choose whether unofficial accessories are allowed in their game. This would let fighting games keep doing their thing while letting shooters actually deal with XIM players.
The article goes over that, and they probably won't be blocking XIM devices because for one thing, they do have legitimate accessibility uses, and for another, they can't really detect them.
The author also speculates that this is related to MS expanding wireless capability licensing on authorized third-party devices. I am not convinced.
Stuff like this is a big part of why I moved to PC gaming years ago.
Trusted computing is such anti-consumer bullcrap. It's why I'm never buying another console.
I hate how this crap is sneaking into other devices as well. Newer android phones let apps block screenshotting functions. This is immensely annoying, and is an ultimte signal to me that 'this is not your device'.
It's all "in the name of security," like mandatory non-downgradeable bootloader updates. Security for whom, I ask?
Certainly not me, whom does not wish to be in the cage.
Having worked at Android during some of those anti-rollback firmware updates, it’s for the user. Do you want a phone with critical vulnerabilities that allow for cross-process information leaks?
I’m not completely on Google’s side. But the anti-rollback feature is not anti-consumer yet. Maybe one day it’ll be abused to stop adblockers but so far it’s used appropriately.
Ultimately, I'd like to think I could have a device that it wouldn't matter if there was cross-process information leaks because there isn't any executable code running that I didn't trust/install myself.
And yes I realize that ship has sailed and I'm in an insignificant minority that misses the Javascript-free web.
The problem is that the vast majority of people do not have the same digital hygiene, or even "good" digital hygiene. And taking a "let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity" approach can lead to widespread collateral damage (i.e. a journalist's phone getting hacked and leaking the identity of a whistleblower)
That sounds like you don’t want to run Android at all. The OS was designed specifically to allow users to safely run code from a variety of 3rd party developers. It doesn’t always make good on that promise, but what I’m saying is it’s an OS for the 21st century Wild West world of rapid fire application downloads.
Oh I know, I was mostly being snarky.
And yea, if not for work I'd just have a dumbphone and a data SIM in a 2in1 running Linux.
Nitpick: by any reasonable definition of new, this is not new: screenshot blocking has been a feature for years, at least since ICS
Was rocking a Pixel 3 until recently, and frankly might go back. There's no tangible improvement to the experience of new phones, only downsides.
Pixel 3 has been the best iteration of the line still. 6 has been an absolute horrible buggy mess for myself and my brother.
I've been considering trying the new one, but honestly downgrading might be better
My wife has a 5, which has been the closest so far to the 3.
I recently downgraded from my 6a to a Moto G7 Power, and I'm very satisfied. It hasn't had a security update in a bit, but once that starts to concern me (read: it should, but won't), I can always put another OS on it. I never thought that I'd slowly turn into a Luddite, and maybe it's just something that happens in your thirties, but fuck all the downsides of this modern technological shit-show, of which there are a ton.
Mandate unlockable bootloaders and source code disclosure to customers. It's the only way.
I really like the hilarious message of "...unauthorized accessories compromises your gaming experience. For this reason..." further highlighting that you don't own the hw you "bought". It may or it may not, it is(possibly) my problem, not MS one.
Showing a one time message or possibly blocking them in multiplayer may have been reasonable or at least there could be arguments for it. Just flatly blocking them simply further highlights that despite any possible short term convenience or savings on the up-front "purchase", closed platforms are ultimately a losing proposition for the end user.
Again doing this in multiplayer only may have been justified by the cheater argument(possibly, still not great).
Edit: And personally I would bet against this actually affecting multiplayer cheaters who will just spoof some legitimate device. It will likely disproportionately affect legitimate uses.
Trusted computing is something I’ll always have a difficult issue with.
On the one hand, yes, there is the noted loss in personal control over your device, and all of the nasty privacy issues that others, like rms, can explain in detail.
On the other hand, do I want a comprehensive technical solution that prevents cheating in competitive multiplayer games, and is some form of trusted computing environment the best way to achieve this? God, yes. Cheating is a multi-million dollar industry at this point.
The ideal would be a restricted environment just for multiplayer games. Is that plausible, who knows.
