Jump to content

Battle eye showing up when disabled


TutuNova

Recommended Posts

Hello, i play ark on the steam version, i made a server with friends that has a couple mods self made bots, so i always launch ark without battleeye and in insecure mode, but now, when i try to enter to the server, the battleeye installation sign will pop up and close ark, even though i'm launching it without battleye, is there any fix to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TutuNova said:

Hello, i play ark on the steam version, i made a server with friends that has a couple mods self made bots, so i always launch ark without battleeye and in insecure mode, but now, when i try to enter to the server, the battleeye installation sign will pop up and close ark, even though i'm launching it without battleye, is there any fix to this?

As far as I know you would have to completely remove Battleeye from your PC and then never log into a game that requires Battleeye to play it.

Battleeye is ******* awful, it's basically a legal virus that gets away with anything they want because out legal system doesn't understand computers and doesn't care enough about individual privacy rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
4 hours ago, TutuNova said:

Hello, i play ark on the steam version, i made a server with friends that has a couple mods self made bots, so i always launch ark without battleeye and in insecure mode, but now, when i try to enter to the server, the battleeye installation sign will pop up and close ark, even though i'm launching it without battleye, is there any fix to this?

Make sure to launch your server with the following options:

-nobattleye -insecure

Otherwise your client will disconnect and prompt you to install it if you attempt to join a server that is protected. The first one ensure BE is disabled, and the later is disabling VAC. You can see if a server has BE enabled if it has the BE icon next to it in the in-game browser and you can see if a server is VAC protected if it has a shield icon next to it in the Steam browser.

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Battleeye is ******* awful, it's basically a legal virus that gets away with anything they want because out legal system doesn't understand computers and doesn't care enough about individual privacy rights.

BE is pretty straightforward about what they do and how they process your data. It really does nothing more than what any other ACS would do; scan files and executables to detect and ban cheaters. Just like an anti-virus actually does; scan files and executables to detect and delete viruses.

To be honest, comparing BE to a virus is rather ridiculous if you ask me. The former clearly tells you its intends, giving you the option to agree and proceed or cancel if you are not comfortable with it targeting specific stuff on your device in order to do its job while the later is trying to hide its existence from you collecting sensitive and personal data.

At the end of the day, if you accept the terms of any software you install, you can only blame yourself if you don't agree with that it is doing afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

To be honest, comparing BE to a virus is rather ridiculous if you ask me. The former clearly tells you its intends, giving you the option to agree and proceed or cancel if you are not comfortable with it targeting specific stuff on your device in order to do its job while the later is trying to hide its existence from you collecting sensitive and personal data.

At the end of the day, if you accept the terms of any software you install, you can only blame yourself if you don't agree with that it is doing afterwards.

BE "clearly tells you its intends". That's true but it misses the point.

What BE intends to do is look at everything on your computer regardless of whether it has anything to do with games or not, and that's wrong. By comparison, you can tell your anti-virus software what you will and won't allow it to scan.

BE reserves the right to upload files form your computer to their servers and you don't have the ability to opt out of that "feature". That's wrong. By comparison you can tell your anti-virus software what you will and won't allow it to upload.

There is a free and open market for AV software, each individual consumer makes the choice to install anti-virus and they get to choose which anti-virus they install. There is no such open market anti-cheat software. Consumers are held hostage by the game company and must use the exact anti-cheat software that the game company requires.

If Microsoft tried to force consumers to only use MS AV when they install MS Office that would never fly, there would be mass outrage, legal challenges, it would get refused. But because our legal system doesn't recognize that a company holding consumers hostage with their game software is just as wrong as MS doing it, there haven't been enough legal challenges to the validity of what they do. And, as with any consumer driven issue there is no organization with the money, time & power to challenge this current environment. There are consumer organizations & agencies but they are focused on a bunch of other types of corporate malfeasance, there's not enough money and not enough interest to hold game companies and anti-cheat software accountable for their anti-consumer practices.

If game companies had only the ability to mandate some form of anti-cheat software and then consumers got to pick which anti-cheat they want to use then this would be a different conversation, but as things stand today game companies are able to hold consumers hostage by requiring their choice of anti-cheat software rather than the consumers being able to chose which anti-cheat they want to use.

 

"At the end of the day, if you accept the terms of any software you install, you can only blame yourself if you don't agree with that it is doing afterwards."

That argument has been used by lots of shady companies for lots of shady practices. BE is forced on consumers by companies engaging in anti-consumer and monopolistic practices, both of which are wrong and should argued against by anyone who values consumer rights and privacy protections.

If there was a free market for anti-cheat software things would be different, but as things work currently, BE is no better than a virus that is forced on consumers by game companies.

 

I hate cheating as much as anyone, and if BE actually stopped cheating in ARK then our views might have more in common, but we all know that cheating is rampant in this game because of the security holes that WC has built into their game. When you consider that BE utterly fails to achieve the goal of preventing cheating it becomes pretty obvious that, for all intents and purposes, it's nothing more than spyware that does nothing to help or benefit consumers. At best it gives the illusion of preventing cheating, at worse it's a third party spying on the computer of every consumer who plays games that use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator

The game gives you the option to play without BE so you aren't "hostage" in any way. As for the legality/monopolization arguments, I won't comment on those because I'm not a lawyer. Either way, I'm pretty sure BE have the same interest in your non-cheats related data as Valve:

On 2/17/2014 at 7:36 PM, Gabe Newell said:

Do we care what porn sites you visit? Oh, dear god, no. My brain just melted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

13 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

The game gives you the option to play without BE so you aren't "hostage" in any way.

Not if you play on Officials it doesn't, nor even any public Unofficial servers (barring maybe couple of exceptions). The only way anyone is playing this game without BE is if they have a closed, private server with a few friends or solo.

Even though you have a partial point, it doesn't apply to the bunches of games that don't have private servers as an option. This isn't just about ARK, it's about the games industry as a whole holding consumers hostage to software that's excessively invasive and yet still fails to accomplish its goals.

And you don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on monopolistic practices or invasions of privacy. Those are things that every consumer should be thinking of and aware of.

13 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Either way, I'm pretty sure BE have the same interest in your non-cheats related data as Valve:

That's a cute quote, but it's another example of companies dodging legitimate questions about privacy and security. Gabe was using a classic "reduction to the absurd" tactic, trying to shame people into silence by implying the privacy issues are based on people not wanting their porn to be exposed when the reality is that there are larger, legitimate concerns that people have a right to have addressed.

