Used Processor Leads To Game Ban (heise.de) 114
AmiMoJo shares a report from heise online: Anyone buying used hardware for a gaming PC needs to be careful: not just whether the components are still in order but also what the previous owner did with them. A case on Reddit shows this. Someone installed a used AMD processor, a Ryzen 7 5800X3D, in their PC. Because the previous owner was caught cheating, the new owner cannot start several online games.
The problem was noticed in the first-person shooter "Valorant" from the development studio Riot. Right from the first start, the new owner was kicked out directly, according to their statement. Riot support confirmed that the previous owner had cheated. The processor is therefore on an internal blacklist -- and, with its installation in the PC, now apparently also some other components like the mainboard. Riot support does not remove such entries manually.
In addition to "Valorant," all other PC games from Riot are affected: the strategy game "League of Legends," the auto-battler "Teamfight Tactics," the card game "Legends of Runeterra," the fighting game "2XKO," and likely future titles as well. Riot's "Vanguard" anti-cheat system traditionally runs deep in the Windows kernel and starts with the PC, but a June 2026 update allows it to launch with a game if security features such as TPM and Secure Boot are enabled.
It's unclear how Riot uniquely identifies processors, though possibilities include hardware fingerprinting based on chip behavior or storing identification hashes in the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), which Vanguard accesses in the newer mode.
The problem was noticed in the first-person shooter "Valorant" from the development studio Riot. Right from the first start, the new owner was kicked out directly, according to their statement. Riot support confirmed that the previous owner had cheated. The processor is therefore on an internal blacklist -- and, with its installation in the PC, now apparently also some other components like the mainboard. Riot support does not remove such entries manually.
In addition to "Valorant," all other PC games from Riot are affected: the strategy game "League of Legends," the auto-battler "Teamfight Tactics," the card game "Legends of Runeterra," the fighting game "2XKO," and likely future titles as well. Riot's "Vanguard" anti-cheat system traditionally runs deep in the Windows kernel and starts with the PC, but a June 2026 update allows it to launch with a game if security features such as TPM and Secure Boot are enabled.
It's unclear how Riot uniquely identifies processors, though possibilities include hardware fingerprinting based on chip behavior or storing identification hashes in the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), which Vanguard accesses in the newer mode.
Of course (Score:5, Informative)
it's all Riot titles. And of course Riot support won't do anything. The entire company is laziness personified.
Re: Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. The publisher likely told the original gamer that their cheating marked that CPU banned on their game servers, then the gamer sold it to the buyer without telling buyer about the claim.
The buyers claim is likely limited to a refund from the gamer for not disclosing the ban/restriction, not the publisher.
kids these days ... (Score:5, Interesting)
a buddy asked me to install valorant once, valorant in turn prompted me to install some anticheat, which i did, and the anticheat in turn asked me to change some of my bios or uefi settings, can't remember, but it was a hilarous moment: instant uninstall, blacklist developer forever, next. buddy, let's play something else ...
Re:kids these days ... (Score:4, Insightful)
and the anticheat in turn asked me to change some of my bios or uefi settings, can't remember
The requirement is for secure boot and TPM to be enabled. You seem very proud of not enabling security settings on your device that in general help you regardless of using Valorant or not.
The hilarious part here is that the general Slashdot "wisdom" is that TPM can be used to flag and black list your device for whatever reason, ... as if that was ever required for software to do that.
It just once again goes to show that people will put a lot of effort into working against their own self interest.
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like you know specifically how they identified the user's CPU. What means was actually employed?
Re: (Score:1)
IIRC, most of the intel&amd cpus have a serial number insides them which can be read out.
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like you know specifically how they identified the user's CPU. What means was actually employed?
The flagging goes beyond CPU, it also flags the motherboard. Microsoft has been doing this to tie windows activation to components for decades now. A like for like CPU change would trigger a windows reactivation, and that was before you even learned to spell TPU.
Re: (Score:2)
A like for like CPU change would trigger a windows reactivation, and that was before you even learned to spell TPU.
Not IME. I changed the CPU on this system that I'm using right now back when it still had Windows on it without requiring reactivation. It took changing the motherboard to have to reactivate.
Re: (Score:3)
CPU's have serial numbers... considering the anti cheat software has root/kernel level access... it would have access to it that normal software wouldn't be able to read/access.
This would be my guess on the how based on the knowns.
