Vanguard, the controversial anti-cheat software initially attached to Valorant, is now also coming to League of Legends.

Summary:

The article discusses Riot Games’ requirement for players to install their Vanguard anti-cheat software, which runs at the kernel level, in order to play their games such as League of Legends and Valorant. The software aims to combat cheating by scanning for known vulnerabilities and blocking them, as well as monitoring for suspicious activity while the game is being played. However, the use of kernel-level software raises concerns about privacy and security, as it grants the company complete access to users’ devices.

The article highlights that Riot Games is owned by Tencent, a Chinese tech giant that has been involved in censorship and surveillance activities in China. This raises concerns that Vanguard could potentially be used for similar purposes, such as monitoring players’ activity and restricting free speech in-game.

Ultimately, the decision to install Vanguard rests with players, but the article urges caution and encourages players to consider the potential risks and implications before doing so.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not so much that the source code is available. It’s that there would not be systems in place to ban cheaters, detect them, etc.

    It’s open source, why would there be support teams and bans and all that?

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      In the past people created communities for multiplayer games around specific forums or LAN centers and sometimes hosted allow-list servers. If you didn’t play by the rules you’d get banned off the forum, and thus that server which it was tied to.

      I’m not a fan of needing an account to play online and if I created a multiplayer game I don’t want to host that information in a centralized server. Perhaps there are more ways than I know but I’d be more interested in finding an alternative to this arms race of banning vs avoiding bans.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s fair. But I don’t think the MOBA scene as it is would switch to small communities like that .

        Also, for people wanting to cause trouble, bans are meaningless sadly. Unless you also have some rigorous system for sign up. And I guess a small community could have that. But something at scale like a popular game with millions of players can’t.

        And rigorous only goes so far, before it’s impinging on privacy.

        It’s a tough issue to crack. Popularity and a large scale is always the reason foe all the cheaters and trolls to come around.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Do you know if the network delay is tolerable to play with almost anyone, anywhere in the world for casual and competative MOBA games?

          I see no answer to stop trolling but perhaps there is another way worth investigating for cheaters. Some companies treat piracy as people simply wanting the game without paying and would invest in DRM. Some consider it as them providing a worse service than the piracy sites so they should improve the service. Maybe cheaters are unsatified customers?

          Would some cheaters be satified with in-game cheats and not look for more extreme 3rd party cheats? Suppose cheaters were provided servers as a choice (in a friendly way instead of shadow banning) which let them play against willing non-cheaters. This supposes regular players could be encouraged to fight with some level of handicap as a challenge.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Could allow people to curate their own blacklists if they don’t want to play in groups like that, then they would have the option to play in public and online, it would be more rough and they would have to keep it up but having those tools would allow them to play publicly without needing to join a forum or group while still curating their experience. Obviously would be more work but it would be a good fallback.

        If that’s too hard they’d still have the option of joining one of those groups.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          An issue of users having blocklists is that they may use it against people that are merely good at playing the game.

          I suppose an open source game would have no choice but to have whatever feature users are willingly to addon to their local game.

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I can definately see that being a problem, all systems have their downsides. A system like that though I feel is necessary in a game with decentralized online play.

            For centralized ones it doesn’t make as much sense since those already have anti-cheat (automated or human run) and bans from the service, which aren’t perfect either, innocent people often get banned when they didn’t deserve it, it’s just not as apparent because in those communities anyone banned is witch hunted afterwards, there’s a lot of appeal to authority in those communities.

            All user crowd control systems, even the lack of one is going to have negative effects to their usage, even if they aren’t apparent at first.