[jsheard]

They're pretty upfront about the reason - their anticheat supports Linux, but enabling it would make it much easier to cheat because it's not nearly as effective on there, and they decided the cons outweigh the pros.

Apex Legends went through the same issue when they enabled Linux support, cheaters swarmed to Linux en-masse because it was so trivial to evade detection even with free/public cheats, and after a year or so the devs threw in the towel and blocked Linux again.

They're not doing this out of spite, they'd be happy to take your money if there were no downside, but unfortunately it is a trade-off for games which are sensitive to being ruined by cheaters. At least for now.

[ThatPlayer]

Yeah I'd say it's not accurate to say it's the same anticheat. Only the same name. It's like saying Excel supports iPad. Except Excel on iPad doesn't support VBA, so any more complicated spreadsheet will not work.

I don't think cheaters are swarming to Linux, but part of the issue with Apex Legends is that Linux support is done through Proton, through the Windows version of the game, because there no Linux version of Apex Legends. So now you've got a backdoor for everyone on Windows to run the less secure anticheat.

Solvable maybe by having a separate Linux version of the game, but that's also more supported needed.

[embedding-shape]

> Solvable maybe by having a separate Linux version of the game, but that's also more supported needed.

As someone who would play on Linux then, it doesn't sound like a solution at all. The separate version would just be filled with cheaters then, would almost be like an punishment for Linux users.

[ThatPlayer]

I do not mean separate as in separate matchmaking. Just separate ports of the game. So Linux users are not running the same Windows port of the game as Windows users, just under Proton.

That way you don't need a backdoor in the Windows version of the game for the weaker Linux anticheat that runs through Proton. You would just have a native Linux version of the game with native anticheat.

[ChocolateGod]

A game can start up native Linux binaries even when the game itself is running under Proton.

But EAC has a kernel driver and there's no real native way of doing that on Linux that's stable as Linux has no stable kernel API, and measured boot isn't widely adopted so a custom kernel can just lie to the anti-cheat module.

I really hope Valve work on this, whilst it would mean perhaps online play only run on SteamOS in an optional locked down mode, it's better than the status quo.

[embedding-shape]

> I do not mean separate as in separate matchmaking [...] for the weaker Linux anticheat that runs through Proton

This is exactly the problem. Users connecting via Linux are more likely to be cheaters, since the anti-cheat is weaker on Linux, so in order to protect the user-base at large (Windows users), they don't allow Linux clients at all. Allow the less protected Linux clients to connect goes against the very change they did.

[tomcatfish]

When you say that it would "almost be like a punishment for Linux users", I think you're wrong, because it literally would be a value add. There is something interesting about the fact that offering you 10% more value would be taken as a downgrade

[embedding-shape]

What is the value add of letting Linux players play multiplayer, and all the cheaters for that particular game is concentrated on the Linux servers so Linux players end up playing with the cheaters, and the Windows players get cheat-free servers?

[hypercube33]

Anticheat has to stop being hostile and move to zero trust client server models. Stop giving clients enough data to snipe players across the map. We can probably get someone smart enough to write an model to overlord the server and realize when someone is wall hacking or moving faster than they should be able to pretty easy - we have the compute these days.

Something has to change to move away from these rootkit antivirus like apps looking for exploits.

[lukan]

Are you aware that the speed of light is limited?

That is the main problem here. If you only give players the data they can see (zero trust) - then they will walk around a corner and just see a black screen, because the information is not there yet (server needs to calculate and send back info in time).

My approach would be rather better moderation tools.

Meaning .. community run servers, who will just kick and ban cheaters in time.

One can see that clearly in battlefield for example which has (sort of) both.

The public servers are often not enjoyable, if one does not like headshots across the map. The community run are clean.

[542458]

I don't see how server-side-only anticheat could prevent cheats that simulate perfect input i.e., aimbots on known targets. Yes, you could attempt to heuristically identify cheat-y looking patterns of input, but I suspect that's much much easier said than done for anything other than very simple aimbots.

[HugoTea]

We're now living in a world where cheating can mean an AI running in the monitor firmware and making decisions based on pixels. I fear soon the only way is to just avoid playing competitive games with strangers.

[pirates]

> I fear soon the only way is to just avoid playing competitive games with strangers.

This has been the winning move for about a decade now.

[matheusmoreira]

Hope that never changes. Linux has enough problems without invasive kernel mode anticheat malware trying to install itself on our systems.

