45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2026
45 points (92.5% liked)
PC Master Race
22653 readers
231 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not convinced it's entirely theater. But it's a large portion for sure. Just look at how much branding they gave it, they want you to know about it.
The thing I'm curious about is whether or not they feel stuck with it. Like they spent all the money making it and would look TERRIBLE to turn around and remove it or even just not use it on new stuff. How much pushback would it take to get it removed? I don't think it'll happen anytime soon but I would love to hear some of the all too revealing details like with 2xko.
In a lot of ways, it's the lazy way out because they can just shell out to a vendor like BattleEye. Even with in-house solutions like Riot and EA use, they can be developed by separate teams who don't really need to have any knowledge of how the game actually works.
It's largely all the same syscalls and access patterns they're looking for. Process injections work the same no matter what the game is.
Kernel-level access is also in some ways the lazier way to implement it because instead of having an arms race with the cheat developers trying new ways to detect and avoid each other respectively, they just force their anti-cheat module as low in the stack as possible. It's just also, you know, indistinguishable from a Trojan at that point.