this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
95 points (95.2% liked)

Games

16751 readers
523 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
95
Apex Legends will not support Linux and Linux-based Steam Decks anymore because of cheating (www.techspot.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 67 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Cheating software running on Linux is more challenging to detect than Windows-based kernel-level tools, and they require an increasingly higher level of attention from the Apex Legends team.

So, for starters, this is not a direct quote (of the interviewed Apex dev), so this is basically just the author's opinion.

More to the point: Purchasable cheats that currently defeat AC on Apex are far, far more easy to find for Windows machines.

... and they defeat Kernel level AC on Windows all the time.

Also, Apex uses EAC which uh... supports linux, has for 3 years.

https://onlineservices.epicgames.com/en-US/news/epic-online-services-launches-anti-cheat-support-for-linux-mac-and-steam-deck

EDIT 2: The article states Apex uses BattlEye, not EAC for AC... but all the info I can find on Apex says they use EAC? Maybe there was a recent change?

Either way, BattlEye supports linux/SteamDeck as well, also for 3 years now.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3104663180636096966

https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-deck/proton-battleye-anti-cheat-support

I mean maybe there is some truth to cheat developers preferring to develop their cheats on linux....many programmers prefer to develop things on linux... but they develop them for Windows users.

Like... I obviously do not support cheating, so I won't post the links... but a quick web search very, very easily reveals that all the cheats one can purchase... well they work on Win 10/11... no support for linux is indicated.

Granted I am no uberl33th4x0r, but I don't see any Apex cheats which are easily acquirable which support linux.

...

EDIT: Oh right, it is probably also worth mentioning that after CrowdStrike Y2K'd half of the world's enterprise Windows machines... through pushing a malformed update... that interfaces directly with the Windows kernel..

... MSFT is now re-evaluating giving kernel level access to 3rd parties, and is looking to create higher level APIs (above the Kernel) that are less likely to expose Windows to massive system stability errors from 3rd parties, and looks to want to at the very least have much more involvement with reviewing any 3rd party code that accesses the kernel:

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3483641/crowdstrike-backs-microsofts-demand-for-reducing-kernel-level-access.html

https://www.securityweek.com/microsofts-take-on-kernel-access-and-safe-deployment-practices-following-crowdstrike-incident/

Maybe these Kernel level AC proponents are a bit worried about their Kernel access on Windows being either much more stringently reviewed, or limited, and are making a fuss about it by scapegoating linux, you know, as a misdirect?

Just a thought.

EDIT 3:

A quote from the article I linked pertaining to BattlEye

BattlEye’s Steam Deck compatibility is great news, but its arrival on the handheld comes with small print. According to the anti-cheat solution’s clarification, developers will have to “opt-in”, suggesting that specific games could forgo compatibility. While it’s hard to think of a compelling reason why a company would want to do this, Valve’s PC competitors could, in theory, use the option to their advantage.

Pff, what an outlandish notion, that giant AAA studios (who all have massive business ties to MSFT) would exert pressure to limit linux marketshare/adoption, what a baseless and silly worry.

=P

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Nice job cutting through the bs!

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 54 points 2 weeks ago

Translation: We don't feel like taking the effort to support Linux, so we need a scapegoat.

[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Client-side anti-cheat is effectively pointless in the long run. The software is running on a machine the devs do not control, and ultimately that means it cannot be trusted. They should be working harder on server-side detection, but that requires work not just buying a product and dusting your hands off…

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

The best "server-side" anti cheat mechanisms online is streaming the game, and I am sure that eventually some talented developers are able to even write some aim bot (or more) for that.

Competitive games need a fully controlled environment. Doing it online with random unknown people should not be taken as serious as they currently do.

Alot about video games is not standardized. To be competitive all players should have the same hardware, internet connection, etc. So that it is actually individual skill that is measured, not just the size of players wallet.

But even then, developing skill takes alot of practice and time, which also, in our current system, can be converted into money. There just is no fair competition here anyway. Still many people believe in meritocracies...

[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Streaming the game is never gonna be viable for me because of where I live, even if I wanted it, and I very much don't. But then I don't care for the kind of competitive games where what hardware you run on makes that much difference, anyway.

I don't think we need "the best". Just to be able to detect and ban the egregious offenders would be enough.

I will say we agree on one thing; competitive games should not be taken as seriously as they are. But then I'm of the controversial opinion that esports made gaming worse.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

about the time games move to stream only is when I stop buying games. I do not need that network saturation and latency.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Server authoritative multiplayer system (server only takes player inputs and spits out results, making editing data impossible), with a lag prediction system clientside, works wonders. Aimbotting will always exist, but detection should be server side.

[–] xan1242@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Anti cheat is like DRM. It's a waiting game more than it is about actual direct protection.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Linux is just a source of exploits and cheats and nothing more, the developer said

Sure, and so is Windows. Is the difference then who will accept draconian anti-cheat?

[–] dave881@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Assuming that there really is significant cheating on Linux clients, this can just be the company saying that there are not enough users to make development of more robust anti-cheat cost effective.

This is basically the same argument that software and hardware vendors have used for decades for why they won't support Linux

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Even though EAC and BattlEye have both supported linux for 3 years now, and the devs don't actually have to do anything as Proton functionally ports the game from Windows to Linux automatically at no cost to them.

... They're lying.

Maybe for a smaller game studio, I could actually believe they don't know these things.

But massive AAA studios that have direct business ties to MSFT?

They're lying.

They're saying anything they can to slow down linux adoption, because MSFT wants to dominate as a PC gaming OS.

They used to just ignore, play dumb, feign ignorance or perhaps just actually be incompetent... now they're just lying to our faces.

Sure Apex. Show us your stats for how many cheaters you caught who were running on Windows vs running on Linux, and show us how at least a smidgen of methodology you used to determine the bare metal OS of someone running on a VM.

[–] dave881@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

They may well be lying about their reasons/justifications, I don't have any way to know one way or the other.

This just isn't a new thing. Companies fave been blaming the high cost of supporting the relatively small number of users on an "alternative" OS for a very long time. Unfortunately, I think that as long as desktop Linux is in the single or low double digits of percentage of users, this is something we're going to keep hearing.

A company is unlikely to do a thing if it's cheaper to not do the thing.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My favourite from the old days was "we stopped/don't support/only support Ubuntu Linux because customer support is too tough across different systems".

[–] dave881@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah. I'm not sure that this has changed much.

I suspect that was a large part of what drove the excitement for something like Valve's Proton. It was supposed to make it easier for studios to make games available across platforms, because they would. "just work" without having to put special effort in.

This sounds like the same sort of "We found out that the cost is not actually 0, and we want out. We can't say that though, so it's your fault"

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

bullshit. there will be zero decrease in cheating. I highly doubt any paid cheat devs offer linux support either.

[–] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

True, there will not be a significant decrease in cheating. The main savings will be in cost to the company by dropping support for a release pipeline.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Anyone wanna just get some games crowd sourced and developed for Linux exclusively just to fire back at the people who think it's a good argument to point at software developed by anti Linux companies?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Eh, I think it would be better to just make a really good, competitive game that supports Linux day 1. Show these devs that you can support Linux and have a decent player experience wrt anti-cheat.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, and entirely without windows!

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nah, support Windows as well, otherwise the game will likely flop. It needs to be pretty successful so it actually gets noticed, and if people are interested in Linux, they'll be able to switch w/o giving up that game.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Naw, what I'll do is target the Steam Deck people like myself with a 2v2 moba kind of game where cheating would have to be really elegant to be successful!