It was bad enough that we had to put up with nvidia's proprietary nonsense if we wanted hardware acceleration. Things have finally started to improve. They have finally started open sourcing things. Now that things are finally getting better this anticheat nonsense shows up. You gotta be kidding me.

Nobody needs a bunch of game companies feeling entitled to full access to our computers. You'd have to be nuts to let game companies run ring zero code on your system. You want their nonsense absolutely contained and isolated, not deep in your kernel.

Here's a thought: they don't own our computers, we do. We own the CPU. We own the RAM. We own the motherboard. If we want to edit their game's memory while its running, it's our god given right as the owners of the machine the game is running on. Any attempt to stop us from doing so is an affront to our freedom. The mere attempt to do so with "anticheating" kernel malware is offensive. The audacity.

Cheating at video games is an exercise in computer freedom. I realize I'm defending scoundrels here and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Our computing freedom is orders of magnitude more important than video games. I want them to suck it up and accept it. That is the price of freedom. If they want to be on Linux, it should be on our terms.

Don't care about this ideological stuff? Here's the sort of risk you're accepting when you opt into this bullshit:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/fs-labs-flight-simulator-pas...

Corporation thinks its the FBI and starts shipping a browser stealer to users to "catch pirates". Bonus points for exfiltrating the data on an unencrypted channel!

https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1cibw9r/valorant...

https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/634974-...

Screenshots your screen and exfiltrates it to their servers.

https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/23/capcom_street_fighter...

https://twitter.com/TheWack0lian/status/779397840762245124

https://fuzzysecurity.com/tutorials/28.html

https://github.com/FuzzySecurity/Capcom-Rootkit

A literal privilege escalation as a service "anticheat" driver!

Game companies give negative amounts of shit. If you trust them you're out of your mind.

[nullishdomain]

I have a feeling that your ideal game, full of cheaters online, would not be very popular.

[N_Lens]

I don't agree with your take because it's an example of individual 'freedoms' shitting all over something communal - a caricature of freedom that America has become known for. Cheating ruins online games.

[matheusmoreira]

Online games are nothing. They are a literal non-issue next to the loss of computing freedom. Let them be ruined so that we can have the freedom to control our computers without undue intrusion. If online games are the price of freedom, so be it.

Sacrificing freedom for security? I don't agree with it but I can at least understand where the impetus comes from. Sacrificing freedom for fun? For video games of all things? That's pretty disgusting and I want people to be better than that.

Accept this, and you also indirectly accept corporations regulating "your" computer's ability to copy, as well as governments regulating "your" computer's ability to encrypt.

[MrZander]

You don't have to sacrifice anything, no one is making you install anti-cheat software.

> Sacrificing freedom for fun? For video games of all things? That's pretty disgusting and I want people to be better than that.

What is the point of freedom if you have a joyless existence?

[matheusmoreira]

> What is the point of freedom if you have a joyless existence?

> no one is making you install anti-cheat software

You don't see the irony here? You don't see the trillion dollar corporations dangling "joy" in front of us and conditioning access to it on acceptance of their bullshit non-negotiable take it or leave it contracts where "we own your computer now" is a clause?

The powerful choice is to reject the silly binary choice they offer you and take a third option. Refuse their deal and refuse your so called "joyless" existence.

Enjoy your games while also keeping control of your computer. If they try to usurp control of your computer, stop them from doing so. Only malware would try that, treat them accordingly. If you must associate with cheaters and pirates in order to acquire the necessary technology and know-how, then so be it.

It's the same thing with DRM, it's the same thing with ads, it's the same thing with pretty much everything. They give you some bullshit choices, but you can take a third option because you own the machine. That's the power they would take away from you.

[Rohansi]

> If they try to usurp control of your computer, stop them from doing so.

But anti-cheat software is not doing this? You are free to do whatever you want on your computer as long as it doesn't interfere with the game process. Most, if not all, anti-cheats will also not do anything when the game isn't open.

Some games (including Rust) give you the choice to play with no anti-cheat, too. You'll only be able to play on servers that allow players to join with no anti-cheat but you are not blocked from the game.

I would be more worried about computing becoming more phone-centric where Apple and Google are in control of what you can and cannot do.

[efdee]

It's not clear what freedom you are sacrificing. Nobody is forcing you to play those games. If you don't want to let them run their anti cheat system, don't do it. This is not some unavoidable measure.

What a strange hill to want to die on.

[hhh]

no it’s not, you can just not do it.