Seems about 40% working, I personally only have one game that doesn’t jive with Linux. If the game you’re playing doesn’t work that’s the fault of the specific anti-cheat developers because it’s obviously possible to do it right.
avatar@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
But what percentage of games that use anticheat?
Thteven@lemmy.world 1 day ago
avatar@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
Sure, but from the end user perspective, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is - the result is you can’t play a game you otherwise just can in Windows. We know it’s their fault.
If you never play any games with anticheat that’s fine, but all it takes is one game, and then later another, and then later another, to make Linux a dealbreaker for many gamers. These are not unpopular games.
It can be the whole difference between someone sticking with Windows but itching to make the switch, and someone actually making the switch.
What good is 90% of games working if you have 3 games that you really want to play that don’t work?
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 hours ago
What good are those 3 games you want to play if they don’t work on the OS you want to use?
It’s just a matter of priority, about 8 years ago, I just made the decision to not play a game if it doesn’t work on Linux.
cmeu@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The fomo is real
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I 100% get what you are saying. But I’m also 100% fine with voting with my wallet and not support game developers that want kernel-level access to my machine.
Think about the EA stuff. You install one of their games, and now Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner* now have kernel-level access to your machine. Why, why the hell is that worth a game?
*I wish I was joking
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
Those are likely shit games.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 19 hours ago
I used to be huge into Battlefield. Even on Linux, I played the shit out of BF4. But I will never be sad about avoiding kernel level anticheat. I don’t even feel like I’m missing out, quite the opposite really, especially after Saudi Arabia bought out EA. Why would I ever want kernel level anything from them? They’d have to pay me.
I guess that’s all to say that I just don’t play those games, and I’m better off for it.
knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
The rust entry is kinda wrong. Linux friendly community servers do run they just need more active players to be fun
avatar@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Had a quick look into this, this is the best related info I could find on the situation with Rust.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 hours ago
As a former RUST addict, I can tell you that Facepunch didn’t really know what they were doing initially with the game on Linux (although they gave an honest try).
Later, they basically said, “Look, we don’t really have the knowledge to support this, so you can ask for a refund if you exclusively bought the game to play on Linux, and if you are using Proton/Wine/etc, you can play on non-EAC community servers” (since official servers use Linux incompatible EAC). They aren’t hostile to the Linux community, but Gary and the team feel like they aren’t up to the task, so they don’t officially support things anymore.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 hours ago
I think the lack of EAC support is a red flag for some users that there may be more cheaters compared to windows (and more bugs). At least that was my perspective when I was reading the Reddit posts and forum posts at the time.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 19 hours ago
That’s the thing, though, EAC can run on Linux if the devs allow it. There are games that use EAC that run just fine on Linux.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
That loops back to the “Facepunch doesn’t believe they have the technical expertise/manhours available to support Linux users so therefore simply provides refunds to prior Linux customers and a ‘no support but not antagonistic approach’ to Proton/Wine users” problem that they’ve found themselves in. I would imagine internally, if they flipped that hypothetical switch, it would be seen as them committing to provide Linux support again (which they’ve admitted they aren’t prepared to do).
From their perspective, it’s better to just allow Proton users to play but not allow them to join “official servers” or community servers with the existing EAC so they aren’t accused by the community (I know, we suck sometimes) of “allowing Linux cheaters to fly under the radar”.
TachyonTele@piefed.social 1 day ago
I mean, you get what you pay for with games that have anti cheat software mandatory.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Probably a somewhat popular opinion in the Linux crowd already, but I think we should be pressing companies to find better ways to manage anti-cheats than kernel-level anti-cheat anyway. I’m glad I don’t play games like that because I don’t like how it works at all.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Absolutely. It’s completely possible too by using server side verification and not giving the client info they shouldn’t have, but that costs them slightly more in server costs (which aren’t significant).
It would also require designing the games code to account for this from the start, so not insignificant but definitely all reasonably possible, as in if there were magically legislation tommorow forcing all new multiplayer games to stop doing invasive anti cheat in a year, it’d be done in 6 months.
Tanoh@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Not always, latency is a huge problem especially in action games.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The implicit implication of your comment is that sever side verification etc inherently means unacceptable latency and I see no reason to believe it; only gut feelings