No one allows their financial institutions to install third party products on their computers (e.g. banks, brokerage houses, investment counselors, etc.) and yet there are people who argue that software related to games somehow should have the right to inspect and examine your computer in ways that no other business can. Now that's absurd.

The bottom line is this: game companies should never have more of a right to invade your privacy than any other industry, no matter how cute their arguments are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
12 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Not if you play on Officials it doesn't, nor even any public Unofficial servers (barring maybe couple of exceptions). The only way anyone is playing this game without BE is if they have a closed, private server with a few friends or solo.

You still have that choice, and server owners also have that choice, it is not forced on anyone. And even if it was forced, that is something you agreed when purchasing and launching the game. This is like purchasing a plane ticket, then not wanting your luggage to be searched. Sure, you can disagree with your luggage being searched, but they won't allow you on the plane. And if you agree to it, they will only look for specific stuff (weapons, smuggling, etc.) and won't care the slightness about your collection of dildos. This is pretty much what an anti-cheat does; search for cheats and disregard everything else. You don't want your files to be scanned? No problem. You just can't join servers that decided they don't want you.

As for you wanting a "free market" of anti-cheats; it makes no sense to me. This is like agreeing to have your luggage searched, but only if they are by Bob down the street. The airline will tell you that they will only allow you on the plane if they are searched by their TSA agents. Same for games; they trust and work with specific anti-cheats, and don't care if Bob didn't find any cheats on your device. They don't know Bob. Nor do they trust Bob. For all they know, Bob could be your partner in crime.

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

And you don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on monopolistic practices or invasions of privacy.

I rather have no opinion than an uninformed one based on assumptions. I know nothing about monopoly laws, except that you collect cash whenever you pass go.

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The bottom line is this: game companies should never have more of a right to invade your privacy than any other industry, no matter how cute their arguments are.

They don't "invade your privacy", you agree to their terms in order to use their product. You don't agree to said terms? No worries; don't play their games! 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

You still have that choice, and server owners also have that choice, it is not forced on anyone. And even if it was forced, that is something you agreed when purchasing and launching the game. This is like purchasing a plane ticket, then not wanting your luggage to be searched. Sure, you can disagree with your luggage being searched, but they won't allow you on the plane. And if you agree to it, they will only look for specific stuff (weapons, smuggling, etc.) and won't care the slightness about your collection of dildos. This is pretty much what an anti-cheat does; search for cheats and disregard everything else. You don't want your files to be scanned? No problem. You just can't join servers that decided they don't want you.

Comparing anti-cheat software to the TSA is hardly an honest comparison. The TSA is not designed and run by the airline companies explicitly for the benefit of the airlines, it is an umbrella program created by the government. It is also a regulatory agency that binds the airlines to the rules and regulations of the TSA just as much as it binds consumers.

AC software, on the other hand, is one sided. It's not a public program, not created by the government and is designed much more for the game companies than it is for consumers. It has no regulatory framework or government oversight that binds the game companies as much as it binds the consumers.

Having said that, your comparison accidentally points to one the issues with AC software. It, like the TSA, is mostly fake and useless. The TSA and anti-cheat software aren't really security, they're really security theater, a show that is put on to make people more safe while while failing to truly create the safety they advertise. They're both excessively invasive and they don't stop the things they're designed to stop. In that regard the TSA and AC software are both equal failures.

 

If insurance companies demanded to scan your computer you wouldn't find it acceptable.

If cable companies demanded to scan your computer you wouldn't find it acceptable.

If banks demanded to scan your computer you wouldn't find it acceptable.

If mortgage companies, appliance manufacturers, brokerages, credit agencies, electric companies, water companies... and so on, demanded to scan your computer you wouldn't find it acceptable.

The basic logic doesn't change based on the argument that it's "voluntary". Again, game companies should never have more of a right to invade your privacy than any other industry. Period.

 

The argument that it's not "forced on anyone" is a duplicitous argument, it ignores that the gaming industry as a whole collectively engages in a practice that holds consumers hostage. There is no free and open market for anti-cheat software, there is no widespread consumer choice to opt out of anti-cheat software. There are no consumer protections in place that protect people from anti-cheat software overstepping their bounds and being excessively intrusive.

As already discussed, you have more control over your anti-virus software than you do over anti-cheat software, and no matter how you try to frame things it should be painfully obvious that this situation is fundamentally wrong.

If you want to bend over backwards and make their arguments for them, well that's your choice, but the argument that it's "not forced on anyone" is fatally flawed because it's an artificially forced choice that shouldn't be allowed to begin with.

AC software is nothing more than a legal virus.

5 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

As for you wanting a "free market" of anti-cheats; it makes no sense to me. This is like agreeing to have your luggage searched, but only if they are by Bob down the street. The airline will tell you that they will only allow you on the plane if they are searched by their TSA agents. Same for games; they trust and work with specific anti-cheats, and don't care if Bob didn't find any cheats on your device. They don't know Bob. Nor do they trust Bob. For all they know, Bob could be your partner in crime.

The airline isn't telling you anything, the government is telling you that you will not be allowed to board any airline unless you are searched by the TSA. The airlines have no choice in the matter, they don't get to control how the TSA works and they don't get to make decisions about what the TSA will and won't allow. The TSA is an umbrella program that binds and regulates the airline industry just as much as it binds and regulates consumers, AC software completely lacks any form of umbrella oversight.

The TSA is a program designed to protect everyone, AC software is designed to protect game companies from liability and to save them money, there is no valid comparison between the two.

5 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

I rather have no opinion than an uninformed one based on assumptions. I know nothing about monopoly laws, except that you collect cash whenever you pass go.

LoL, fair enough, good one there. :)

5 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

They don't "invade your privacy", you agree to their terms in order to use their product. You don't agree to said terms? No worries; don't play their games! 🙃

Actually both things are true, you agree to their terms and they invade your privacy. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

The issue is that they are allowed to require things in their ToS that they shouldn't be allowed to require in the first place. They're allowed to make those demands because our consumer protection laws are woefully lacking, catering more to the desires of the game companies than to the need to protect consumers from data invasions.

You wouldn't find this acceptable from any other industry and yet somehow you think that game companies should be allowed unlimited access to your computer that you wouldn't give to any other industry.