AMD and Intel both have unique identifiers hardcoded in their processors. They implement it differently, but both do it.
Re:kids these days ... (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, TPM and secure boot are being sold to you as security measures. And these are...secure-ish.
TPM 2.0 could already be brute-forced within 45 minutes with hardware from 10+ years ago. Now, with much faster hardware + AI...should be a whole lot less time. Because TPM 2.0 is already a very old security method and there is no TPM 2.0 or even TPM 2.0.1 being planned either. This update cadence is way worse than OpenSSL's cadence. Or TLS's cadence for that matter.
Secure boot is in a nutsshell a sandbox that verifies if your computer's hardware is allowed to start up it's operating system. Sounds great in theory, I'll grant it that. However, it is in full control by Microsoft. So a single layer of security. By definition: "a layer of one == a layer of none".
In theory one could say that TPM and secure boot are security measurements. In practice, each is much less effective as the narrative wants us to believe. When combined, things don't fare that much better.
The "bonus" for Microsoft is that with those security measures, they have far more control over your computer than anyone should want. Microsoft hasn't had a great track-record in this field. Add to that the severe lack of progress regarding TPM...then I won't describe this as security, only as secure-ish. Because it isn't deserving of more.
Re:kids these days ... (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all...
TPM 2.0 could already be brute-forced within 45 minutes with hardware from 10+ years ago.
No. TPM 2.0 has anti-hammering protections and timer lockouts preventing brute force attacks. Not sure what you're thinking or talking about.
However, it is in full control by Microsoft.
No, it's not. I have both enabled for my Linux distro to use. Neither my distro nor Microsoft control Secure Boot or it's process.
In practice, each is much less effective as the narrative wants us to believe. When combined, things don't fare that much better.
This is just wrong. They are factually security improvements. Each one is very effective at their job. And they do their jobs well together. As long as you aren't expecting them to magically do more than they advertise, no one should be unhappy about turning these on. Only a complete moron would not want to turn them on.
The "bonus" for Microsoft is that with those security measures, they have far more control over your computer than anyone should want.
No, they don't. Microsoft doesn't own or control those processes. The only semi-related Microsoft specific thing is BitLocker, which doesn't require TPM or Secure Boot to function, but can and will use the TPM, if available.
Re: kids these days ... (Score:5, Informative)
Your distro can work with secure boot enabled because of a shim that grub uses to boot, and which is signed by Microsoft. Because Microsoft controls secure boot and they are the only ones who can sign it. If Microsoft stops signing that shim or revokes the signature, your distro will stop working with secure boot and there is nothing you can do about it. As long as you use secure boot you are at the mercy of Microsoft
Re: (Score:3)
I went to great lengths to remove Microsoft keys from my secureboot config, and boot only self-signed systems. So you can not be at the mercy of Microsoft. It's possible, but I definitely wouldn't recommend doing it to a random person on the Internet.
Re: kids these days ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Completely wrong again. Many motherboards come preconfigured to trust Microsoft signing keys and not Linux. The shim allow users to use those Microsoft keys. However, you can also enroll your own MOK and bypass the shim and everything Microsoft altogether - which is what I do. It's pretty easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Your distro can work with secure boot enabled because of a shim that grub uses to boot, and which is signed by Microsoft.
No, completely false, your distro can work with secure boot using MS's shim because you the user are too slack to use the feature properly and correctly.
You do not need any involvement from MS to securely boot Linux. In fact you shouldn't. The keys used for secure boot are under user control and user modifiable. Just follow some step by step instructions online to sign your bootloader and load your custom keys into UEFI. You can then proceed to delete Microsoft's keys rendering their shim useless.
The fun pa
Re: kids these days ... (Score:2)
Sure, as long as you're clear it's not your security as a user they're protecting.
Re: (Score:3)
Well they certainly aren't protecting *their* security via a distro install on my machine, so yeah, it's *my* security.
Re: (Score:2)
You may think so if you have no idea how the feature works. Secure Boot keys are 100% in control of the user. You can generate your own keys not only for Linux, but also for Windows ensuring that you and only you are completely in control of the boot process.
But you're too slack to do that, so you just use Microsoft's pre-installed key. It's like buying a lock with a serial number where if you ever lose your house key you can just call someone up and get them to make you a new one. Don't be slack. Learn how
Re: (Score:3)
TPM 2.0 could already be brute-forced within 45 minutes with hardware from 10+ years ago.
