![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Valve Anti-Cheat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the external link kinda stupid since it references Wikipedia? 86.142.104.176 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is simply incorrect information. Especially without citation - polymorphism is a common technique in computer science in regards to development within a single assembly (dll file, etc). Overloading this method beyond this is more commonly known as dll injection - where a malicious program could replace pre-loaded module method bytecode with their own without the host program knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.82.176 ( talk) 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that it may be a good idea to have a link to where Valve stated that 10,000 accounts had been flagged i.e the 18th Of Nov 2006 weekly news update?
What do people make of this? I've seen more than enough falsified crap on the VAC forums to dismiss it, but their claims that the accounts are unbanned a few days after the alleged infraction make me uncertain. The post is from a year ago, but the comments go up to 2006-11-11. -- Tom Edwards 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"While most cheat systems ban offenders immediately upon detection, VAC cheaters can simply replace banned accounts by repurchasing the game once on a new account and again after being caught for hacking again, cheating indefinitely without ever being removed from the game environment." Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see how this is any different from any other anticheat solutions, barring any requiring personally identifying information and then banning that. Since repurchasing the game and getting a new account works for the vast majority of games out there, the exceptions being the aforementioned banning of the identified account owner, not the game account, I don't see how this can be called a VAC disadvantage since it's hardly exclusive to VAC.
Edit: Forgot to login and sign this entry. Zeraliten 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: "Legitimate players endure a month of uninhibited cheating from each and every individual cheater." Reference #4 cites "that value is too large" when 3 weeks is being mentioned, meaning we can assume at -most- a 3 week ban delay. For all we know the delayed ban could be anything from a few hours/days and up to 3 weeks and even on a randomized timer, making "a month" misleading. I'd suggest changing "a month" to "potentially up to three weeks", removal of the sentence as a whole or asking a valve employee for a reasonable "up to X", though that might be going a bit far just to keep the "Legitimate players endure....." Zeraliten 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You can ban computer by calculated hardware id (e.g. future CPU built-in unique serial number) , and new account don't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.220.13 ( talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
a citation for this can be found on the hash collision article. i personally like http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/ as it isn't overly technical and could be understood by most people.
i can't seem to get the citation to add properly here (i really need to find some time and learn how to work this) so i would ask that someone else add it in. 204.83.242.189 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a couple of points to the disadvantages section, and I've given the Criticism section a big overhaul. While I'm still getting used to the referencing situation, I know that a couple of the things I've put in there will probably need a reference to be substantiated. I didn't add any {{cite}} tags cause I'd probably add too many, or to incorrect points, etc.
Now, I'm 100% certain without a doubt that everything I've written is correct... I may have crossed the neutrality line at some point (but that's why wikipedia is a collaborative process!) but I have personally enjoyed all of the aspects I mentioned, so they do exist. As for the issue of references, well, once again, that's why it's a community project. I'm going to do my best to find some decent sources, but something like the issues concerning 'Steam User Forum moderation' will be very difficult to source. I would even go so far as to suggest that the Steam User Forums are ineligible as a source because of the moderation issues (they uphold the lore of Valve to the letter, with an iron fist :p).
As for the other stuff, most of it's either tautology or things that can be drawn from basic inference anyway, but I will still endeavour to find some good sites. Obviously in the mean time everyone should go mental rectifying my errors or exacerbating my eloquence. :) - You've been taught Fluck ED 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed weasel words tag from this line, as I didn't feel it was relevant in this case-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 16:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)This may entice others to cheat, taking an "if they can do it so can I" attitude.
This section needs attention. In light of the fact that Tom Edwards reverted my attempt to clean up this section, I will gradually edit it so that, to the dismay of Valve employees, the actual ISSUES discussed in the criticism section are discernible through the convoluted mess that has become this section.
Whether it has been the intention of the people maintaining this section to obfuscate the truth - and the obvious reason for the section existing - it is the case now that the main POINTS and ISSUES are obscured by a lot of useless information and weasel words.
If you have an objection to this, Mr Tom Edwards, please state why you object to the clarification of these issues here, so that we can establish the best course for the overhaul of this section, and possibly the entire article.
While I am still operating under the assumption of good faith in your edits, Tom, I believe that you have inadvertently contributed to concealing the truth from the public, in much the same way as Valve Software deliberately does this for their own profit. - You've been taught by Fluck ED 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, if you look in the disadvantages section, it says that VAC works by blacklist bans. This claim is unreferenced, and Valve has never fully stated how VAC works.
