Well, that took some time, didn’t it? By now, anyone who has been following GTA V news in any way knows that Rockstar is practically waging total war against the hackers and cheaters running rampant on GTA Online servers.
It all started nice and calm, with reserved measures such as default anti-cheat software integration, a community report system and a handful of hidden stats. Then Rockstar flexed their humor muscle (like they always do!) and pulled a fast one by making the Duke O’Death, which should not be in GTA Online at all, a booby-trapped cheater bait.
However, things got ugly when even after these well mannered measures, the number of hackers continued to an all time high, and was rising. Rockstar then took the gloves off and the war began. First, 1.27 disabled mods entirely in both single player and GTA Online, however the legitimate single player modders got around the block swiftly, when then allowed the Online modders back in.
This is where Rockstar dropped the figurative atomic bomb. 1.28 contained a complex anti-modding system which had the unforeseen circumstance of breaking the game entirely. Un-modded instances of GTA V ran with single digit frame rates on beastly PCs.
While Rockstar did mend that particular issue, and GTA V now runs optimally and mods work again, the issue of hackers is still very relevant, especially with Freemode Events making GTA Online much more open.
So Rockstar has implemented a new system with patch 1.29. Basically, the system is the old hidden stat tracking method on steroids. Now Rockstar has a massive arsenal of stats on each player which track a number of aspects of a single variable. Whereas in the old system they just looked at how much money you have at any given time, they now track when you get it, where you get it, why you get it and how you get it. With this multi-lateral approach, hackers are no longer covered by their targeted hacks, and the PC players and modders are free to carry on with their thing.
What do you think of the new GTA Online anti-cheater system?