I have been working in the industry now for 11 years, and this defeatism surrounding anticheat is frustrating. Especially when Epics anticheat which used to be free to use, supports linux.
What does defeatism mean here? As opposed to lobbying our representatives to make DRM (of which anticheat is a subset) or product tying restrictions (e.g. artificially requiring something to run on Windows/Xbox or Google Android or a Switch when a generic computer is perfectly capable of running it) illegal or something?
kernel level anticheat is a chicken and egg problem.
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.
Kernel-level DRM isn't a chicken/egg problem; it's completely at odds with people who are choosing to run an OS that obeys them instead of some random third party like Microsoft/Google/Apple on hardware they own. Voting with their wallet is precisely what the other user said they do.
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).
Option 3 was already stated: don't buy software that requires a DRM rootkit. Vote against it with your wallet.
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?
Your wallet has next to no voting power as is, in part due to self inflicted injuries making gnu/linux unviable for game development. Or any app development for that matter.
Sounds good, but gamers never vote with their wallets and the publishers know this. They complain and moan about everything but when the next year’s Madden or FIFA comes out, they forget their complaints and inevitably fork over their money.
Is it defeatism? I don’t game on Linux and generally like Windows, but from a principle and security perspective I’d preferably check a box on Windows to disallow any kernel-level anticheat from installing, and avoid any such games.
That’s fine, then those games are not available to you.
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.
Simple solution that makes everyone happy: make it optional. Anticheat was optional in pretty much every 00s game that had it, and even in the servers that had it disabled, cheating was still rarely an issue. Diablo 2 even let you still bring your single player characters that you could obviously cheat with (which everyone knew from Diablo 1) onto Open Battle.net. Make the Internet optional like it used to be while you're at it with LAN/direct IP support so you can stick to friends only and keep your purchase forever.
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.
> That’s fine, then those games are not available to you.
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.
I have been playing Madden and FIFA/FC for 30 years now. I love them. I love being able to play competitively against other people without having cheaters in every game.
Those two desires (to play Madden and FIFA/FC and play online without cheaters) requires that I not simply refuse to buy those games.
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?
Cheating is often very obvious, even when the player is on your team. It’s when multiple improbable, too-perfect situations happen for the cheater in the same game.
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.
If a player's hardware improves their skill, they will get a higher skill ranking and will play against people who match their skill. All of the things (hardware, skill, network, etc) go into generating the person's skill level. That is fine.
Actual cheats are different because it fundamentally changes the game.
Sure, but on the margin you can still change your behaviour.
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).
Like I said, I have a lot of games that I love playing on the Steam Deck. I am often looking for games that run well on Steam Deck.
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.
> 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.
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.
As an avid gamer for 35+ years, I have played a ton of PvP both locally and online.
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.
For most online games, especially ones without chat, playing against sufficiently good bots is better than online. You don’t have to worry about cheating, connection issues, can quit mid game without issue, etc.
That is fine if you feel that way, but I really don't. I get much more satisfaction playing against real people. It just doesn't get my competitive juices flowing in the same way when I play against bots. There is no psychological aspect when you play against bots.
Basically. It kinda sucks. New BF6 actually seems good for once ( since Bad Company mebbe ). And Tarkov seemed to be really up my alley. But.. kernel drm. Hard pass. Unfortunately ( or fortunately depending on your individual interpretation ), it really is up to us.
As for the kids? Well, I suppose they gotta get their hand burned somehow.