TPM 2.0 can *in theory* be brute forced in 45 minutes. For that you need access to the hardware directly without any intermediate software doing something as simple as rate limiting queries. I'm happy for you that you recognise that they broke this 10+ years ago, but quite disappointed that you don't realise this security gap was effectively closed shortly after for anything that doesn't involve taking your computer to a specialised lab to attack your credentials.
*Hint: It's not sophisticated nation states
Re: (Score:3)
TPM 2.0 includes rate limiting, and in most cases now it is actually an fTPM built into the CPU which is even more secure. This 45 minute brute force attack doesn't work.
Secureboot is not a sandbox. It is a certificate chain that validates that the OS bootloader, kernel, and basic drivers have not been tampered with. Malware used to replace the NTFS drive in Windows so that anti-virus software couldn't delete its files, and it effectively sandboxed the whole OS by controlling what it could see on the disk.
it's all about trust (Score:3)
It just once again goes to show that people will put a lot of effort into working against their own self interest.
oh, that ... i just don't trust the trusted platform, and as long as i can avoid it i won't contribute to propagate corporate moves wanting to decide for me what is or isn't allowed to boot or run on my systems. that's my choice and my responsibility, for good or bad. tpm might indeed have valid specific use cases elsewhere ... not on my pc. for sure not on that pc and to run some random shooter, that's just so outlandish and ridiculous that one has to wonder if there isn't really an ulterior motive behind
Re: (Score:3)
oh, that ... i just don't trust the trusted platform, and as long as i can avoid it i won't contribute to propagate corporate moves wanting to decide for me what is or isn't allowed to boot or run on my systems.
Why are you trusting anything? It sounds like you don't know what TPM / Secure boot is or how it works. You are in full control over both. You get to decide what is in the TPM (and there are many ways to clear the TPM, Windows provides 3, your UEFI provides some too). TPM is nothing more than a place to store stuff. In the absence of TPM that stuff is still stored on your computer, just typically not in a secure place, i.e. as a file somewhere on your drive.
Secure boot? That's entirely in your control as we
apples and baskets (Score:3)
Why are you trusting anything?
i ... basically don't? i just try to calculate risks sensibly.
what boots on my machine is simply not that much of an issue. it might be for corporate networks or institutional and business drone farms, which is what tpm were (supposedly) created for. if i have to worry about what is able to boot without me knowing on a system only me has direct access to, i'll have seriously fucked up long before that.
btw security isn't only about getting paranoid and trying to control everything. resilience goes a long way
Re: (Score:2)
Then you fundamentally do not understand. Everyone has a practical use for them and they should have been defaulted to on since their inception, but they weren't because no one required them.
So, to recap, everyone should have TPM and Secure Boot enabled and no one should install anything from Riot that requires Vanguard because it is spyware/malware.
Re:it's all about trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are you trusting anything?
That's what TPM is fundamentally about. You talked in another post about it being for separation, that's a trust function, so clearly you know it's about trust. That shows that this comment begins disingenuously.
Open Source TPM software and hardware exist, and are under the user's control in a way that any other TPM is not. Not every motherboard has a TPM slot, but boards with them are not hard to come by, so it is feasible for users to have a TPM that they actually do control. Neither the TPM in your CPU nor the average add-in TPM is actually that. Being able to remove things from it is not the same thing as being in control of it, although it's a part of being in control.
Re: (Score:2)
and are under the user's control in a way that any other TPM is not.
A TPM in the user's control is a TPM that can be modified by software with the user's privileges. That defeats the entire purpose of a hardware secure enclave. The extent of the user control over such a system should be to nuke it from orbit (for which Windows provides 3 separate ways to do). As soon as you have the ability to see or modify keys to individual pieces of software, so does any malware (in fact malware is more likely to be able to do so given the ample examples we have of malware running with p
Re:kids these days ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem very proud of not enabling security settings on your device that in general help you regardless of using Valorant or not.
Yeah, all this stuff is totally for the end-user's benefit. That's why it's being forced on everyone.
We live in odd times when people think games need to have low-level access to the OS and read hardware serial numbers, even if you want to play exclusively offline.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all this stuff is totally for the end-user's benefit. That's why it's being forced on everyone.
