Looking at the Steam store page of this game doesn’t make me want to play this at all. This is just a gut reaction and I don’t know why I feel like this, and I don’t want to spend the time to try and figure it out. But there must be something wrong with the game or the presentation of it.

Well yeah, the question is, why didn’t you hear of it. It might certainly be that the game or type of game has something to do with it, not only the marketing. It’s kinda hard to know from the outside.

It’s really really good, you’ll like it :)

-f "[height=1080]"

Of course it’s worth it, there’s no question about it. Depending on the case it might probably be worth it if Steam took 95%.

For me, the question remains if 20% were “enough” for Steam and still make a shitload of money, or even 10%. Of course we can’t know but it seems likely.

I see this is a Vulkan API update. This means game developers need to take advantage of it before it is of any benefit, correct? Or can one use the benefit of this somehow themselves?

Then program some inconsistency into the aimbot. it’ll still win against everyone most of the time, still being a problem.

Manual review is always possible, but this requires a lot of people. And if someone really looks at the best players, they seem like an aimbot all the time.

Client-side scanning forces hackers to run the input through hardware, which increases the level of entry and investment necessary to start cheating. Of course everything is always avoidable, but it’s about reducing the amount of cheaters by detecting the lazy/stupid people. If you just don’t client-side scan at all, there will be a lot lot lot more cheaters. It’s about reducing the volume so much that the amount is not that bad anymore and can better be dealt with manually.

It’s about forcing cheat developers to spend time/money finding new ways to hide, reducing the value of trying to create cheats.

Of course there are privacy and security concerns. But client side detection in a limited manner does make sense.

It does matter though. If you program the aimbot to act as if they were the best human, the aimbot is still going to beat everyone else, same as if it was behaving unrealistically superhuman. But you can’t simply ban the best human from your game.

There’s so many amazing games on Linux that you’ll never have the time to play all of them in your lifetime. So I’m not sure how this is bad news, just means less choice paralysis?

How do you suppose to block an aimbot on the server side?

Server side anticheat is mostly implemented in all popular games. An aimbot however can’t be detected on the server side, it could just be a user moving their mouse perfectly. There’s lots of client cheats like that, which is why clientside detection still makes sense.

Yeah I’m pretty sure people are just starting to use controllers for the controllers’ usecases. A lot of people (including me) played stuff like space simulators with mouse+keyboard, which are obviously not the right tool for the job.

Just leaving this here to fuck Fandom: https://getindie.wiki/

Wait no, this doesn’t make sense. Other games easily ban their own players from Steam. For easily available example, Rust.

I feel Blizzard should’ve been that already, but it seems like they’re still going strong after quite a bunch of really bad moves.

They’ve learned something. They learned that they can be as shitty as they want to be, and still the modders will bail them out. I trust this move now will also change nothing in that regard.

Is it only ironic to me that it’s hosted on GitHub? :D

lol, rofl, lmao even

I don’t think they “are to blame” (i.e. main reason), but as you say, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like they were definitely part of the reason.

You’re funny