It seems you are talking about trust clients specifically. In these cases I would totally agree with you, but you stated anti-cheats in general, so I'm going to assume you didn't mean just mean a trust client.
twiikuuAimIsADickThen that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Here, you attribute value that you don't define to a hypothetical anti-cheat[ that does not exist]
What value? What hypothetical anti-cheat? I'm confused. Can you elaborate? /genuine
twiikuuTo my knowledge, there are no anti-cheat solutions that do not rely on security by obscurity,
Arguably artificially intelligent anticheat solutions (like VACNet) are really the only way (I know of) to have a working anticheat while being open source. However artificially intelligent programs are expensive to create, so open source isn't always a good idea.
twiikuuthere are also no open source games that manage (or even attempt) to combat cheaters via anti-cheat
I mean technically Source mods have external programs.
twiikuuYes, in this case, it is absolutely the fault of making a game open source that makes it impossible to defend using anti-cheat solutions
Valve open-sourced the Source SDK before the game leaks, so technically it wasn't making the game open source, but rather the engine.
Anyway yeah Valve should have somewhat foresaw this problem.…well unless if they did and the benefits outweighed the cons.
twiikuuIgnoring that you conflate cheaters and cheat makers
Yeah I used the wrong term. Sorry bout that.
twiikuu, here you fail to understand that providing users with the 4 freedoms [ascribed by the libre software movement] removes guarantees that anti-cheat solutions build upon:
These issues are primarily a problem for trust clients, which are merely types of anti-cheat solutions.
twiikuuwhen any player can run their own build of the game (as per freedom 1), a specific build *cannot* be established as authentic, and any anti-cheat therefore cannot compare against it to detect illegal behavior.
Yeah. So the anti-cheat solutions would have to be done purely server side. In that case artificially intelligent anti-cheats would be most optimal here (ignoring expenses).
twiikuuEven if we make the assumption that you did not mean to talk about the libre software movement, giving access to the source code enables a much wider toolset when developing cheats: running static analysis, building the game and debugging it, seeing commits over time. It is simply impossible to argue that the quality of cheats would not raise sharply with that.
"Just hide the anti-cheat part of the program and open-source the rest!" Is what I wish I could say, but then it wouldn't be fully F/OSS.
In these cases server-based anti-cheats would be optimal, but some game companies don't have the man power for extra servers. In that case it'd be better to have the community make an anti-cheat, assuming they are able to mod the game to the point of making a anti-cheat plugin. However that isn't always possible.
twiikuuIt's incredibly bizarre to try gatekeeping cheat making when you're clearly not in any position to talk about that at all
I didn't even try to gatekeep, and sure I don't have any expertise or experience in anti-cheats, but what credibility do you have anyway? I don't ever recall seeing you have actual expertise in anti-cheats.
twiikuuAimIsADickthese two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.
You should read the Wikipedia article you linked earlier until you understand that "libre software is when i can read the source code" is not true.
Yes. That's why I stated F/OSS, not just Free/Libre. Come to think of it, I think I did word that argument wrong though…
twiikuu["I was merely pretending"]
Please stop posting misinformation! Thank you
I wasn't pretending at all. I just half-heartedly said a bad statement without much thought into it, so I am sorry for that.
and yes I will try not to post any further misinformation, but it's getting difficult to distinguish misinformation.