“Get Good Kid”

Arguably the most persistent problem in player versus player games is hacking. This issue is not limited to video games alone, as cheating has been a part of competition since time began. Players are willing to do whatever it takes, whether within or outside the rules, to get the dub. It can be infuriating to lose to someone who seems to have an unfair advantage, whether through a wrist-breaking flick, suspicious timing, or a machine-like ability barrage. Instead of gracefully accepting defeat with a "nice shot" or "well played”, there is often a lingering doubt as to whether the opponent is cheating or if we simply got outplayed and are not as skilled as they are.

What the VAC? It’s not enough.

Cheating is rampant in competitive gaming, regardless of the presence of anti-cheat systems such as Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC), Riot Vanguard, and Easy Anticheat. Players always seem to find ways to exploit these systems and gain an edge, whether for financial gain or simply for glory.

But what happens when cheaters get caught? Typically, they receive a ban from the game. However, with titles now using a freemium model, this punishment is not as effective as it used to be. The financial barrier to entry has been lowered and while it can be an effective growth model, the low barrier to entry for hackers means that they face little to no penalty for not playing nicely. If they are banned, they can simply create another account without any consequences.

Games can disincentivize hacking through raise the “cost” of creating a new account which can take various forms. For paid titles, they can tie accounts to game keys, where being banned (like Call of Duty) means having to re-up on another copy of the game to continue your sorry-ass, machine-assisted rampage. For free games (such as CSGO, Fortnite, Valorant, and League of Legends), the cost comes with the players’ time and effort. There may be a minimum rank or playtime requirement before accessing competitive matches. However, these measures are relatively mild and may not be sufficient to prevent hacking. The low barrier to entry and lack of serious consequences for hacking makes it difficult to combat cheating in our favorite competitive titles.

Back in the day, cheaters might face an IP ban for their in-game conduct. However, nowadays, most internet service providers assign dynamic IP addresses to their users, and failing that, cheaters can bypass the block by spoofing their IP address. The concept of tying an IP address to a cheater's account and blocking them from accessing game servers is still a good one, but its execution has not stood the test of time. Nonetheless, it's a valuable lesson for us to learn from.

I thought this was a Web3 blog?

There has been a lot of speculation on how anti-cheats will work and apply to blockchain games. Regardless if a game is entirely on chain or not, with a monetary value associated with in-game assets, comes a motive for people to do everything in their means to get their payday. While complexities are related to fully on-chain titles, blockchain can help us play a part in players’ digital identities.

Before I go further, it's important to note that this approach is one part of an anti-cheat system. People exploit video games in many ways, but most cheat engines are third-party software to run alongside your game, not changing the game code itself. The current anti-cheat systems look to verify game files and detect this software to check that. Verifying this game state could be done on chain, but it isn't optimal, so instead, We'll be tackling how we can deter people from hacking in the first place by using blockchain as a reference for your gaming history.

Why blockchain?

When discussing blockchain use cases, digital identities are not a new concept. Ethereum Naming Service (ENS), Unstoppable Domains, and Lens Protocol are blockchain extensions of email addresses used as the base for web2 internet. The vision for the next stage in internet development is to have an address as your identity in web3.

Blockchain provides three crucial elements for digital identities:

• Transparency

• Immutability

• Traceability

These factors result in an irreversible decentralized ledger that any network member can verify. This has led to companies like Chainalysis and Elliptic, which offer tools for mapping out on-chain activity that can be used to trace funds associated with crimes and questionable transactions. What if we could do the same for hackers with a history of offenses? Not only would rogue gamers have their accounts banned on file, viewable to all, but the rest of us would also be able to prove our shining records using the same identity. This identity would then be connected or registered with each game so that all activity is visible under one alias, much like your "0x..." address can be used across EVM-compatible chains. This information then builds on your player reputation which can be used as a prerequisite for specific servers, tournaments, or rewards (more on who sets these thresholds later). Outside of cheating prevention, this would be a one-stop shop to see all your accolades and achievements across your gaming life regardless of platform, system, or franchise.

Put your Money Where Your Mouth Is

As we previously discussed, hackers can easily create a new email and account to shed their skin in prep for exploits under a new alias. To prevent this, there should be a financial barrier in place to discourage such behavior. This could come in the form of a staking mechanism where players must put down collateral that is slashed or forfeited completely if they are caught hacking.

However, this presents a problem for everyday gamers. As the cost of paid games continues to rise, some may not be able to pledge additional funds for fair gaming. This should not mean that they are excluded from the same gaming experience as others. The challenge is to balance rewarding all gamers, from die-hards to weekend warriors, while making it difficult for hackers to create new digital identities.

One solution could be to distribute value back to those who actively participate in the game, not just those who play it. This could include rewards based on rank, time played, community activity, or achievements unlocked. Alternatively, collateral could be distributed back to the community when cheaters are caught. It is important to find a fair and effective solution that benefits all gamers.

Judge, Jury, and Executioner

All of this so far is great (which we need a lot of brains to flesh out and build) but even if we can have the all-encompassing gamer history for every player in

the world and a perfectly balanced value distribution system that deters hackers and rewards players - there is still the challenge of deciding what constitutes hacking and who is laying down the law.

It would be pointless to have these systems if a single person or a small group of individuals have the final say. An attempt to address this issue was seen in CS:GO, where ranked players were given the responsibility of overseeing reported cheaters. The accused player was presented with two options - 'Insufficient Evidence' and 'Evident Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' - based on VODs of their gameplay. However, this decentralization of power poses the risk of false positives or players manipulating the system by accumulating votes in a governance system similar to Compound Finance. Additionally, I have also reported players for being toxic, even if they are not cheating. Should they face a monetary penalty for their behavior?

The Scoreboard - What’s the value?

Game developers have a responsibility to balance both the metagame for fun and competitive gameplay, as well as the anti-cheat systems to ensure cheaters are punished and players have an enjoyable gaming experience. Not all aspects of the game stack need to be on chain, and we have proposed some potential applications at a high level. Shortly after starting this piece, we were down the rabbit hole of the many facets which encompass cheat prevention and if blockchain can play a part in just one, we are off to a good start. Regardless of what the next iteration of anti-cheat looks like, we can all agree that the current controls are not good enough and still cannot catch cheaters even at the highest levels of competition.