Also, due to the ammount of unreferenced content on this page, I feel this page's truthfullness is to be verified. AbJ32 ( talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've taken it upon myself to remove:
"Another criticism is that delayed bans increase the public's exposure to cheaters, and may drive otherwise innocent parties to install cheats of their own."
It contains no logic. You're not 'innocent' for cheating because a cheater is doing it in your presense any more than you're a 'virgin' for having sex with people because others are doing it in front of you.
Seriously now people. Anyhow, it was an unsourced claim anyhow. If someone wants to rephrase and source it to make more sense, then please go ahead and do so. 75.149.203.217 ( talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There's far too many unsourced statements in this article that have been there for quite some time. The article is edited semi-frequently, so can someone familiar with the subject matter please find sources? I'm sure some of them can be found in Valve's policies, for example. - MK ( talk/ contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
ive see soo much topics on forums about being banned while the owner didnt hack or didnt do anny other illegable activity (that have set me on thinking ive read alot and i think vac isnt perfect however valve says it is how about the innocent people?) then i think does VAC/team care about there well playing gamers that pay and work hard for there games and get banned because they got hacked/or get in trouble with a hacked server that messed with the game files while they dont even know or do know but dont know what too do (call of duty modern warfare 2) it was pretty confusing too see this poor people and how the vac team handles ( ive seen people who where very upset crying and being angry very confused ) its unhuman since u cant just let the ban stay thats like putting some u find on the street in jail while he was just making a walk and doing nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VACisNOTRIGHT ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
All of the false positive detections listed specify why they were false positives, but I have seen nothing like that in the case of MW2. The mere fact that people have been complaining does not qualify, even by the slightly unusual referencing standards this article has come to be edited by. -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
could be but i guess steam has a problem now as the vac system never should make mistakes well this shows enought that vac makes mistakes too however steam claimed it never did what a bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.244.230 ( talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, your Steam account was erroneously banned from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
This was our mistake, and I apologize for any frustration or angst it may have caused you.
The problem was that Steam would fail a signature check between the disk version of a DLL and a latent memory version. This was caused by a combination of conditions occurring while Steam was updating the disk image of a game. This wasn't a game-specific mistake. Steam allows us to manage and reverse these erroneous bans (about 12,000 erroneous bans over two weeks).
We have reversed the ban, restoring your access to the game. In addition, we have given you a free copy of Left 4 Dead 2 to give as a gift on Steam, plus a free copy for yourself if you didn't already own the game.
To share your extra copy of Left 4 Dead 2 with a friend, you can 'Manage Gifts and Guest Passes' from the 'Games' Menu in Steam, or visit this article on the Steam Support site for detailed instructions: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4502-TPJL-2656.
To access your own copy of Left 4 Dead 2, visit your library of games in Steam. If you didn't already own the game, it will now be listed among your others there, and is available for download immediately.
Regards, Gabe Newell President, Valve —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaustyArchaeus ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Valve Anti-Cheat, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--
Vaypertrail (
talk)
16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
A third-party source has covered the matter in detail. Hopefully it will be to Vaypertrail's liking. -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw a request for mediation in this matter was made almost a month ago. Is the issue still unresolved?
--
K10wnsta (
talk)
07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
DLLs are not generally considered "content". Content is considered to be resources such as maps, texture, sounds, models. When for example players talk about "content" in a game, they aren't referring to software features or bug fixes, they're referring to areas, places, environments. This is pretty widely held view. I am reverting this again, back to it's original form, until a consensus is made that it should be changed to Material. With two editors having reverted this change you've made to a long standing statement in this article, you should probably have gone to the talk page yourself to gather consensus for your change. ferret ( talk) 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed this with Saints Row: The Third, and it may apply to others. Some games are listed as VAC enabled even though they do not use VAC. See: THQ support. The Steam store page agrees with this, not listing it as Valve Anti-Cheat enabled. Steamworks != VAC. Daz ( talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Paranoia mod VAC triggers have been tested a few times and it has not caused a VAC ban for quite a large number of people, I believe it was in fact another OpenGL DLL that enabled HDR in the GoldSrc engine that triggered this ban and people pinned it on Paranoia.