Our financial industry, insurance industry, retail industry, and many other industries have extensive interaction with consumers online all have a vested interest in knowing that every consumer who uses their products have a safe & clean environment on their computer, and yet none of those industries are allowed to have the all encompassing ability to invade your personal data that the gaming industry has. That is fundamentally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

If insurance companies demanded to scan your computer you wouldn't find it acceptable.

You must not own a home. Insurance companies regularly send people out to audit your property when you *decide to make a change in coverage to make sure they know exactly what they are covering and insure they aren’t being scammed. Same as when you sell, same as when you buy. 
 

The same can be said for a lot of your other examples. Any company that has a vested financial interest in what you have and/or are doing will sure as hell make sure they have the facts straight. You don’t have a right to these privately provided services or products. You opted in. You abide by their rules. This is a silly game you’re talking about. Not a publicly provided utility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Comparing anti-cheat software to the TSA is hardly an honest comparison.

Well, all I was trying to illustrate was the fact that if you don't want BE to scan your device, which your are absolutely entitled to, you won't be allowed on protected servers. Just like if you don't want them to search your luggage, which you are, again, absolutely entitled to, you won't be allowed to board the plane. This was simply a figurative simile, not a literal comparison.

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

holds consumers hostage

But you are not hostage. Here is another figurative simile for you; this is like someone inviting you over for dinner. You accept the invitation. Once there, despite the fact that you agreed to be there in the first place and that the door is unlocked for you to leave at any time, you claim to be held hostage. I mean, how does this makes any sense? You agreed to it, and can leave whenever you want. You are not hostage. Just like you agreed to use an AC, and can uninstall whenever you want.

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

AC software is nothing more than a legal virus.

At the end of the day, this is a matter of trust. Could an AC be used to cause damage to your device or steal information? Yes. Does that means this is what they intend to do? Nope. They don't care. Their business is clear about their intents, and they are pretty straightforward about it. And they would simply not risk the multi-millions contracts they have with the gaming industry just so they can steal pictures of your cats. At least, I personally believe so. 🤷‍♂️

Anyways, I said what I had to say, and I really don't care about this particular topic so I won't be participating to this discussion anymore. You may find people that are interested to debate into the conspiracies subreddits. 👀

25 minutes ago, Joebl0w13 said:

The same can be said for a lot of your other examples.

Pretty much. Just like car insurances that offer better premiums as long as they can track your driving habits and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joebl0w13 said:

You must not own a home. Insurance companies regularly send people out to audit your property when you *decide to make a change in coverage to make sure they know exactly what they are covering and insure they aren’t being scammed. Same as when you sell, same as when you buy. 
 

The same can be said for a lot of your other examples. Any company that has a vested financial interest in what you have and/or are doing will sure as hell make sure they have the facts straight. You don’t have a right to these privately provided services or products. You opted in. You abide by their rules. This is a silly game you’re talking about. Not a publicly provided utility.

You're completely mistaken, not only do I own a home but a couple of other properties as well, and spent my fair share of time dealing with banks and insurance companies as well as the government apparatus associated with property ownership like permits and inspectors. I'm very well aware of what information an insurance company or a bank can ask for and what they can and can't examine. What they can't examine is all of your data. What they can't examine is the entire contents of your computer including data that has absolutely nothing to do with their business.

A company that has a vested financial interest in your transaction is only allowed to require you to provide information that is material to the business at hand.

There is no business/industry that is as intrusive of your personal computer as game companies are, no one else gets to install data miners on your computer as a result of a lack of consumer protections - not banks, not insurance companies, not government agencies, no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Well, all I was trying to illustrate was the fact that if you don't want BE to scan your device, which your are absolutely entitled to, you won't be allowed on protected servers. Just like if you don't want them to search your luggage, which you are, again, absolutely entitled to, you won't be allowed to board the plane. This was simply a figurative simile, not a literal comparison.

Roger that, yes, I understood what you were trying to illustrate. You did a good job of explaining your intent and I understood it.

And my response is that it's not a valid comparison, the TSA and AC software are not comparable. The AC software companies would like you to believe that they're comparable, but they're not.

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

This was simply a figurative simile, not a literal comparison.

You were making an honest attempt to draw an analogy between the two, and I offered counter-arguments for why that analogy isn't valid.

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

But you are not hostage. Here is another figurative simile for you; this is like someone inviting you over for dinner. You accept the invitation. Once there, despite the fact that you agreed to be there in the first place and that the door is unlocked for you to leave at any time, you claim to be held hostage. I mean, how does this makes any sense? You agreed to it, and can leave whenever you want. You are not hostage. Just like you agreed to use an AC, and can uninstall whenever you want.

Sorry but no, also not a valid analogy. The game companies are not comparable to someone inviting you over for dinner, they are comparable to restaurants that are selling you a service (games or food).

Following your analogy - now imagine that every restaurant in the country forces you to "consent" to a body cavity search in order to dine at their establishment. No one would consent to that kind of invasion for the "privilege" of purchasing a meal and the industry would never be allowed to make such requirements in the first place. There would almost instantly be laws passed making it illegal for restaurants to require people to consent to such an invasive practice.

The very idea that people, our society, and our government regulations would allow such an invasive practice is absurd. But game companies get away with being invasive because our institutions don't take the gaming industry seriously nor pay attention to their invasive practices, practices that would be obviously absurd in almost any other context.

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

At the end of the day, this is a matter of trust.

True, and I don't trust them (and neither should you) because they're not there for our benefit, they're there for the benefit of the game companies. It's a pretty straightforward and easy to understand transactional relationship. The AC software companies are employed by game companies, not by you and me, and just like any employee they are concerned first with the needs of their employer. You and I are not their customers and like any business they are concerned first and foremost with serving the needs of their customers, the game companies. That's simply how businesses work. I do trust AC companies... to server their customers, and their customers are not gamers.

The concept of anti-cheat software is great, but it needs to be server-side, not invading the privacy of consumers' computers. But that's harder (read: more expensive) than invading your privacy so of course they want to use the method that's easier & cheaper for the game companies. If banks could get away with installing a data scanner to help reduce bank fraud they would do it too, but they can't get away with it like gaming companies have been allowed to.

2 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Could an AC be used to cause damage to your device or steal information? Yes. Does that means this is what they intend to do? Nope. They don't care. Their business is clear about their intents, and they are pretty straightforward about it. And they would simply not risk the multi-millions contracts they have with the gaming industry just so they can steal pictures of your cats. At least, I personally believe so. 🤷‍♂️

Anyways, I said what I had to say, and I really don't care about this particular topic so I won't be participating to this discussion anymore. You may find people that are interested to debate into the conspiracies subreddits. 👀

Pretty much. Just like car insurances that offer better premiums as long as they can track your driving habits and whatnot.