Yes. Sorry was there a question there? Or do you think the requirement to use a password for Slashdot when you sign up is some secret Slashdot corporate agenda that is being forced on you for some reasons? TPM and Secure Boot are forced on users just like every security measure in the history of the PC was, mainly because users are fucking dumb if left to secure their own systems. Hell I still remember the good ol' days of being able to turn computers on and ending up on a Windows desktop, even though Micro
Re: (Score:1)
Fun reminder that with an AI agentic framework, pretty much any software can be readily disassembled and this sort of malicious behavior "fixed". Tasks that previously would have taken far too many man-hours to do, well, you can have a bot do it now.
Re: kids these days ... (Score:1)
You made the right move. Riot games thinks that watching what websites you access is useful data in identifying cheaters, and will hand it over to palantir as a "partner" while boldly claiming they don't sell your data. They are a scumbag organization like so many others.
Re: kids these days ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, even told the kids that I won't have this kind of shit on machines that are on the inside of my private network. I explained them what this was about, and basically they went "oh, k understood". The youngest installed it years later and I saw him playing it, and I was like dude what the fuck is this Valorant and he was like ah shit I forgot they installed those rootkits? Am I fucked? Can we clean that up or is it a clean reinstall?
And I was very proud of my youngest son, that he somehow ended up
The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:5, Insightful)
Riot isn't identifying a Ryzen by staring at TCP packets. Vanguard runs on the PC, where it can collect hardware information or request TPM attestation and send the result to Riot. CPUID identifies a processor model, not an individual chip; a CPU-bound firmware TPM is a more plausible explanation for a ban following a used CPU.
Still, this is one Reddit report, not a technical postmortem. We don't know what Riot matched, or whether the buyer's motherboard and drive were blacklisted seperately. Riot's published policy [riotgames.com] also allows requests to review some hardware bans. The used-parts problem may be real, but the confident explanation of how it happened is ahead of the evidence.
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:2)
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
CPUID doesn't give you any serialnumber or other unique id.
The TPM module built into modern CPUs does.
Re: (Score:2)
CPUID doesn't give you any serialnumber or other unique id.
They briefly did in the Pentium 3 era, the confusion lingers as the functionality exists in CPUID but it no longer returns an actual unique value.
Re: (Score:1)
But some of the DRM features do. Media industry wants to be able to avoid sending data to compromised systems (even when this usually means a whole product line and not single products), so they have options to blacklist certain devices. If you buy a new BluRay and have an older player it may be unable to play it, because someone successfully used the same player to rip a BluRay. In the same manner processor, Windows, and your screen interact to make sure the video stream can only reach components that decr
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:3)
Make a bot that pretends to cheat using generated cpu serial numbers. Cause lots of people to get banned
Re:The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:5, Informative)
> CPUID identifies a processor model, not an individual chip
but the "Protected Processor Identification Number" does identify an actual chip. See: https://www.phoronix.com/news/... [phoronix.com]
Intel got hit with bad publicity when they tried to add serial numbers to CPUID back in the pentium 3 days... So when they stealth re-added the feature years later they changed the name. AMD dutifully copied it.
Re: (Score:2)
GPUs usually have a serial number as well. They will ban not just your CPU, but also your GPU, and probably any USB device with a serial number as well.
Re: (Score:2)
PPIN seems to mostly be a server feature. I don't feel like going into BIOS right now but I found this about a PPIN option on a Lenovo server [lenovo.com]. It shows an AMD processor so it's highly relevant. On my system I don't have /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/ppin and there's nothing about ppin in dmesg, but I don't know if that's because the feature's not enabled, or compiled in, or what.
Re: (Score:3)
TPM wouldn't work because you'd have to transplant it from one motherboard to another. The CPUID instruction gives a lot of information (including serial number) if you ask it the rig
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:5, Informative)
No, most people do not have a motherboard TPM, it's in the CPU.
Re: (Score:1)
The CPUID instruction gives a lot of information (including serial number)
Not since the Intel Pentium 4, presumably AMD also stopped returning a unique value long ago.
Ryzen 7 have a machne readable serial number? (Score:1)
CPUID identifies a processor model
I think you meant to say a unique serial number. I believe Ryzen 7 reports those.
Re: (Score:2)
Which field is the unique serial number? I don't see any such value.
$ lscpu
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Address sizes: 43 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Model name: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor
Re: (Score:1)
Some folks are claiming that there is some sort of unique value associated with DRM functionality. But I'm not sure if that is coming from the CPU or the motherboard.
