It's EA's fault that you're required to install a damn rootkit to play a game. It's not the fault of Linux for refusing to allow this. Microsoft shouldn't allow it either, and they will likely shut it down before too much longer.
EA wants to intentionally compromise your computer. Linux says they can't do that. EA doesn't want you to play on Linux.
A user is in full control of their Linux install, which is great... unless I want to play them in a game and they decide to cheat.
It is a tradeoff, yes, but one I choose to make because being able to play cheater free multiplayer games is worth it to me.
Online matchmaking is what lets that be possible. I used to dream of having something like that, all the way back when I first started playing online games when you had to call your friend, then tell your family not to pick up the phone because it was your friend calling your modem, then lose connection when your sister tried to make a call. I remember having to set up a code with my friend; if the phone rang twice and then hung up, that means the next call would be me on a voice call wanting to talk, otherwise let the modem answer it.
I used to dream about being able to play people at any hour of the day, and now it is possible. It is an amazing invention.
That is impossible with custom servers. I have played MANY games that are based around custom servers (and still play some today), and there are many great qualities with those types of games. However, you lose that 'find a good game in under a minute' quality.
I am older now, and I don't want to spend the time to find and join custom servers. I don't want to have to talk to people or deal with server admins or get caught up in drama that a community like that can have. I just want to play competitive, fair games.
Except this way doesn't actually stop cheaters. A quick google shows that there's BF6 hacks for sale if I want to cheat.
I agree with you and I wouldn't want to install that myself but just something I've thought about.
Linux doesn't refuse anything, it's free and open source software. If publishers want to offer anti-cheat software developed for Linux, it will run. In fact, many games do have anti-cheat, like Insurgency: Sandstorm, which uses EAC through Proton.
Publishers can even develop invasive kernel-level anti-cheat just like they do for Windows. They don't because it's a small portion of the market currently, and I assume they consider it not worth the investment as of now. To what extent existing Linux users would willingly allow such software to run is also an open question.
There's also the point that even invasive kernel level anti-cheat on Windows with requirements for secure boot continues to be inadequate to stop cheaters in competitive online games.
Sure, there are technical solution around this, but they are legally questionable.
On Linux this can't work because a cheater can just build their own kernel with all the protections disabled or with intentional vulnerabilities. From what I've heard, statistics for games running anti cheats on Linux alongside Windows find the vast majority of cheaters on Linux.
Given this situation I think it's entirely reasonable to not support Linux if you're handing cheaters the game on a silver platter.
Playing Streetfighter 2 with people you know should still be fun?
One of those experiences can't replace the other.
I am married with two young children. All of my video game time comes in the hour or two after they go to bed and before I go to bed. I don't have friends around at that time, yet I still want to get some good multiplayer gaming in.
Online matchmaking is amazing these days. You are able to match up against people of about your skill level at any time of day. That experience is magical, compared to the matchmaking from 25 years ago where you would try to find a random lobby, and the players might be amazing or terrible.
I know what I like.
I’ll be honest, no matter how unpopular it is I’m really sorry, but those kind of solutions genuinely are the only way. I’ve said it before on HN, but we really do try everything. And not having anything leads to some of the worst experiences possible.
If you genuinely have a better solution, then you are more than welcome to enter the industry and make a significant amount of money.
Hell, I’ll offer you a job right now.
Oh but then you can't make all of your revenue on stuff like gambling for textures that anyone could just mod in like they used to.
I doubt it will show what you expect, but hey, I’ve been wrong before.
See, this is my problem. I have no interest in online multiplayer, so anti-cheat is purely of negative value to me.
I understand the problem with cheaters, and if I did play multiplayer games, I'd want every effort taken to eliminate cheating.
I'd be perfectly happy if I could uncheck the "anti-cheat and online capabilities" checkbox in the game installer (or have it default unchecked when the OS indicates that anticheat isn't supported), and I could go on my way and play my single player game.
IMO that's a better solution technically, and for me personally, but I don't know that there's much money to be made in sales to single-player-only non-microtransaction-consuming gamers who were otherwise forgoing games.
No game developers of seriously looking at enabling even in the cases where it is extremely easy and trivial to enable, because the additional support button isn’t considered worth it for the number of users as they might get.
so when I say it’s defeatist, what I mean is all you have to do is vote with your wallet enough and the games will follow. I know this an absolute fact because I’ve been in this conversation many times.
Your options are,
1. Buy Windows. Means you has absolutely no control.
2. Promote the development of anti-cheat on the linux, where you can not install it because you don’t like it.
No idea that you’re arguing against me, when all I’m doing is arguing for increased amount of freedom is tad silly.. no?
In fact, it’s one I chose at home (option 3) because I was unwilling to compromise my computing environment just so I could browse the internet and program on the same device I play games with.
If publishers were comfortable developing for Linux, maybe that would change, I don’t think it has to be so binary as “either you have total control or none at all”, especially since there’s so many non-free components to your system already and multiplayer games are a luxury product (and thus; totally optional).
So it would be rather easy to port such games to GNU/Linux, they don't bother, because of the cost/benefit in doing so.
Much closer than porting Win32/DirectX, LibGNM(X)/OrbisOS and so on.
Technically the renderers and kernels are the same, but almost everything else, from debuggers and SDKs to peripherals is different.