It's not good enough that they don't "intend" to do something or that "They don't care.", what's needed are consumer protection laws that legally prevent them from doing so, because that level of data intrusion simply should not be allowed in the first place.

It's disingenuous for you to dismiss this with a comment about "conspiracies subreddits". This isn't about conspiracies, it's about the fact that gaming companies have unparalleled access to your computer when no other industry does. This has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy nonsense and everything to do with keeping the gaming industry honest and holding them to the same standards of data privacy that any other industry is held to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joebl0w13Your passive/aggressive facepalm means nothing, if you think my arguments and logic are invalid then show it using logic and arguments.

For example provide examples of industries that are allowed to invade your privacy and personal data on the same level that game companies are allowed to. I mean, there is the possibility that I've overlooked something, I'm neither perfect nor omniscient, maybe you can find provide counter-examples I've overlooked of an industry that is allowed this kind of unparalleled access without any oversight or accountability, or you maybe can find flaws in my arguments that I won't be able to counter, but if you're going to jump into the conversation you should at least make the effort to make a legit reply.

We don't have to agree, of course, at the end of the day we might still hold different opinions, but I did you the courtesy of providing a response based on arguments that I think are true and valid, all I'm asking is that you return that same courtesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
11 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

@Joebl0w13Your passive/aggressive facepalm means nothing, if you think my arguments and logic are invalid then show it using logic and arguments.

For example provide examples of industries that are allowed to invade your privacy and personal data on the same level that game companies are allowed to. I mean, there is the possibility that I've overlooked something, I'm neither perfect nor omniscient, maybe you can find provide counter-examples I've overlooked of an industry that is allowed this kind of unparalleled access without any oversight or accountability, or you maybe can find flaws in my arguments that I won't be able to counter, but if you're going to jump into the conversation you should at least make the effort to make a legit reply.

We don't have to agree, of course, at the end of the day we might still hold different opinions, but I did you the courtesy of providing a response based on arguments that I think are true and valid, all I'm asking is that you return that same courtesy.

We can agree to disagree. I don't see any value in continuing the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Roger that, yes, I understood what you were trying to illustrate. You did a good job of explaining your intent and I understood it.

And my response is that it's not a valid comparison, the TSA and AC software are not comparable. The AC software companies would like you to believe that they're comparable, but they're not.

14 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

This was simply a figurative simile, not a literal comparison.

You were making an honest attempt to draw an analogy between the two, and I offered counter-arguments for why that analogy isn't valid.

14 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

But you are not hostage. Here is another figurative simile for you; this is like someone inviting you over for dinner. You accept the invitation. Once there, despite the fact that you agreed to be there in the first place and that the door is unlocked for you to leave at any time, you claim to be held hostage. I mean, how does this makes any sense? You agreed to it, and can leave whenever you want. You are not hostage. Just like you agreed to use an AC, and can uninstall whenever you want.

Sorry but no, also not a valid analogy. The game companies are not comparable to someone inviting you over for dinner, they are comparable to restaurants that are selling you a service (games or food).

Following your analogy - now imagine that every restaurant in the country forces you to "consent" to a body cavity search in order to dine at their establishment. No one would consent to that kind of invasion for the "privilege" of purchasing a meal and the industry would never be allowed to make such requirements in the first place. There would almost instantly be laws passed making it illegal for restaurants to require people to consent to such an invasive practice.

The very idea that people, our society, and our government regulations would allow such an invasive practice is absurd. But game companies get away with being invasive because our institutions don't take the gaming industry seriously nor pay attention to their invasive practices, practices that would be obviously absurd in almost any other context.

No, no, no. You are focused on the examples themselves, while all they illustrate is the concept. Replace X and Y with whatever you want:

Quote

If you want to use service X, then you have to agree and abide by Y.

That's it. Basic terms of uses. You are not forced to agree and abide by Y, but you won't be allowed to use service X. Don't want your device scanned? No worries, but you won't be allowed on protected servers. Don't want your luggage searched? No worries, but you won't be allowed to board the plane. Simple, basic, terms of uses. Agree to use, or disagree and don't. You have a choice, you are not hostage nor forced do to anything. Same if you want to eat at a restaurant that requires you to be searched, agree and enjoy your food, or go home and cook your own.

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

True, and I don't trust them (and neither should you) because they're not there for our benefit, they're there for the benefit of the game companies. It's a pretty straightforward and easy to understand transactional relationship. The AC software companies are employed by game companies, not by you and me, and just like any employee they are concerned first with the needs of their employer. You and I are not their customers and like any business they are concerned first and foremost with serving the needs of their customers, the game companies. That's simply how businesses work. I do trust AC companies... to server their customers, and their customers are not gamers.

True. However, gaming companies in turn rely on gamers. If they use a third-party anti-cheats that make their business at risk, you can be sure they will cut ties faster than a Phiomia can poop.

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The concept of anti-cheat software is great, but it needs to be server-side, not invading the privacy of consumers' computers. But that's harder (read: more expensive) than invading your privacy so of course they want to use the method that's easier & cheaper for the game companies. If banks could get away with installing a data scanner to help reduce bank fraud they would do it too, but they can't get away with it like gaming companies have been allowed to.

Server-side anti-cheats wouldn't be harder, it would simply be impossible.

An online game is a relation between clients and server. The server send data to clients for rendering, and the clients send data to the server for processing. For example, without going into technicalities and keeping it simple; client A makes a move. The server process that move. Tells all the other clients about it. Now client B running a cheat such as an aimbot, can programmatically intercept that position update about client A, automatically adjust his mouse to a specific bone on client A, and boom; client B will hit headshot every times. The server isn't aware that client B used a cheat to aim at client A's head. All it knows, is that client B shot right at client A's head. The only way for the game to detect such cheating, is by looking for such intrusion on your client. Hackers are smart, and they always comes with new innovative ways to circumvent detection. Game developers are focused on making games, so they hire companies such as BE that are specialized into detecting cheats and have teams dedicated to analyze new methods and update in an effort to keep the game fair.

