EA posted a job listing seeking an engineer to port its Javelin Anticheat, a kernel-level anticheat solution, to the Windows-on-Arm (WoA) platform. This is a significant indicator of where the industry is headed, confirming that the biggest game developers are officially porting their game engines, ...
Hey, EA, can you like, invest in making something worth defending with anti-cheat before you start investing in anti-cheat?
While we’re here, why would anyone buy a windows-on-arm device? Windows RT should have taught them this lesson that nobody fucking wants windows outside of the begrudging desktop, which is a result of the msofficification of the school education programs, which has since run its course.
I just don’t understand consumer computing it would seem.
What you don’t understand is that the average consumer just does not give a fuck. The ethics of their purchasing decisions are invisible to them and they can’t understand how their decisions leave an impact. This is true everywhere, but it is especially true of gamers. They will buy your slop year after year after year with no qualms.
While we’re here, why would anyone buy a windows-on-arm device? Windows RT should have taught them this lesson that nobody fucking wants windows outside of the begrudging desktop
I think you’re taking the wrong message from this. I don’t think the author intended you to read the article and think that EA is targeting low compute ARM netbooks, I think the author intended you to come away thinking that major AAA devs are actively preparing for a landscape in which x86 is no longer the dominate desktop processor architecture/instruction set.
Regardless of how you feel about the company, Macs running Apple processors using the ARM instruction set are proof positive that ARM based cpus can replace x86 in compute scenarios higher than netbooks.
Unless you’re specifically referring to the Windows bit of it, in which case I agree.
SERVER-SIDE ANTI-CHEATS! SERVER-SIDE ANTI-CHEATS! Most cheaters are blatant, and even in a game with very limited samples (Minecraft Java Edition), there’s an anti-cheat that has made blatant cheating almost impossible (Polar). They just want client-side anti-cheats for power over you.
Cheat in single player all you like, but people who cheat in multiplayer are bad people and should feel bad about their choices. have been beaten more as children.
You can’t sell an online, multiplayer, competitive game experience, with the golden goose of in-game-purchases, if the game is dominated by cheaters. The players will find something else to play.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Hey, EA, can you like, invest in making something worth defending with anti-cheat before you start investing in anti-cheat?
While we’re here, why would anyone buy a windows-on-arm device? Windows RT should have taught them this lesson that nobody fucking wants windows outside of the begrudging desktop, which is a result of the msofficification of the school education programs, which has since run its course.
I just don’t understand consumer computing it would seem.
I suspect they know something we don’t about a future XBox ARM handheld.
What you don’t understand is that the average consumer just does not give a fuck. The ethics of their purchasing decisions are invisible to them and they can’t understand how their decisions leave an impact. This is true everywhere, but it is especially true of gamers. They will buy your slop year after year after year with no qualms.
I think you’re taking the wrong message from this. I don’t think the author intended you to read the article and think that EA is targeting low compute ARM netbooks, I think the author intended you to come away thinking that major AAA devs are actively preparing for a landscape in which x86 is no longer the dominate desktop processor architecture/instruction set.
Regardless of how you feel about the company, Macs running Apple processors using the ARM instruction set are proof positive that ARM based cpus can replace x86 in compute scenarios higher than netbooks.
Unless you’re specifically referring to the Windows bit of it, in which case I agree.
Oh for sure, its the specifically windows bit that I’m confused by.
If you’re gonna have to learn new shit, it may as well be better shit.
Who cares if someone cheats. I don’t get it.
Cheaters in multiplayer games make the whole experience miserable for everyone else. It’s sociopathic asshole behaviour at its purest.
Cheat in single player all you like, but people who cheat in multiplayer are bad people and should feel bad about their choices.
SERVER-SIDE ANTI-CHEATS! SERVER-SIDE ANTI-CHEATS! Most cheaters are blatant, and even in a game with very limited samples (Minecraft Java Edition), there’s an anti-cheat that has made blatant cheating almost impossible (Polar). They just want client-side anti-cheats for power over you.
FTFY
Its more about verifying you’re paying them and they have control over you and the software you run.
Exactly! So no thanks.
You can’t sell an online, multiplayer, competitive game experience, with the golden goose of in-game-purchases, if the game is dominated by cheaters. The players will find something else to play.
Well I would like to be able to cheat. So no thanks.
I don’t think anyone cares if you cheat at a single-player game.
If it’s a multi-player game, well, that activity doesn’t belong to you exclusively.
Yeah but it’s a lot more fun when there’s a cheater. It’s a lot more harder to win.