Should the fact that this has been proven false be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.124.17 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
undid vandalism; warning IP address; article may need to be scrubbed for other vandalism .-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that the section on Paranoia has been modified to say that the mod triggers a kick rather than a VAC ban. I've researched about this on the internet and am yet to find any evidence for this. The consensus that I'm seeing is that if you install one of those mods and put a modded opengl32.dll file in the Steam folder and then play on a VAC-enabled Half-Life 1 server, you may trigger a VAC ban, but if there is no modded opengl32.dll file there or you avoid HL1 multiplayer on VAC-enabled servers then you are OK. However I have seen that there are indeed many reports of people using Paranoia and mods that similarly use custom DLLs and never getting VAC bans, and also reports that Steam automatically deletes some custom DLL files before allowing you to play online multiplayer, hence "may" rather than "will" regarding the ban, but there is no evidence for the kick. Tws45 ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Garry's Mod Technically isn't "VAC" secured... it is a special kind and only hardcore beginning Gmod servers are actually Vac protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.46.50 ( talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed is protected with VAC ban. Even though it's not on the store page, it's still good to put it on the list.
Discussion thread on the Game Community forums that has the VAC support message: http://steamcommunity.com/app/212480/discussions/0/828935361130122025/
Otherwise, you can see it here:
"2. VAC Support
We had a lot of requests for this and it's now in place. As with all VAC games, if you attempt to cheat using various memory hackers, trainers or altered executables - you run the risk of being VAC banned and this will prevent you playing the game online forever. If you aren't cheating, it should otherwise be transparent to you." ~Goldtex July 4th, 2013 7:00 PM PST
Shouldn't that list of 300+ games be a separate article instead of just deleting it? 73.181.82.26 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up the false positive section, mostly clearing up details of the obsolete VAC1 system, to make emphasis on the current VAC2 system. Bb7777777 ( talk) 11:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
On this article, in the references, a page that looks like from Valve. It's the reference for the 10,000 cheat attempts part in the lead of the article, but when I try to open it, my anti-virus says that there may be a virus on this page. Is this considered a problem? JumpiMaus ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Ferret All sources describe Valve as being utterly apathetic to the current situation, while yes you could state it's not NPOV, no source describes Valve as taking a active role in combating this, in fact all describe the apathy to this. How would you word it? Des Vallee ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
References
A long-time Team Fortress 2 player expressed to Engadget that updating VAC may assist with bot-related cheating in that game.But you're going to get arguments against that because of due weight. They don't mention VAC by name. — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 15:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Valve Anti-Cheat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the external link kinda stupid since it references Wikipedia? 86.142.104.176 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is simply incorrect information. Especially without citation - polymorphism is a common technique in computer science in regards to development within a single assembly (dll file, etc). Overloading this method beyond this is more commonly known as dll injection - where a malicious program could replace pre-loaded module method bytecode with their own without the host program knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.82.176 ( talk) 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that it may be a good idea to have a link to where Valve stated that 10,000 accounts had been flagged i.e the 18th Of Nov 2006 weekly news update?
What do people make of this? I've seen more than enough falsified crap on the VAC forums to dismiss it, but their claims that the accounts are unbanned a few days after the alleged infraction make me uncertain. The post is from a year ago, but the comments go up to 2006-11-11. -- Tom Edwards 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"While most cheat systems ban offenders immediately upon detection, VAC cheaters can simply replace banned accounts by repurchasing the game once on a new account and again after being caught for hacking again, cheating indefinitely without ever being removed from the game environment." Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see how this is any different from any other anticheat solutions, barring any requiring personally identifying information and then banning that. Since repurchasing the game and getting a new account works for the vast majority of games out there, the exceptions being the aforementioned banning of the identified account owner, not the game account, I don't see how this can be called a VAC disadvantage since it's hardly exclusive to VAC.
Edit: Forgot to login and sign this entry. Zeraliten 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: "Legitimate players endure a month of uninhibited cheating from each and every individual cheater." Reference #4 cites "that value is too large" when 3 weeks is being mentioned, meaning we can assume at -most- a 3 week ban delay. For all we know the delayed ban could be anything from a few hours/days and up to 3 weeks and even on a randomized timer, making "a month" misleading. I'd suggest changing "a month" to "potentially up to three weeks", removal of the sentence as a whole or asking a valve employee for a reasonable "up to X", though that might be going a bit far just to keep the "Legitimate players endure....." Zeraliten 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You can ban computer by calculated hardware id (e.g. future CPU built-in unique serial number) , and new account don't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.220.13 ( talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
a citation for this can be found on the hash collision article. i personally like http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/ as it isn't overly technical and could be understood by most people.
i can't seem to get the citation to add properly here (i really need to find some time and learn how to work this) so i would ask that someone else add it in. 204.83.242.189 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a couple of points to the disadvantages section, and I've given the Criticism section a big overhaul. While I'm still getting used to the referencing situation, I know that a couple of the things I've put in there will probably need a reference to be substantiated. I didn't add any {{cite}} tags cause I'd probably add too many, or to incorrect points, etc.