Problem is, this is a console wide solution for a game specific problem. Xbox should have a switch that devs can toggle to "forceTrustedDevice" which will show that pop up when playing a game with a ranked component or something but I should be able to use whatever I want, third party controller, banana, etc to play a single player game.
And plenty of other solutions work well without requiring to 'trust' the client.
Namely, shadowbanning. You shunt all the cheaters together and pop some popcorn. You get the analyze how the cheats evolve and get to see new ones pop up.
Shadow banning is hardly a preventative measure. It helps you keep the herd a bit thinner, but is a tiny weapon in their arsenal. CoD’s current main technique is a kernel level anticheat, their attempt at ensuring a trusted environment (hell, other kernel level ACs block drivers if they’re insecure, or require TPM to be enabled).
That's the thing, I don't believe in preventative measures.
The great thing about matchmaking is they will float up to other cheaters or people who are good enough they don't care if the others cheat. Or they will be banned.
The only way its a problem if there is money on the line, and tbh that's an easy enough problem to solve.
Edit: Another tactic I like is the idea of injecting a fake invisible player slightly off-center of the screen on suspected cheaters. If they snap to it instantly, instaban.
It's great you don't believe in preventative measures, but given every single anti-cheat vendor on the planet has opted to go this way, I choose to believe that they have some idea of why they've done so.
(A great read on kernel level drivers: https://secret.club/2020/04/17/kernel-anticheats.html).
So, set an unbounded rating cap and hope that cheaters are good enough to float to a theoretically unreachable level? So, systems like VALORANT's Radiant, CS2's leaderboard, or Dota 2's MMR leaderboard (which has actively been used as a scouting mechanism for professional players) are just, off the table?
This is also naive to the type of cheating. Not everyone is spinbotting. People with wallhacks or radar hacks might not necessarily be good enough to reach high levels, because their mechanics are so bad.
Also, matchmaking algorithms have to manage matching players with match times. If you're, say at, rank 40, but only the cheaters at rank 1 to 5 are on, you're going to be matched against cheaters.
This is a joke, right? "You'll be against cheaters that are impossible to kill because they can wallbang you before you see them, but that's fine ecause you're good".
Outside of LAN events, you solve this with intrusive anti-cheats.
You're about 14 years too late for that idea.
I didn't say it was a new idea, just one I liked.
Yea, I am pretty much saying that public leaderboards are pointless and people ascribe them too much value. My implication with "money on the line" is that we take the money off the table and let games be games again. But you also just you know....ban the cheats. It's not that hard to sus out what humans are and aren't capable of. And yes, an unbounded cap would basically be full of unkillable cheaters at the top(because if you can't die your MMR never goes down) and maybe one actual superhuman person who figured out how to beat them. So you just lop the top off the pyramid with shadowbans and hard bans.
Pro circuits looking for esports can do it the old-fashioned way: In-person tourney with company-provided hardware for qualifiers.
Let's make it clear. You think they are pointless. Leaderboards of many kinds have been used to scout people, who are interested in playing the game competitively. I think they contain a decent amount of value.
But fine, we can get rid of them.
... it is perfectly possible for both to co-exist. I absolutely want competitive gaming to continue being a thing, as it has for... the past 20 years? There are equally plenty of non-competitive games, if that's your vibe.
Yes, because we have completely solved this problem. This is why game makers have stopped trying with their anti-cheat, the problem is already solved!
(I mean, seriously, practically every vendor on the planet is beefing up their anti-cheat solution, because it turns out, this is a hard problem.)
Good, we've dealt with the obvious aim hackers (in theory, only). Wallhacks/radar hacks, what about those?
(EDIT: before anyone points it out, you can do stuff like Riot's Fog of War to limit the impact significantly, but these can provide advantages. Additionally, my point is - there is a wide range of cheats that aren't just "360" aimbots, such as minor aim correction. You need to deal with all of them)
Yes, but we still need qualifiers to determine what teams should be there. If you want there to be physical LANs for the qualifiers, in every geographical location (or make players fly in), you will bankrupt esports even more than it already is.