Battlefield 6 requires a rootkit? Battlefield 1942 and 2 are still fun and don't. I've had only Linux on my home computers for like a decade now, and Windows has since then become unusable so I'm not going back. Why would I buy software that won't run?
Those two desires (to play Madden and FIFA/FC and play online without cheaters) requires that I not simply refuse to buy those games.
Ie for games that previously you were on the fence about, a look at whether they play or do not play well on the Steam Deck or Linux in general can push you over the fence (on way or another).
I am not sure what behavior on the margins I can change that would change the situation. My favorite games can't be played on Steam Deck. Like I said, I have been playing these games for 30 years. I am not about to change my favorite games just so I can make a point about the importance of Steam Deck compatibility. That won't change anything other than I won't be able to play my favorite games anymore.
Honestly, I am happy that they have added proper PC support along with cross platform play at all. Most sports games focus almost exclusively on consoles, and most of the player base play on consoles. Before they added cross platform gameplay a few years ago, it was really hard to find games when I would try to play online. Now it is easy.
The reason they are able to offer cross platform support is because of the anti-cheat.
Take. for example, the NBA2k series, which I used to play a lot; the anti-cheat for PC is awful. They don't allow cross platform play because of that, so games are hard to find and every few games you play a game against a guy who is 12 feet tall and hits every 3 pointer from any spot on the court. It was so bad I stopped playing entirely. For years I settled on playing on XBOX, but i eventually got annoyed enough i stopped buying the game completely.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you change your favourite games or how you play them.
But I was assuming you are playing more than just your three favourite games over and over again?
> For years I settled on playing on XBOX, but i eventually got annoyed enough i stopped buying the game completely.
This is an example where you changed your behaviour on the margin.
Or another example: if one cupcake tastes massively better to you than another, you are going to buy that. But if there are two drinks that could go about equally well with your cupcake (Pepsi and Coke, say) and you are fairly indifferent between them otherwise, you'll probably going to have a look at the price or what's more convenient etc.
That's highly debatable. How do you know for certain they aren't using any undetectable cheats (like a driver-level cheat, say an aim assist) or a hardware level cheat? Cheating aside, how do you know that they aren't better than you simply because they've got better hardware? How do you get satisfaction from playing such games when there's so many variables that can affect gameplay that goes beyond human skill that you can't do anything about?
But that’s beside the point. Gaming companies who produce competitive online games know that the competitive scene will die very quickly if there is rampant, unaddressed cheating. This is why kernel-level anticheat exists. When you have a free to play game banking on the competitive scene & selling cosmetics, cheating is an existential threat to your entire business model, and players demand you do something about it.
Valorant players BY FAR don’t care about kernel-level anticheat, but do care about cheaters getting detected and banned. People put a lot of time into ranked matches, and enjoy the game a lot.
Does riot have other options? Sure, and it probably uses a lot of tools beyond the kernel-level system to help with it. But there is zero business incentive for them to migrate to a different anti-cheat system.
It does not take much to upset your competitive players, because they spend so much time in your game system. And they’re the ones paying for season passes & cosmetics keeping the game alive. There is a lot of risk that companies have no business reason to tackle.
This doesn’t matter for plenty of games, sure, but for people who care about doing well and who enjoy being able to be ranked (and work toward being better) in a fair system, anti-cheat is an important part of the puzzle.
The HN crowd is asking people to prioritize something they don’t care about (how anticheat works) over something they already enjoy and put a lot of time into. That’s not how this works.
It’s going to take a company seeing the value of a Linux market to invest in better anti-cheat solutions for Linux, or investing completely into server-side tech.
It's obvious when it's obvious. But when it's not obvious, it's tautologically not obvious. And it still exists.
Actual cheats are different because it fundamentally changes the game.
As for the kids? Well, I suppose they gotta get their hand burned somehow.
Also, the face buttons are just to far to the right. My thumb will begin aching after 15 mins or so. Other controllers are far more comfortable.
To be honest. I like my Playdate more than my Steam Deck.
Most games 'Just Work' these days on my Linux desktop.
Why is it insurmountable? It's not like it's impossible for the companies that produce anti-cheat solutions to get them running on Linux.
The only way it changes course is an enormous rug pull that removes most of the differentiation between PC and Console gaming and you end up with Steam as a dying product unable to compete with either other modes of PC gaming or the dominant console players. (Sadly that's basically what I expect when gaben retires)
I don't think Linux is a differentiator for the Steam Deck. It's obviously essential as a technical foundation though, similar to how it’s essential to Android phones.
But locking it down with DRM won't affect gamer interest in the platform as long as the games are still cheap, plentiful, and run well.
Linux can lie about anything.
It's possible to change windows, just a lot harder. Unless you are talking about secure boot, but that's available to Linux just as much as to Windows.
> Linux can lie about anything.
Linux should lie about being Windows then.
The anti cheat developers rely on Microsoft asserting that other cheats aren't loaded prior to the anti-cheat in the kernel. There is no such entity in Linux to attest that a particular linux install is not modified to load the cheats into the kernel before the anti-cheat.
Now, such an entity could be created, and a linux distro released that is signed by that entity, and then the anti-cheat could work on that distro. That would require you to only use that particular distro, though, and you would be limited in how you could change the kernel.
So far, there has not been the push needed to make that happen.