Monitor requests Windows OS to install monitor company’s software, Windows installs whatever they want.

I’m unaware of any (1st party) game services being offerered to cheaters, or any explicit positive association. Best I can think of is a more neutural “anarchy” servers (i.e Minecraft). I imagine implimenting built-in “cheats” you would expect from 3rd parties (e.g. auto aim, wallhacks) but framed in a way that is hopefully tolerable to non-cheaters (perhapscalling it a handicap).

Having control over others’ computing, even with good intentions, creates a bad incentive. One must resist the temptation to use that control for your own benefit at the user’s expense. So no, I wouldn’t believe devs typically act more immoral when they have less unjust power over others’ computing.

Cheaters are preferable to your proprietary kernel-level anti-cheat and whatever sneaky plans you may have for users and their computers. Good luck winning an arms race.

If I ever do multiplayer (I hate networking) I plan to explore treating cheaters as a service problem, like pirates are to piracy.

Invested players tolerate a level of cheating and banned cheaters often re-buy the game again. There is a monitary incentive to have some cheaters in proprietary multiplayer games.

Open source client/server multiplayer games permit endless redistribution - new server hosters can exist. A server that falls to a bad temptation can be replaced by players migrating elsewhere.

Do you suppose games only use obfuscation as security? In turn-based games you have the time to not trust client infomation and real-time games could give the client less info until it’s actually needed. There would still be cheating via outside communication or outside tools… as cheating isn’t a technical issue solved by denying user software freedom - it’s a social issue.

And this is to go even futher beyond:

Ownership of software must include the right to maintain and repair it so it can continue to work - not only while the copyright holder’s servers says so. To be able to remove any digital locks as you would do to any physical lock found in your house. To do this we need the source code, and since not everyone is a programmer we need the right to share changes with others.

Support open source/software freedom respecting games!

Move it out of core and into an optional extention.

Of course if the code base respected user’s software freedom then others can maintain in your place.

Looks like an EvE profile image.

I heard it runs on UWU/Linux

Delay, deflect, deflock.

Are there EU protection laws against forced arbitration?

If they had to write “lifetime means 2 years (or whenever we feel like it)” in big letters above the works “buy” or “purchase” it may affect their “sales”. They can write whatever they want in small print, they shouldn’t have told customers it was buying.

I don’t know what you mean.

By the government? That is sincerly horrifying if so.

Interesting, if other countries have less driving accidents then it may be worth considering lowering our legal limit. That is, if we can actually detect something is affecting them. Unless the driver is already driving erratically then we must presume the effects of any drink or other drugs isn’t affecting them. Mandatory testing or randomly pulling people over to test them would be a gross over-reach. We trust people to change their own break pads, I trust them to know if they can drive on painkillers.

Real money?

If you can drive safely then go ahead but if you’re impaired by too much of anything that you would drive poorly then don’t. I thought this was common sense.

In UK you can if it doesn’t affect your driving.

“Think of the game-devs needing to make money” says a fat cat talking about a tool forged from game-dev’s labour without compensation and disregarding any social contracts (i.e. copyleft software licenses).

“We must do X at any cost to the user because others will do it and get the money”

This mentality has driven the games industry to become psychologically manipulative, subscription battleass and absolutely proprietary.

Maybe the irresponsibility is in ourselves for giving those game companies money.