I believe there are many players who value AC quality more than privacy, and it is wrong to impose your own beliefs on others. As long as gamers have physical access to their systems and consoles, they will be able to find ways around anti-cheat via kernel patches, hardware spoofing, registry entries, custom applications, etc. The only people affected are those that don't cheat. It implies that you know better than the OS developers what should/shouldn't be turned on. And Anti-Cheat that is either reaching into the OS kernel (giving it access to block hardware if it wants) or demanding that OS features be turned off is overstepping their bounds. If you want users to only use their system for the games your software protects, then build a console.ĭon't expect average users to put of with deep windows settings they never touch and don't expect those of us in the tech field to put of with having to disable our development tools just to play a game (or on a server) that is protected by your software. HyperV on Windows, Flatpak and Snap on Linux-based system, etc. Most Desktop OSes or software packaging tools are building in ways to isolate Desktop applications from the host system.

What happens if/when Microsoft puts a critical component in a sandbox to protect it (or the OS) and you want users to disable an OS feature that is required by the OS. Old topic, I know, but HyperV is also used to Sandbox non-virtualized applications.

Faceit anti cheat interferes vac