An article from this weekend that seemingly got buried by soundbites about the Steam Machine price in the same interview, but given that we have no information on price, this seems way more interesting to me. I mean…I basically self-select games that don’t use these kinds of anti-cheat at all, but this is important information for a lot of people, especially if you’re looking for an off-ramp from Windows and still want to play some of the most popular live service titles.
The reason they do it usually is because some executives hear the Linux is less secure and that it’s only a small segment of users. It isn’t because it’s effective. The games that blocked Linux are almost all some of the games with the worst hackers. Guess what happened when they blocked Linux? Nothing. The number of hackers that were on Linux were near zero.
The issue is they cant be bothered to put the actual money/work to create a solution that’s effective. Instead they signal to their audience that they’re doing something by removing Linux, which doesn’t cost them anything and makes a show that they’re actually trying. It doesn’t fix the problems, but they get to make a show out of it.
Please cite sources for any of that. Game companies aren’t in the business of losing money. If they could make more money by supporting Linux customers, they would do so, and I’ve never heard of a gaming company’s executive ever mentioning anything about Linux except for Gabe Newell, openly or behind closed doors. If they wanted to make a big show of getting rid of cheaters, they’d never have enabled cross play between consoles and PC in the first place. They openly tell you why they don’t enable anti-cheat on Linux, in a way that’s beyond just being plausible, and you refuse to believe them. You’re only going to be surprised when this continues to happen even though the answer is right there.
I have to cite sources but you don’t? One example is Rust, a notoriously hacker filled game.
Of course they’re trying to make money. I literally explained that. The executives see Linux as not providing value, and it’s extra effort to support it. They’d rather instead use it as a symbol of how they’re actually trying really hard to fight hackers, but it’s a lie. It’s just a convenient excuse.
You haven’t heard an executive say almost anything. They run companies. They don’t publish their every decision. They are the ones making the calls. They’re the ones responsible. They’re also largely technologically innept. They probably don’t even know what Linux is. They just know what they’ve been told.
There are like two major companies doing this. There’s EA and Riot. There’s a tiny minority of minor players, like Rust. There’s also a lot of Chinese companies doing it. (China is infamous for having hackers, so yeah, didn’t solve that problem did it?)
I can’t tell you the last time I booted up a western game and it didn’t work on Linux. (I think it was Squad44, which then added support, and support in the main Squad game has been in for a long time.) Everyone is moving toward supporting it, not away. The only places it’s an issue are large slow companies where the executives have too much control.
Your explanation is bordering on conspiracy theory, so yes. Rust cited why they cut support, as did Apex Legends, as did GTA Online. The rest often don’t even bother with supporting it in the first place because of how it always plays out. The existence of hackers at all doesn’t mean that Linux anti-cheat is equally effective, and you’d know that if you read the write up from the Rust team.
So the only thing that’s allowed to be speculated is that the companies are perfectly honest and never lie? Yeah, maybe you’re not that reasonable.
They didn’t “cite” anything. They gave a reason, sure. It’s not honest though. If less than 5% of players were on Linux, how many hackers do you think they stopped? They didn’t cite any statistics or anything, and I’d wager that they increased the number of hackers as a percentage. All the script kiddies are on Windows, not Linux. Sure, they can’t control Linux as much, but it’s also not a significant source of their hacking issues.
The rest support Linux. You’re obviously a Windows user. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Damn near every game works flawlessly on Linux.
That is not what I claimed. I claimed their team hasn’t done shit to prevent hackers. The insane number of hackers in that game proves that most of them are on Windows. If they can’t stop the hacking on Windows then what the hell is blocking Linux going to do? No, they saw it was a small portion of users and decide to just block it to make a show. It didn’t solve anything so why did they do it? How is it that this game, with such a large hacker issue, has the problems but not the thousands of games that support Linux? It’s because Linux isn’t the issue. Teams that can’t actually build real anti-cheat solutions are.
A bit of skepticism is healthy, but it’s far more reasonable to assume that independently reporting the same thing from multiple different unaffiliated companies is the truth compared to making up stories about executive meddling or that banning Linux increases the percentage of hackers, based on nothing except your own feelings.
I daily drive Kubuntu. I hate Windows. I have a Windows partition, but I haven’t booted it since December of last year. My next PC won’t have Windows at all. The operating system I use doesn’t change what is actually happening in the real world.
It’s going to prevent a more potent vector, which is exactly what they said.
Their story doesn’t make sense. The one thing they always say is how few users are on Linux. If that’s true then most of the hackers can’t be. It doesn’t make sense. It does nothing to actually solve the issue. An actual fix wouldn’t matter what OS someone is on.
If you use Linux, and game on it, then why are you saying things are going the way of not supporting it. Clearly you must see what way the wind is blowing. Damn near everything works fine. It’s only EA, Riot, Chinese games, and a tiny number of other games. Everything else usually just works.
It prevents exactly zero vectors on Windows, which is where the problem is.
Anti-cheat is not heading toward more support without the intervention described in the article. Whatever that results in. Valve is talking about potentially a SteamOS-specific fix, which I take to mean that they might have to do something at a kernel level that other Linux distros would find unacceptable. “Only” EA, Riot, Epic, Roblox, and Call of Duty is grossly underselling this: that is most of the video game market. It’s not most games, nor is it most publishers, but between those games and publishers, it represents most players, most dollars spent, and most time spent playing video games (at least non-mobile, anyway). It is an enormous hump to get over if you want to make a gaming device appealing to more customers.
Sure it does. As an example, let’s say there are X players for a game in a month, and 3-7% of those are on Linux. If, as Facepunch says, more than half of that 3-7% are cheaters, then including them is doing more harm than good to your cheating problem.
I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but one more time: The vast majority of games work on Linux just fine! That number is only increasing.
Source? You say I need to provide sources. Where’s yours for this. This isn’t how Linux works. You can add and remove kernal modules at run time on Linux. This will not be OS specific, and it also won’t realistically address any actual issues that may exist and aren’t already solved.
It is not, on PC at least. The most played PC game is CS, and second is Minecraft, according to this. I’m not saying it’s nothing, but also it’s far from everything. The vast majority of hours played by people are on games that work on Linux.
This number is bullshit probably. If their AC can detect cheaters then they wouldn’t have this issue in the first place. You’re trying to tell me you believe they can accurately count cheaters but are also incapable of stopping them? Yeah…