My point was, that I don't think anyone takes into consideration as to the end result of what happens when games get hacked.
History: The internet is much safer than it was say 15 years ago. Why do you think that is?
Because of Phreakers and Hackers. Their creed was that all information was to be made available to the public, and would do whatever they had to do to make that possible. Government and corperate documents where hacked and provided to the public, and all was good. But at the same time, people lost credit card numbers, the whole 90's internet market was de-railed, and many other bad things happened. But as a plus, the security of the internet went up ten fold. Granted its still rather "wild west" like, but much safer none the less.
So, with this formula applied to gaming, who is our nemesis? Anti hack programs. Without us, they have no reason to figure out how to better secure their games.
And if they fail? Well, games will go back to being played off line, and hack vs. hack online.
If they win and games become secured? Well, that is a question of what it will take. At the moment I don't think that they have the legal means to go as far as it takes to win to make games secure. We can hack, and do what ever we want to these programs because it is illegal to begin with, but they have laws and boundaries. Better anti-hack legislation would lead to several things though.
1. complete system scans during games, all files and folders, along with process scans. The problem there is that would take loads of system resources, that most computers can't do while playing the game at a decent frame rate.
2. the option of completely frying a mobo or hd when busted. (this one has been discussed by the movie corporations and their lobbiests, for copyright reasons.)
So in the end, if you aren't hacking with motives, you aren't hacking. You're just irresponsible.