The only way games could prevent cheating server-side, would be to run both server/clients and only network a video to clients. Not only this would be a latency nightmare, but is also ridiculous at a logistic standpoint because they would basically need to have the rendering power of at PC for every single client that plays. Technology isn't there yet, maybe someday, though.

13 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

This isn't about conspiracies, it's about the fact that gaming companies have unparalleled access to your computer when no other industry does.

You know, you are outraged about anti-cheats, but you realize that the games themselves has the same amount of power, right? And that they could scan for cheats themselves if they wanted to. Just like any software you installed and agreed to their terms can do it. As long as they are straightforward about their intents, and that you make an informed decision, and have the choice to accept or decline, there is really no issue with it. Categorizing anti-cheats as virus/malware is, again, ridiculous. A malware have unauthorized access while anti-cheats have authorized access and this, makes all the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

No, no, no. You are focused on the examples themselves, while all they illustrate is the concept. Replace X and Y with whatever you want:

Except that you can't replace X and Y with whatever you want, you have to replace them with things that are a valid comparison. The TSA and AC software are not a valid comparison, which is the point I've been making. Making analogies is fine as long as the analogy holds up to scrutiny but the analogy you've given so far doesn't.

The TSA and AC software are fundamentally different, they have different purposes, different goals, and different functions when interacting with their respective industries & the public/consumers. The TSA is a government oversight organization that is equally capable of regulating and protecting both the travel industry and the public. AC software, on the other hand is created by the gaming industry for the benefit of the gaming industry without any independent oversight, regulation or transparency and with no consumer protections built in. And, of course, the TSA is also a law enforcement agency which obviously AC software companies are not.

Using your logic that would be like looking at the FCC and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and claiming that they're they're comparable, when they're not. The FCC is a regulating and oversight body while the NCTA is an industry lobbying organization who's mission is explicitly to lobby for the benefit of their corporate clients preferences and interests with no regard for the public good or consumer protection, not comparable, not a valid analogy.

An oversight organization and an industry driven organization cannot be comparable, they are not analogous, they have entirely different missions and goals. The makers of AC software are not an independent oversight organization, they are an industry driven organization that exist specifically to promote the interests of the gaming industry.

I'm not arguing with your desire to make an analogy, I'm arguing that the analogy you've chosen is not valid because the TSA and AC companies are fundamentally different, they are not comparable and not analogous to each other. One is a government oversight & law enforcement agency while the other is an industry trade group, they have fundamentally different roles to play in their respective arenas.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

That's it. Basic terms of uses. You are not forced to agree and abide by Y, but you won't be allowed to use service X. Don't want your device scanned? No worries, but you won't be allowed on protected servers. Don't want your luggage searched? No worries, but you won't be allowed to board the plane. Simple, basic, terms of uses. Agree to use, or disagree and don't. You have a choice, you are not hostage nor forced do to anything. Same if you want to eat at a restaurant that requires you to be searched, agree and enjoy your food, or go home and cook your own.

And, as I've already pointed out, neither you nor anyone else would accept the idea that restaurants should have the right to make that requirement. The very idea that restaurants would be allowed to force people to be searched is completely absurd. That would never be allowed to happen unless it was required of all restaurants all the time by a larger government driven set of rules and regulations that would also govern the limits of what restaurants can do and was equally binding on both the restaurant industry and the general public. And frankly, even that's a stretch, the reality is that there would be some pretty serious public resistance to a system like that and a lot of legal challenges.

No industry is allowed to be as invasive as the gaming industry without some form of external oversight, which simply makes no sense. In those cases where we do have intrusive safety requirements (like the TSA) they are explicitly intended to be for the public good to counter a known set of threats, they are driven by a regulatory oversight agency (like the TSA) and even then there are limits to what they can do.

The TSA, and most law enforcement agencies, can't scan your computer without a warrant or an exigent circumstance that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. AC software, conversely, can do that at will simply by holding people hostage to provide consent under duress without any burden of proof being required of the gaming companies or AC software companies. When a private industry has more of a right to invade your privacy than law enforcement agencies there is clearly something wrong.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

True. However, gaming companies in turn rely on gamers. If they use a third-party anti-cheats that make their business at risk, you can be sure they will cut ties faster than a Phiomia can poop.

If that was true then the ESEA would have instantly gone out of business in 2013 when they were caught stealth installing bitcoin miners along with their anti-cheat software. This is a well known case of the company that was supposed to be enforcing anti-cheating doing their own cheating and maliciously installing software on people's computers without consent.

The reality of business scandals is that they are very rarely as damaging to company as people like to believe. There are far too many companies that consider paying fines when they get caught simply a cost of doing business.

Then we could spend pages discussing EA games, with their own rap sheet as long as your arm of scandals and anti-consumer behavior, they have had a long list of class action lawsuits against them for the many scandals they brought on themselves with their own malfeasance.

The bigger an industry is the less they can be trusted and the more that consumer protection is needed, this is true in every industry from clothing to banking to telecommunications to gaming to you-name-it. Every industry has shown again and again and again that they can't be trusted to self-regulate, that has never worked and it never will.

We have a large body of painful evidence that gaming companies have not, do not, and will not cut ties based on anti-consumer behavior or scandals. They the same thing every other industry does, they do their best to either cover it up or ignore it, try to convince people that everything is fine, and move on as quickly and profitably as they can.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

Server-side anti-cheats wouldn't be harder, it would simply be impossible.

Incorrect. I'm sorry to be so blunt, because you are such a positive and helpful influence on the forums, but that's just plain wrong.

If you use your favorite search engine and look for "server side anti cheat detection" you will see that there is a great deal of work being done on server-side anti-cheating. In fact various attempts at server-side AC software have been around for a long time, since the 1990's when wall hacks and other cheats were massively popular on big-name FPS titles. It was during this time that game companies discovered that it's easier (cheaper for them) to use client-side AC.

Even if we skip over the 1990's and move into the 2000's, there have been many forms of server-side AC created. Most of the recent server side AC software began on a smaller-scale as community driven efforts by people who were trying to prevent cheating on games that didn't start with a big game company (based on my previous reading Minecraft stands out, there seem to have been many efforts to create server-side AC software for Minecraft). Then, if we go beyond the community driven efforts there are now companies trying to reach into the gaming industry and sell professional server-side AC software.

But with the caveat, as I stated before, that it's harder (and therefore more expensive) for the game companies than forcing anti-cheat software on the players' computers, which is why the game companies are doing everything they can to maintain client side AC software as the status quo. They don't want to spend the extra money to run server-side AC software. They are just like any business/industry they want to minimize expenses and maximize profits so of course they are going to push for the solutions that are cheaper for themselves.