Now, I'm 100% certain without a doubt that everything I've written is correct... I may have crossed the neutrality line at some point (but that's why wikipedia is a collaborative process!) but I have personally enjoyed all of the aspects I mentioned, so they do exist. As for the issue of references, well, once again, that's why it's a community project. I'm going to do my best to find some decent sources, but something like the issues concerning 'Steam User Forum moderation' will be very difficult to source. I would even go so far as to suggest that the Steam User Forums are ineligible as a source because of the moderation issues (they uphold the lore of Valve to the letter, with an iron fist :p).
As for the other stuff, most of it's either tautology or things that can be drawn from basic inference anyway, but I will still endeavour to find some good sites. Obviously in the mean time everyone should go mental rectifying my errors or exacerbating my eloquence. :) - You've been taught Fluck ED 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed weasel words tag from this line, as I didn't feel it was relevant in this case-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 16:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)This may entice others to cheat, taking an "if they can do it so can I" attitude.
This section needs attention. In light of the fact that Tom Edwards reverted my attempt to clean up this section, I will gradually edit it so that, to the dismay of Valve employees, the actual ISSUES discussed in the criticism section are discernible through the convoluted mess that has become this section.
Whether it has been the intention of the people maintaining this section to obfuscate the truth - and the obvious reason for the section existing - it is the case now that the main POINTS and ISSUES are obscured by a lot of useless information and weasel words.
If you have an objection to this, Mr Tom Edwards, please state why you object to the clarification of these issues here, so that we can establish the best course for the overhaul of this section, and possibly the entire article.
While I am still operating under the assumption of good faith in your edits, Tom, I believe that you have inadvertently contributed to concealing the truth from the public, in much the same way as Valve Software deliberately does this for their own profit. - You've been taught by Fluck ED 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, if you look in the disadvantages section, it says that VAC works by blacklist bans. This claim is unreferenced, and Valve has never fully stated how VAC works.
Also, due to the ammount of unreferenced content on this page, I feel this page's truthfullness is to be verified. AbJ32 ( talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've taken it upon myself to remove:
"Another criticism is that delayed bans increase the public's exposure to cheaters, and may drive otherwise innocent parties to install cheats of their own."
It contains no logic. You're not 'innocent' for cheating because a cheater is doing it in your presense any more than you're a 'virgin' for having sex with people because others are doing it in front of you.
Seriously now people. Anyhow, it was an unsourced claim anyhow. If someone wants to rephrase and source it to make more sense, then please go ahead and do so. 75.149.203.217 ( talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There's far too many unsourced statements in this article that have been there for quite some time. The article is edited semi-frequently, so can someone familiar with the subject matter please find sources? I'm sure some of them can be found in Valve's policies, for example. - MK ( talk/ contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
ive see soo much topics on forums about being banned while the owner didnt hack or didnt do anny other illegable activity (that have set me on thinking ive read alot and i think vac isnt perfect however valve says it is how about the innocent people?) then i think does VAC/team care about there well playing gamers that pay and work hard for there games and get banned because they got hacked/or get in trouble with a hacked server that messed with the game files while they dont even know or do know but dont know what too do (call of duty modern warfare 2) it was pretty confusing too see this poor people and how the vac team handles ( ive seen people who where very upset crying and being angry very confused ) its unhuman since u cant just let the ban stay thats like putting some u find on the street in jail while he was just making a walk and doing nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VACisNOTRIGHT ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
All of the false positive detections listed specify why they were false positives, but I have seen nothing like that in the case of MW2. The mere fact that people have been complaining does not qualify, even by the slightly unusual referencing standards this article has come to be edited by. -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
could be but i guess steam has a problem now as the vac system never should make mistakes well this shows enought that vac makes mistakes too however steam claimed it never did what a bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.244.230 ( talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, your Steam account was erroneously banned from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
This was our mistake, and I apologize for any frustration or angst it may have caused you.
The problem was that Steam would fail a signature check between the disk version of a DLL and a latent memory version. This was caused by a combination of conditions occurring while Steam was updating the disk image of a game. This wasn't a game-specific mistake. Steam allows us to manage and reverse these erroneous bans (about 12,000 erroneous bans over two weeks).
