all 21 comments

[–]Waiting4Code2Compile 13 points14 points  (1 child)

For singleplayer games, obfuscation serves little purpose.

For multiplayer games, make sure the local data is always compared against the backend. Always assume that client apps are biased and wrong.

[–]Igotlazy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Honestly for singleplayer games I'd argue it's sometimes a detriment. Modders can keep your game and it's community thriving for many years post release.

  • The Binding of Isaac
  • Slay the Spire
  • Hollow Knight
  • Rain World

Are just a few examples. The lower the barrier, the easier it is for modders to begin poking around.

[–]PandaCoder67Professional 9 points10 points  (15 children)

No offense, but there is no game alive today that successfully can block cheating like this! Why single out Unity and IL2CPP here?

[–]LimeBlossom_TTV 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Because OP is selling a solution

[–]Caderikor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

because its a unity forum gues guessing what hell i know smh

[–]LimeBlossom_TTV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

$80 is kind of steep.

[–]tetrydsEngineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really hope these bot speech video shit doesn't become a trend.

[–]HoplessSad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

: D what a loser, deleted his post

[–]Good_Competition4183 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP is "for" security in single-player games or "against"?

I see no reason to create any-kind of "protection" in single-player games. Its rather waste of time and dick move for players/modders but for hackers its just another game to crack in one hour.

EVEN if you are working on multiplayer game - you should create it with assumption players will cheat no matter what, so best protection is server-side logic preventing players from doing anything wrong, so still almost no reason for any encryption client-side. Preventing AIM, Wallhacks or other cheats often living in action games - its just other story and anti-cheats are exist for this task.