This is also why the change needs to be driven externally, the gaming industry will never voluntarily convert from client-side AC to server-side AC unless it is mandated as consumer protection from data invasion.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

 

An online game is a relation between clients and server. The server send data to clients for rendering, and the clients send data to the server for processing. For example, without going into technicalities and keeping it simple; client A makes a move. The server process that move. Tells all the other clients about it. Now client B running a cheat such as an aimbot, can programmatically intercept that position update about client A, automatically adjust his mouse to a specific bone on client A, and boom; client B will hit headshot every times. The server isn't aware that client B used a cheat to aim at client A's head. All it knows, is that client B shot right at client A's head. The only way for the game to detect such cheating, is by looking for such intrusion on your client. Hackers are smart, and they always comes with new innovative ways to circumvent detection. Game developers are focused on making games, so they hire companies such as BE that are specialized into detecting cheats and have teams dedicated to analyze new methods and update in an effort to keep the game fair.

You've described why server-side AC is harder, and therefore more expensive, but definitely not impossible.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

The only way games could prevent cheating server-side, would be to run both server/clients and only network a video to clients. Not only this would be a latency nightmare, but is also ridiculous at a logistic standpoint because they would basically need to have the rendering power of at PC for every single client that plays. Technology isn't there yet, maybe someday, though.

You're making some big assumptions that are simply not true, that's not "The only way". If you really want to become better informed on the subject you should read more about the server-side AC software that already exists.

Or, if you're not interested in doing a lot of research & reading here are two easy-to-read articles written by someone who has been involved in writing server-side AC software, including server-side aimbot detection, and who offers his perspective on the subject.

https://matthewmiller.dev/blog/anticheat-an-analysis/

https://matthewmiller.dev/blog/the-4-year-late-postmortem-of-an-advanced-aimbot-detection-system/

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

You know, you are outraged about anti-cheats

Let's be clear here, "outraged" is a bad choice of words as it implies that I'm being irrational and driven by nothing more than personal anger, when that's not the case.

The current situation is wrong, it's anti-consumer, it serves the needs of the gaming industry while doing nothing to safeguard the needs and rights of the general public, and I'm against that for any industry whether it's banking, insurance, gaming or what-have-you. Part of living in a modern society is balancing the desires of the companies & corporations that provide services with the needs (including right-to-privacy) of the customers and consumers that that make up society.

Gaming companies are currently allowed to force people to "consent" to data mining software being installed on their computers, a privilege that no other industry has, which is pretty obviously an unbalanced situation. It skews the benefits entirely on the side of the gaming industry while lacking an equal set of benefits on the consumer side. The gaming industry should not be allowed any more access to your computer and your data than any other industry, if you want to call that "outrage" then I can't stop you, but it's not an accurate way to describe my position.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

but you realize that the games themselves has the same amount of power, right? And that they could scan for cheats themselves if they wanted to.

True, and that's the problem. They should not be allowed to install data miners on your computer in the first place, no other industry is allowed to do that, it's wrong.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

Just like any software you installed and agreed to their terms can do it.

There have been plenty of examples of the software industry being shot down by the courts and consumer protection. ToS are only enforceable if they are allowed by laws and regulations and conversely they cannot be enforced when the courts say they can't. Until we see regulatory action that prevents game companies from installing data miners on our computers they will continue to hold consumers hostage to their ToS, because as things stand today they are able to require their legal viruses to be installed on our computers. That's exactly the problem.

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

As long as they are straightforward about their intents, and that you make an informed decision, and have the choice to accept or decline, there is really no issue with it. Categorizing anti-cheats as virus/malware is, again, ridiculous. A malware have unauthorized access while anti-cheats have authorized access and this, makes all the difference.

You're arguing in favor of a false choice, it almost doesn't really exist. The lack of consumer protection against gaming driven ToS makes it nearly impossible to play any multi-player game without having a game company force their data mining software down your throat.

You're drawing a false line in the sand when you talk about authorized vs. non-authorized. Lots of malware gets itself installed via "authorized access" by masquerading as something useful. Just because someone "authorized" it does not mean that it's for their own benefit. Having an entire industry hold people hostage to their data mining software is no better than clickjacking or scareware, it simply shouldn't be allowed. It currently is allowed, but it shouldn't be.

No matter how many times you try to talk about ToS and authorization the basic logic of this problem is still the same - game companies have unparalleled access to data mine your computer, access that no other industry is allowed, and that's wrong. Game companies should have much less access to your computer than your bank, your insurance, your medical provider, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents. I can understand someone calling battleeye (or any other protection) a malware/virus. There are thousands of post on Internet about battleeye crashing the computer, and not only in ARK but R6s, PUBG...

It is perfectly understandable that anti-cheat programs should have rights to hook into game process and files to scan for cheats, but clearly BE devs have gone too far sometimes hooking into kernel functions/calls or memory segments in wrong ways which make the whole computer crash, and imho thats completely unnaceptable and I havent checked the BE EULA but I would bet they are not asking there for rights to crash user's computers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Except that you can't replace X and Y with whatever you want, you have to replace them with things that are a valid comparison. The TSA and AC software are not a valid comparison, which is the point I've been making. Making analogies is fine as long as the analogy holds up to scrutiny but the analogy you've given so far doesn't.

The TSA and AC software are fundamentally different, they have different purposes, different goals, and different functions when interacting with their respective industries & the public/consumers. The TSA is a government oversight organization that is equally capable of regulating and protecting both the travel industry and the public. AC software, on the other hand is created by the gaming industry for the benefit of the gaming industry without any independent oversight, regulation or transparency and with no consumer protections built in. And, of course, the TSA is also a law enforcement agency which obviously AC software companies are not.

Using your logic that would be like looking at the FCC and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and claiming that they're they're comparable, when they're not. The FCC is a regulating and oversight body while the NCTA is an industry lobbying organization who's mission is explicitly to lobby for the benefit of their corporate clients preferences and interests with no regard for the public good or consumer protection, not comparable, not a valid analogy.

An oversight organization and an industry driven organization cannot be comparable, they are not analogous, they have entirely different missions and goals. The makers of AC software are not an independent oversight organization, they are an industry driven organization that exist specifically to promote the interests of the gaming industry.

