DRM is usually known for big games before they are released. You can find articles about how the DRM works online. If it’s a new type of DRM, they usually describe how it works.
Steam has it listed on the demo, and it will likely be listed upon release, not sure what their stance is on pre-release, but this is a requirement now on steam to list it.
It’s under the features section (where it says co-op, controller support etc.). Should be highlighted in yellow for all 3rd party requirements (including kernel and non-kernel anti-cheat).
I don’t think anti chest should be in stuff like singleplayer or co-op games but competitive pvp multiplayer games it absolutely is and should continue to be the standard whether you like it or not.
How did you miss the important specificity of “kernel level”? No one is hating on “normal” anti-cheat, but kernel level is not acceptable, which is why just that has been the thing people have hated for several years.
This is yet another predatory cheap asiagrinder with an invasive kernel level ‘anticheat’. Stuff like this should not be promoted. At all.
how can you tell it’s using something ring0 wish steam was more clear about this shit
DRM is usually known for big games before they are released. You can find articles about how the DRM works online. If it’s a new type of DRM, they usually describe how it works.
yea I found it searching for the game name + ring0
but if I didnt already know steam has nothing
annoying to haven to research this issue now for every game I buy
Steam has it listed on the demo, and it will likely be listed upon release, not sure what their stance is on pre-release, but this is a requirement now on steam to list it.
how is it listed? maybe Im blind
It’s under the features section (where it says co-op, controller support etc.). Should be highlighted in yellow for all 3rd party requirements (including kernel and non-kernel anti-cheat).
I don’t think anti chest should be in stuff like singleplayer or co-op games but competitive pvp multiplayer games it absolutely is and should continue to be the standard whether you like it or not.
So you like giving some random company access to your OS kernel?
You don’t need that for anticheat software and the security risks involved in this day and age practically forbids it.
Not kernel level anti cheat though.
How did you miss the important specificity of “kernel level”? No one is hating on “normal” anti-cheat, but kernel level is not acceptable, which is why just that has been the thing people have hated for several years.