I would only be mildly surprised if a CPU returns a random number these days, hence not a unique serial number, but something a d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:1)
MS Windows used to record MAC address, HD serial number and, I thought, a CPU serial number, any one could change, but changing two or all three required acre-activation of Windows. I think this was Window 7 era, but not sure.
I'm pretty sure CPUs have some sort of serial number, found this:
Every AMD processor has a unique serial number used for identification and tracking purposes. [amd.com]
So I guess it's trivial to block a specific AMD CPU, it does not seem possible to find an Intel CPU serial number via software (
Re: The Ban Wasn't in the Packets (Score:1)
There are many identifying features on a CPU even apart from the tpm. It's similar to the game websites play where they use the webgpu API to identify your specific video card and reduce the scope of who you could be dramatically. When you have kernel level access you can find out the baked in quality value (which determines voltage/frequency curve) for every CPU core. You can do similar stuff for the GPU, reference it against the whole hardware tree, firmware versions and so on. Riot knows who you are beca
Re: (Score:2)
It's been possible to identify CPU uniquely for decades, even before TPU existed. Also they don't just identify the CPU. The TPU side of things is irrelevant here.
TPM Suspicion Intensifies (Score:5, Interesting)
Riot's "Vanguard" anti-cheat system traditionally runs deep in the Windows kernel and starts with the PC, but a June 2026 update allows it to launch with a game if security features such as TPM and Secure Boot are enabled.
Anyone care to once again reassure me how TPM, a system for hiding information from a computer's user regardless of privilege level, can't be used for DRM again?
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone care to once again reassure me how TPM, a system for hiding information from a computer's user regardless of privilege level, can't be used for DRM again?
Are you seriously posting this on a story about fingerprinting of individual pieces of hardware? It's clear TPM isn't required for DRM. It's a device used for storage of secure keys, something that is entirely within your control. E.g. Microsoft has been tying Windows activation to hardware from back in the days before people even knew how to spell TPM.
Hell you're worried about someone "hiding information" in the TPM? Clear it. Windows gives you not one, not two, but three mechanisms to do so, either throug
Re: (Score:3)
Because unlike software-based solutions, it can successfully hide the information from the user (barring any hardware vulnerabilities). The problem isn't just that hidden information can exist on the system, the problem is that the root user can't access the information. Being able to access the information is what made DRM crackable. Without that, it could be possible to make a DRM system that actually works, which would be the worst invention in the history of computing. If the user can clear it but not s
Re: (Score:2)
It's all been over since we got processors with microcode, which could have something like a TPM in them. I'm not saying all of them do or anything like that, only that any of them could.
If you really want a computer you can trust, you're going to have to get vintage about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike software-based solutions, it can successfully hide the information from the user (barring any hardware vulnerabilities). The problem isn't just that hidden information can exist on the system, the problem is that the root user can't access the information.
No the problem is that *you* don't know how to access the information. Windows provides 3 distinct ways to clear all TPM data. Your UEFI provides ways to clear TPM data. It is under *YOUR* control. The idea of each app only having access to its own information is foundational to hardware security. The fact that a root user can't access information al-a-carte is foundational to the feature, and not DRM. You still have the ability to clear it.
Do you write your password on a post-it note and stick it under the
Re: (Score:2)
Windows provides 3 distinct ways to clear all TPM data. Your UEFI provides ways to clear TPM data. It is under *YOUR* control.
The "He who can destroy a thing controls it" idea from Dune was about political control, not direct and literal. You can destroy that data at any time, but that's the extent of your control over it. That's not nothing, but it's far from the hardware working for you.
The fact that a root user can't access information al-a-carte is foundational to the feature
Right, that's why the feature is not for my benefit. If I want to bypass security between applications which is not for my benefit (for example to prevent me from copying data that I'm actually intending to copy) and I can't do that because TPM s
Re: (Score:2)
That's not nothing, but it's far from the hardware working for you.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case this is the hardware working precisely as you want. A "safe" store that allows a root user to modify individual keys in flight is not safe from any software running as root privileges, and we have countless examples of malware running with rights far more privileged than the user.
This is very much the same argument as to why you don't build an encryption backdoor into chat services. If you want the system to work *against* the user, you'd implement it the way you suggest
Re: (Score:2)
You've failed to understand the concept of a secure enclave.