I'm not arguing with your desire to make an analogy, I'm arguing that the analogy you've chosen is not valid because the TSA and AC companies are fundamentally different, they are not comparable and not analogous to each other. One is a government oversight & law enforcement agency while the other is an industry trade group, they have fundamentally different roles to play in their respective arenas.

Everybody knows that a cat isn't a dog, and that a dog isn't a donkey. The very fact remains that, in both scenarios, the exact same ToS concept applies. This is all I was trying to illustrate, nothing more. Into any analogy, you will always find differences if you look past the specific aspect in which they share similarities.

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

as community driven efforts by people who were trying to prevent cheating on games

Fun fact: I was actually part of such community. Contributed to server-side cheats detection from 2007-2009 for Source games (mainly CS:S). And although "impossible" may have been a strong word, I still stand by the fact that it is. Simply because no matter how you think your detection is accurate, there will always be ways for clients to trick you into thinking they are legit once they found your thresholds. You can then be more aggressive, but then you start flagging legit players. Client-side detection will always be light-years ahead when it comes to accuracy and efficiency.

As for everything else you mentioned, I won't comment. As previously mentioned, I have no interest into discussing/debating privacy laws, etc.

1 hour ago, arkark said:

Just my 2 cents. I can understand someone calling battleeye (or any other protection) a malware/virus. There are thousands of post on Internet about battleeye crashing the computer, and not only in ARK but R6s, PUBG...

It is perfectly understandable that anti-cheat programs should have rights to hook into game process and files to scan for cheats, but clearly BE devs have gone too far sometimes hooking into kernel functions/calls or memory segments in wrong ways which make the whole computer crash, and imho thats completely unnaceptable and I havent checked the BE EULA but I would bet they are not asking there for rights to crash user's computers.

Actually, it does! 🤪

Quote

licensor reserves all rights not specifically granted

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
1 hour ago, arkark said:

So for that same clause am I giving rights to them for i.e. store CP in my computer? Or using my computer and bandwidth for any activity they want?

As well as half your salary, and maybe a kidney or two. But in all seriousness, the crashes are probably more covered by the following point:

Quote

- Licensor provides BattlEye on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind. Licensor neither guarantees the correct, error-free functioning of BattlEye nor is Licensor responsible for any damage caused by the use of BattlEye.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, invincibleqc said:

As well as half your salary, and maybe a kidney or two. But in all seriousness, the crashes are probably more covered by the following point:

 

Well, thats some kind of international license that I highly doubt it would apply in Europe regulation. This kind of software is just not under the scope of the regulations. Look how the terms of service of the anti-cheat of a well-known germany developer company looks like:

Quote

 

3.      Anti-Cheat Measures

When you play online we monitor the gameplay through so called "anti-cheat software" to establish whether users are using cheating software or are interfering with the gameplay intended by the game in any other unauthorised way ("cheating"). This anti-cheat software is installed together with the game on your end device.

Whenever you connect to our game online, the anti-cheat software checks the course of your game, the game files and, in the operation of the working memory (RAM) of your hardware, to identify unauthorised third party programs running simultaneously with your game and modifications to game files which facilitate or support cheating. "Non-authorised third party programs" in this sense means, for example, "add-ons", "mods", "hacks", "trainers", or other "cheats" which enable you to interfere with the gameplay stipulated by the game, or to modify this.

In the event that the anti-cheat software discovers the use of an unauthorised third party program, or any other prohibited interference in the gameplay of the game, the game will automatically end and we will receive the information that a respective violation has occurred via your user account, specifying the date, time and classification of the violation. The anti-cheat software will be deactivated when you end the connection to the game server.

 

I mean, im pretty sure if some group brings enough attention to this kind of software embbeded in games which exceed the reasonable mechanism to prevent cheating would be banned. Not to talk about this kind of software potentially looking another files like browser history, cookies and others, which may contain protected data that is already covered by GPDR privacy law.

Dont get me wrong, anti-cheat are necessary, but their devs dont have a white card which allows them to potentially do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
59 minutes ago, arkark said:

Well, thats some kind of international license that I highly doubt it would apply in Europe regulation.

Aren't they based in Germany? I'm pretty sure they are, actually.

59 minutes ago, arkark said:

I mean, im pretty sure if some group brings enough attention to this kind of software embbeded in games which exceed the reasonable mechanism to prevent cheating would be banned. Not to talk about this kind of software potentially looking another files like browser history, cookies and others, which may contain protected data that is already covered by GPDR privacy law.

Dont get me wrong, anti-cheat are necessary, but their devs dont have a white card which allows them to potentially do anything.

They tell you exactly what they are targeting, how it is processed, and what they do with any data collected in their Privacy Policy. You get all that information when prompted to install it as well, and you have to confirm 3 times (Install, Accept, OK) so you have enough of an opportunity to decline if you are not comfortable with their intends. As for GDPR, as long as the data is listed in what you did consent, I believe they are well in compliance. But again; not a lawyer. 🤷‍♂️

This is my last post in here; my conclusion is, if you agree to something, or agree without reading despite given every chances to back-off, don't complain afterwards (unless of course you did consent to an inch, and they are taking a mile, but we have no reasons to believe so without speculating into conspiracies -- maybe I'm just dumb and naive, who knows!). 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Everybody knows that a cat isn't a dog, and that a dog isn't a donkey. The very fact remains that, in both scenarios, the exact same ToS concept applies. This is all I was trying to illustrate, nothing more. Into any analogy, you will always find differences if you look past the specific aspect in which they share similarities.

Again, I understand very well what you were trying to illustrate, you keep on responding as though somehow I didn't understand your easy-to-understand comparison when it should be obvious to you from my replies that you communicated your intent very effectively and it was well understood. Your analogy was perfectly understandable, and it doesn't work. You're right to point out that "Into any analogy, you will always find differences", but the key issue that you're missing is that an analogy only works if the similarities are more important than the differences.

Following your logic above, if you were trying to help someone understand what a dog is you might be able to say that it's analogous to a cat but larger, or analogous to a bobcat or lynx but with a longer nose. The similarities between cats and dogs are sufficient that they can be used as analogs to use one to help explain the other. You could not, on the other hand, use cats or dogs to help someone understand what a giraffe is, or an elephant is. Even though all three species are 4-legged mammals the differences are so much more important than the similarities that they are not valid analogs.

When the differences are more important than the similarities the analogy fails.

