So now we know where the basic fault lays in the PC version, the 'trusted client network model', the next question is who is responsible for the decision to implement it like this. It's a irreversible decision when we listen to experts and thus the PC-game can be pronounced as good as dead.
I can not imagine that the decision to choose a trusted client network model has NOT been thought over a couple of times. Developers MUST have known it would be risky to implement it they way they did, giving hackers all the opportunity to 'hack the game away'.
So we now CAN say that in a way they did it on purpose, selling the game to us, taking in account the risk of the game getting heavily hacked, destroying the game experience and fun of devoted and honest players.
I hold Ubisoft/Massive responsible for willingly selling me a faulty game, thus in a way robbing me of € 60,-. I do not have the resources, otherwise i would sew them for scam sales. I know, there's nothing i can do against these industry giants to get my money refunded but ask me if i will ever buy a Ubisoft game again?
I read somewhere someone complaining about an outside developer, whose last work is Titanfall (ie a two year old release, and we all know how far technology changes in two years) saying that he THINKS they are using TCN and that IF that is the case in his OPINION it's very hard to fix some issues.
So, being myself a bit computer literate I've browsed some info on TCN and came up with the criticism that this network expert leveled at the possibility of TCN being employed. From my understanding of the system, release 1.2 (2.0 was live as of Oct 2015) addressed those problems and it's not really an issue any more, specifically the issue with the endorsement key. As of 1.2 the introduction of Direct anonymous attestation resolved the issue by the looks of it.
Now, I am curious as to what information you have regarding this network solution and what, if anything, do you really know other than a small snippet of a conversation on The Guardian.