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.