This is the point that you are missing, the differences between the TSA and AC software are so much more important than their similarities that your analogy is not valid. The only thing that's common between them is a form of ToS but that one similarity does not make them valid analogs. Yes, they both have some form of ToS and no, the fact that they both have a ToS simply does not matter because the differences between the TSA and AC software are much more important that merely the concept of ToS. Just saying "ToS" over and over doesn't make your analogy valid, it's not.

The differences are more important than the similarities, hence a failed analogy.

The ToS of the TSA are designed to regulate and benefit both the travel industry and consumers in general, they are intended for the benefit and safety of everyone. The ToS of AC software completely fails to meet that standard, in its current form it is designed to benefit the gaming industry with no concern for the rights of consumers, an in fact infringes on the rights of consumers significantly.

The gaming industry and the AC software makers would love for people to think of them like the TSA, but they're not. They exists for fundamentally different reasons and they pursue fundamentally different missions. They are not valid analogs.

14 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Fun fact: I was actually part of such community. Contributed to server-side cheats detection from 2007-2009 for Source games (mainly CS:S). And although "impossible" may have been a strong word, I still stand by the fact that it is. Simply because no matter how you think your detection is accurate, there will always be ways for clients to trick you into thinking they are legit once they found your thresholds. You can then be more aggressive, but then you start flagging legit players. Client-side detection will always be light-years ahead when it comes to accuracy and efficiency.

Just because it's easier doesn't mean it should be allowed.

The exact same logic applies to bank fraud, embezzling, and criminal conspiracies of every type. Client-side detection of any shady/criminal activity would always be easier with client-side software. There are many industries & agencies that would purely love to install data mining software on the computers of every consumer so that they could easily find evidence of malfeasance.  But they're not allowed to, and for good reason.

The FBI isn't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every citizen.

Banks aren't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every customer.

Insurance companies aren't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every home owner.

And so on...

Arguing that it's easier does not make it acceptable. Arguing that the game companies have a financial interest in data mining your PC is just as bad an argument as arguing that the FBI, or police, or banks, or insurance companies have an interest or that they should be allowed to install data mining software on people's computers. Gaming is not more important than law enforcement, gaming is not more important than banking, gaming is not more important than insurance, and so on.

 

There is no good reason why gaming companies are allowed to have the ability to data mine everyone's computer when no other industry or agency has that right. This is such a simple concept that it's shocking when peole don't get it.

14 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

As for everything else you mentioned, I won't comment. As previously mentioned, I have no interest into discussing/debating privacy laws, etc.

That's a cheap dodge, and an intellectually lazy one at that. You can't just conveniently ignore the larger context of the discussion. If you're going to talk about the rights of gaming companies then those rights have to be placed into the context of the larger society we live in. Gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's just one industry in a world with many industries and gaming needs to be held accountable to the same standards as every other industry.

The fact that the gaming industry can force you to spyware on your computer is unique, no other industry or agency is allowed to create that environment. That one single fact, the fact that they have this unique ability to force people to install data mining tools, should be more then enough to make it obvious why it's wrong and why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

They tell you exactly what they are targeting, how it is processed, and what they do with any data collected in their Privacy Policy. You get all that information when prompted to install it as well

Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true.

The ESEA also had ToS and a Privacy Policy telling you "exactly what they are targeting, how it is processed, and what they do with any data collected" and yet they were caught installing bit coin mining software on consumers' computers.

"but we have no reasons to believe so without speculating into conspiracies -- maybe I'm just dumb and naive, who knows!"

It's not a conspiracy theory when it really happened, and it did, now it's just a known fact.

It's not dumb and naive to avoid conspiracy theories, but it is dumb and naive to deny facts because they contradict your wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator

Oh boy, why am I still here. 🤪

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Again, I understand very well what you were trying to illustrate, you keep on responding as though somehow I didn't understand your easy-to-understand comparison when it should be obvious to you from my replies that you communicated your intent very effectively and it was well understood. Your analogy was perfectly understandable, and it doesn't work. You're right to point out that "Into any analogy, you will always find differences", but the key issue that you're missing is that an analogy only works if the similarities are more important than the differences.

Following your logic above, if you were trying to help someone understand what a dog is you might be able to say that it's analogous to a cat but larger, or analogous to a bobcat or lynx but with a longer nose. The similarities between cats and dogs are sufficient that they can be used as analogs to use one to help explain the other. You could not, on the other hand, use cats or dogs to help someone understand what a giraffe is, or an elephant is. Even though all three species are 4-legged mammals the differences are so much more important than the similarities that they are not valid analogs.

When the differences are more important than the similarities the analogy fails.

This is the point that you are missing, the differences between the TSA and AC software are so much more important than their similarities that your analogy is not valid. The only thing that's common between them is a form of ToS but that one similarity does not make them valid analogs. Yes, they both have some form of ToS and no, the fact that they both have a ToS simply does not matter because the differences between the TSA and AC software are much more important that merely the concept of ToS. Just saying "ToS" over and over doesn't make your analogy valid, it's not.

The differences are more important than the similarities, hence a failed analogy.

"A cat has 4 legs like a giraffe or an elephant" is a perfectly valid simile. They all have 4 legs, as you pointed out, therefore everything else that differs between them is irrelevant. The specific attribute they share, and that is specifically compared, is true, which makes it 100% valid.

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The FBI isn't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every citizen.

Banks aren't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every customer.

Insurance companies aren't allowed to install data mining software on the computers of every home owner.

And so on...

They all have scenarios where your privacy is void when you give it away. For instance, if the FBI knock at your door and ask to have a look inside, you have the choice, and if you consent, their search is legal, etc.

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The ToS of AC software completely fails to meet that standard, in its current form it is designed to benefit the gaming industry with no concern for the rights of consumers, an in fact infringes on the rights of consumers significantly.

Well, an AC does not really benefit the gaming industry. It benefits legit players that want a fair game without cheaters.

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

That's a cheap dodge, and an intellectually lazy one at that. You can't just conveniently ignore the larger context of the discussion.

I can, and will. I told you from the start I wasn't interested into debating and discussing that "larger context". If that makes me intellectually lazy, then so be it! 🙃

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

It's not a conspiracy theory when it really happened, and it did, now it's just a known fact.

The fact ESEA did what they did doesn't means BE has, or will. It is a matter of trust, as previously stated, and you have the choice to not give your trust to them if you want to but I personally have no reason to doubt their legitimacy and have no issue to accept their terms in order to play a great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...