Sincerely thank you for commenting. I was completely dumbfounded with @[email protected]’s statement and wasn’t sure if I wanted to waste my time with a response if it was just trolling.
If that’s all it takes to dumbfound you, I am profoundly jealous. Anyways.
Those aren’t the claims fauxliving was making. They claim that there is no indication of taketwo requesting root level access and they’re strictly right, there is no language requesting that permission (or equivalents) (but I doubt that would matter to TakeTwo since they could argue it’s implicit)
They then claim that there has been no change to the game to include kernel level anticheat, which is also true.
What you presented does nothing to substantiate or refute those claims, just the claims made in the OP. Fauxliving’s comment was arguably off base, sure, but substantially their points are correct.
I don’t really know how else to phrase this, but I’ll give it a shot anyways: Anti-cheat isn’t intrinsically linked to root level permissions. It’s inclusion in a section about data sources compounds that concept. That is the claim that you are now making, and which isn’t supported by the section you’ve cited.
It is also worth nothing that no Borderlands games use anti-cheat, much less kernel anti-cheat. I’d even go as far as to say that no Gearbox, Take2 or 2k Games use kernel anti-cheat.
This is boilerplate language for games which include an online service component. Publishers often use the same Terms of Service across all of their games, so they include language that is often irrelevant for any specific game.
The only thing that’s different about this is that there are a bunch of bored people who consume engagement farming content, which often make outrageous claims in order to earn money from engagement farming. This “story” is not an actual story, but it is a great example of how a mob can be summoned with some creative writing and a credulous audience.
Sincerely thank you for commenting. I was completely dumbfounded with @[email protected]’s statement and wasn’t sure if I wanted to waste my time with a response if it was just trolling.
If that’s all it takes to dumbfound you, I am profoundly jealous. Anyways.
Those aren’t the claims fauxliving was making. They claim that there is no indication of taketwo requesting root level access and they’re strictly right, there is no language requesting that permission (or equivalents) (but I doubt that would matter to TakeTwo since they could argue it’s implicit)
They then claim that there has been no change to the game to include kernel level anticheat, which is also true.
What you presented does nothing to substantiate or refute those claims, just the claims made in the OP. Fauxliving’s comment was arguably off base, sure, but substantially their points are correct.
“What you presented does nothing to substantiate or refute”
prepare to be even more profoundly jealous because I’m profoundly dumbfounded at this point.
I don’t really know how else to phrase this, but I’ll give it a shot anyways: Anti-cheat isn’t intrinsically linked to root level permissions. It’s inclusion in a section about data sources compounds that concept. That is the claim that you are now making, and which isn’t supported by the section you’ve cited.
It is also worth nothing that no Borderlands games use anti-cheat, much less kernel anti-cheat. I’d even go as far as to say that no Gearbox, Take2 or 2k Games use kernel anti-cheat.
This is boilerplate language for games which include an online service component. Publishers often use the same Terms of Service across all of their games, so they include language that is often irrelevant for any specific game.
The only thing that’s different about this is that there are a bunch of bored people who consume engagement farming content, which often make outrageous claims in order to earn money from engagement farming. This “story” is not an actual story, but it is a great example of how a mob can be summoned with some creative writing and a credulous audience.