He said, while failing to understand that it's for controlling our use of our computers. Eyeroll all day.
If the user has no control over it, then it's for the control of the user.
The idea as presented as being in the user's benefit is that the user can control it, but applications cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It's for security.... but not YOUR security. It's to let others be secure from the user. The "trust" part of the TPM isn't there to let you trust the computer, it's so others can trust it. Or, in this case, build up a database of who not to trust.
Re: (Score:3)
No strawman, it happens almost every time I express concern at the possibility of TPM enabling a working DRM system.
Re: (Score:2)
Mental note (Score:5, Insightful)
Never by anything from Riot.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's the Quiet variety [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like it's time to invoke defamation laws (Score:3)
They're literally using false accusations as a basis to deprive a customer of something that has been paid for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't really apply to F2P games, the product is the skins and the emotes and the battle passes and such. It's more that most of the players are bycatch, they're casting a big net to catch the whales.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can you talk a 6 year old through the complexities of international relations?"
I might have better luck with the 6 year than you, they might understand the concept of "say one thing publicly, think and act on others privately".
Re: (Score:2)
Privately they are waiting for the adults to come to their senses in America so we can be done with this fucking chuckle head who got us into this mess.
Who is just totally chuffed about this? The Danish who we have pissed off? The UK who we've pissed off? Canada who we've pissed off? All of Eastern Europe who we've pissed off? Taiwan and Japan and SK who we've pissed off? Australia who we've pissed off?
So to answer "Can you talk a 6 year old through the complexities of international relations?" Probably bet
Re: (Score:3)
They're literally using false accusations as a basis to deprive a customer of something that has been paid for.
Defamation would require that Riot communicate the fact that the user is a cheater to third parties and for that communication to cause measurable reputational harm. Privately denying the user's account/computer access to a game does neither of those things, it's just a shitty thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Defamation would require that Riot communicate the fact that the user is a cheater to third parties [...]
It's possible that that has happened, since it's probably visible to other players that the account has been banned.
Re: (Score:3)
How would the court calculate the financial loss you have suffered as a result of the public hit to your reputation from this?
Kinda feels like unless your a big streamer or whatever your suing for a zero dollar payout.
That's not defamation (Score:1)
Defamation would be if they publicly called you a cheater when you were not AND you suffered reputational harm. Neither of that happened.
Now I'm not saying this isn't a shitty situation, I'm just saying it's not defamatory.
Re: Sounds like it's time to invoke defamation law (Score:1)
It's not a false accusation, the CPU was used to cheat, it was banned, not the user.
AMD CPUs have software accessible serial numbers, they blocked the CPU.
The buyer took his chances buying a used processors, that's between him and the seller/cheater.
Is this legal? (Score:3)
Was the CPU sold "as is"? (Score:1)
I wonder whether this is legal.
Sold "as is" could conceivably be interpreted as banned from a game due to prior abuse. Its plausible a lawyer could successfully argue this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That would affect the buyer's rights with respect to the seller, not not his rights with respect to the gaming company.
That is surely what the other lawyer would offer as a counterargument. I would also expect that there is something about hardware based bans in the terms of service, which the buyer would have to agree to in order to access the online game.
Re: (Score:1)
A lawyer could also argue that constraints with the previous contract holder do not apply to the current and are therefore unlawful as licenses/warranties are not transferable per manufacturers agreements.
Or do people not read the EULA/T&Cs these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Was the CPU sold "as is"? (Score:1)
Everything = "all their games", not Everything in the world, internet, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably have a "for any reason or no reason at all" clause in the fineprint. Most services do, because they don't want to discuss in court if they were allowed to ban you or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer a law that makes internet games have a LAN only mode.
Anti-cheat software a liability? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Valorant (Score:5, Funny)
in the EU then they need to give an 100% refund of (Score:2)
in the EU then they need to give an 100% refund of game cost if they can't unban
This comment section is pathetic. (Score:1)
The top commenters that end with a fark politics link should be banned. They have a clear agenda and probably aren't real people. Please learn to use the banhammer or train an AI to use it or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory "Welcome to Slashdot, you must be new here."
This has been going on for literally years.
Anonymous posting is an option for logged in users, not a thing that people can do without logging in, so they know exactly who is doing this. Slashdot has removed accounts before, therefore it is clear that they want this to occur.
AI should replace the mods. (Score:2)
It couldn't do worse.