Re: Game idea....

["Rick Genter" <rgenter@gis.net>]

> On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Bert Peers wrote:
> 
>> Yep, and the problem is that more and more games are moving to the
>> VM model (at least the big titles), so it looks like we'll end up with
>> the flexibility of the DLL/Proxy model, but with the ease of
>> "hack a few lines" QuakeC...
>
> Yes.
>>
>> > And so on. I believe it is -really- hard to solve this effeciently. Unless
>> > you start encrypting the stream, someone will reverse engineer your
>> > network protocol, and there you go. Even if you encrypt it, you could
>> > probably have problems.
>>
>>   Good point though when it comes to OSS...  I have no idea  what
>> you can do about somebody who downloads the client source,
>> programs autoaiming in it, and recompiles...  CRC checks would
>> hamper platform independence (every binary would be different),
>
> I cant see how crc checks would even work. I mean, if I have the source to
> the client, and I modify it, then it would be a trivial matter to modify
> it to deliver whatever CRC I needed...
>
>> obfuscation sucks, and any protocol C/S negotiate to prove their
>> "realness" to eachother is futile with source available...
>
> Yep. It is a real toughie.
>
> Nothing ruins a game, like a cheater sitting 200 km away from you.
>
> Mads

Of course, the real key (pardon the pun) is to have password-protected games
using public key encryption. Then it doesn't matter whether you have the
source or not - that won't give you the password.


--
Rick Genter
ICQ UIN# 8291497
<mailto:rgenter@gis.net>

Defend liberty; join the AT corps!
<http://www.operationphoenix.com>