We have reversed the ban, restoring your access to the game. In addition, we have given you a free copy of Left 4 Dead 2 to give as a gift on Steam, plus a free copy for yourself if you didn't already own the game.
To share your extra copy of Left 4 Dead 2 with a friend, you can 'Manage Gifts and Guest Passes' from the 'Games' Menu in Steam, or visit this article on the Steam Support site for detailed instructions: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4502-TPJL-2656.
To access your own copy of Left 4 Dead 2, visit your library of games in Steam. If you didn't already own the game, it will now be listed among your others there, and is available for download immediately.
Regards, Gabe Newell President, Valve —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaustyArchaeus ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Valve Anti-Cheat, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--
Vaypertrail (
talk)
16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
A third-party source has covered the matter in detail. Hopefully it will be to Vaypertrail's liking. -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw a request for mediation in this matter was made almost a month ago. Is the issue still unresolved?
--
K10wnsta (
talk)
07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
DLLs are not generally considered "content". Content is considered to be resources such as maps, texture, sounds, models. When for example players talk about "content" in a game, they aren't referring to software features or bug fixes, they're referring to areas, places, environments. This is pretty widely held view. I am reverting this again, back to it's original form, until a consensus is made that it should be changed to Material. With two editors having reverted this change you've made to a long standing statement in this article, you should probably have gone to the talk page yourself to gather consensus for your change. ferret ( talk) 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed this with Saints Row: The Third, and it may apply to others. Some games are listed as VAC enabled even though they do not use VAC. See: THQ support. The Steam store page agrees with this, not listing it as Valve Anti-Cheat enabled. Steamworks != VAC. Daz ( talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Paranoia mod VAC triggers have been tested a few times and it has not caused a VAC ban for quite a large number of people, I believe it was in fact another OpenGL DLL that enabled HDR in the GoldSrc engine that triggered this ban and people pinned it on Paranoia.
Should the fact that this has been proven false be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.124.17 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
undid vandalism; warning IP address; article may need to be scrubbed for other vandalism .-- RichardMills65 ( talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that the section on Paranoia has been modified to say that the mod triggers a kick rather than a VAC ban. I've researched about this on the internet and am yet to find any evidence for this. The consensus that I'm seeing is that if you install one of those mods and put a modded opengl32.dll file in the Steam folder and then play on a VAC-enabled Half-Life 1 server, you may trigger a VAC ban, but if there is no modded opengl32.dll file there or you avoid HL1 multiplayer on VAC-enabled servers then you are OK. However I have seen that there are indeed many reports of people using Paranoia and mods that similarly use custom DLLs and never getting VAC bans, and also reports that Steam automatically deletes some custom DLL files before allowing you to play online multiplayer, hence "may" rather than "will" regarding the ban, but there is no evidence for the kick. Tws45 ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Garry's Mod Technically isn't "VAC" secured... it is a special kind and only hardcore beginning Gmod servers are actually Vac protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.46.50 ( talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed is protected with VAC ban. Even though it's not on the store page, it's still good to put it on the list.
Discussion thread on the Game Community forums that has the VAC support message: http://steamcommunity.com/app/212480/discussions/0/828935361130122025/
Otherwise, you can see it here:
"2. VAC Support
We had a lot of requests for this and it's now in place. As with all VAC games, if you attempt to cheat using various memory hackers, trainers or altered executables - you run the risk of being VAC banned and this will prevent you playing the game online forever. If you aren't cheating, it should otherwise be transparent to you." ~Goldtex July 4th, 2013 7:00 PM PST
Shouldn't that list of 300+ games be a separate article instead of just deleting it? 73.181.82.26 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up the false positive section, mostly clearing up details of the obsolete VAC1 system, to make emphasis on the current VAC2 system. Bb7777777 ( talk) 11:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
On this article, in the references, a page that looks like from Valve. It's the reference for the 10,000 cheat attempts part in the lead of the article, but when I try to open it, my anti-virus says that there may be a virus on this page. Is this considered a problem? JumpiMaus ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Ferret All sources describe Valve as being utterly apathetic to the current situation, while yes you could state it's not NPOV, no source describes Valve as taking a active role in combating this, in fact all describe the apathy to this. How would you word it? Des Vallee ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
References
A long-time Team Fortress 2 player expressed to Engadget that updating VAC may assist with bot-related cheating in that game.But you're going to get arguments against that because of due weight. They don't mention VAC by name. — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 15:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)