>>1810967>honestly you would think that with every game costing like 100€ these days, devs would have the money to spend on actually well made anti-cheatsNeveer happening while CEOs and shareholders pressure the company to give them theid "deserved payout" and "make line go up" at the cost of firing everyone from the company. Though Valve, being a privately owned company, is trying something, they operate on valve-time, so expect any happenings in 2125 when they finally make anticheat for CS1.6
>>1815189Currently, most "effective"(read: easiest for companies to implement and say they're doing something) anticheats require Kernel-level access to your computer, which is about as dangerous as letting some freak fuck with the engine of your car, or go into the basement of your home, who knows what kind of dynamite he'll leave behind in there. And at the same time it still doesn't fully prevent cheating, as people who know how it works can work around it (a classic example is, if the anticheat scans your pc but only your pc, just use another pc to cheat and have it transfer raw data to the first pc where the game and the anticheat are running and where the anticheat will not notice anything), so for the end-user who doesn't cheat it's just a waste of space and processing power all for the benefit of still having hackers in the games you play.
Which is honestly why I'm into turn based games and digital tabletop, as cheating there is easier to spot with the naked eye and thus less people engage in it. Win-win situation, really.