Bungie has more to say on Destiny 2 for Steam Deck and it's still a no

This is when it annoys me when people think Stadia=Linux. Its better to think of Stadia as Android in terms of support Linux is going to get.

Don't bother with "but but", this is a high level view.

Yesterday I was reading about Destiny not coming on Deck, and I tried it on GeforceNow to see how it run.
It was flawless! Honestly just the possibility to use cloud gaming on the Deck, using my steam library, may already be one of my favorite ways to play games on the deck when at home :)

Quoting: SuperTuxThis is when it annoys me when people think Stadia=Linux. Its better to think of Stadia as Android in terms of support Linux is going to get.

Don't bother with "but but", this is a high level view.

Would think that the based on the track record, nobody would still think that Stadia translates straight to desktop Linux port. Google is giving money only for porting to Stadia. Stadia just shows that native ports are possible, problem is more that companies don't want to officially support desktop Linux.

With Android there are some happy accidents, those so called "but buts". Android market is just so huge that it's likely that those exceptions happen.

Quoting: ElamanOpiskelijaAnti-cheat?
Luxury, I say.
Back in the old days, we had to play against hackers all the time, and win anyway.

And we had to clean the mouse ball with alcohol. And all those skyscrapers over there were just a bunch of huts.
And you try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you.

Back in my day we had an admin in each server playing along with us who would just boot the haxxors out on sight and ya know that form of "anti cheat" has simply never been topped.

Quoting: SuperTuxThis is when it annoys me when people think Stadia=Linux. Its better to think of Stadia as Android in terms of support Linux is going to get.

Don't bother with "but but", this is a high level view.

... but developers are learning to make games running on Linux. No games without developers.

Quoting: gradyvuckovic

Quoting: ElamanOpiskelijaAnti-cheat?
Luxury, I say.
Back in the old days, we had to play against hackers all the time, and win anyway.

And we had to clean the mouse ball with alcohol. And all those skyscrapers over there were just a bunch of huts.
And you try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you.

Back in my day we had an admin in each server playing along with us who would just boot the haxxors out on sight and ya know that form of "anti cheat" has simply never been topped.

I remember that time, I actually was that admin, we also had websites where we could share our ban lists and reason for said ban. Since games have started to remove that power from the community, I played less and less multiplayer until I completely stopped some years ago.

I also remember when I installed a server side anticheat plug in for SourceMod. It worked real well, so today when I hear people making dubious excuses to not use server side anticheat I'm a bit concerned.

Quoting: Dribbleondo

Quoting: ZlopezThey wouldn't have those problems if they just used anti-cheat on server side and strip it from client side.

This is a good read if you're at all interested.

There is still the possibility to put _some_ parts of the game into the server, such as many resolutions, and there is an extra analysis to do on what we give back. To an extrem, we would have to fight back two issues tho: predictive resolution can't be trusted at all, so we have the issue of Quake 1 networking all over again. We would also have to figure out what people can figure out too from what is send back.

One of the plainest example of this issue is Dota's Pudge. Back in 2012, Pudge's ultimate on cast would play a sound that would be modulated by it's position. Well, people figured that one can use basic trigonometry to figure out the Doppler's Effect modulation.

One of the biggest thing to accept would be that many aspect would require really _not knowing_ the state of the game as it happens until required. And to cut off the "gravy" that can give away things.

Strictly speaking tho, the whole thing is a design issue first and foremost. And it's likely impossible to figure a great design that simply make the anti-cheat void. On the other hand, one ought to accept and acknowledge the truth: if such design can't be made, then one can't trust either the anti-cheat doing it's work in a reliable way (bugs and corrupted files would be the first false flags that would be raised), if one can't trust the anti-cheat, one has to accept that the whole "competitiveness for everyone" is impossible to assure, no matter how deep one can bury one's anticheat.

Because of this, and this can be simply figured out when looking at pro teams: the process to get people in some aspect of competitive scenes (from subbing to whatever basically) is vouching.

So we are still going back to human-backed interactions and reviews. Either people ought to stop bullshitting themselves that a purely technical solution exist, and if they do, they ought to voice against such bullshittery argument, or they fully embrace it and go the final miles and also ask to make the whole joining a scene thing automatic too.

Once that scene crash and burn to ashes, maybe it will call back people to reality about automatic technical solutions. From there they may even have a far better look at anti-cheats.

---------------------------------------

Quoting: ElamanOpiskelijaAnti-cheat?
Luxury, I say.
Back in the old days, we had to play against hackers all the time, and win anyway.

Let's be honest here. Back in 2000 I was managing a clan in a Quake3 full conversion. A game server and a banlist.

And what I can see is that many people don't trust the anti-cheat system (be good at a game and people will shout "cheater" anyway, don't they).

So while anti-cheat is useful, it requires human intervention anyway (beyond innocent until proven guilty, simply because automated anti-cheat still miss a lot of things).

And yet, we haven't bought back per-server, trusted users managed ban list. Don't get me wrong, there was issues with the thing back in the day, the centralization of the systems of games would allow us to actually put together a review system combined with a flagging system.

Let's take note that Counter Strike and Dota now (since a bit) leverage their communities of trusted users to actually not only accept reports but also review automated reports (noticeable in Dota as a classic, human made report will have a number of markers (point where someone got reported), while any part flagged as suspicious by the automated system will simply put oh so many markers (going from like up to 16 for human reports to 20 in a single part of the report))

Just to say, at the end of the day, it isn't even an AI backed anti-cheat system alone (ie CounterStrike has this) that is going to solve the issue __enough__, and human intervention is always going to be mandatory (catching edge cases, figuring out rage reports, etc...)

---------------------------------------

At the end, Bungie can choose what they want, but those companies so adamant about competitive integrity (or preserving their PvP and PvE) are bullshitting people, simply because such integrity can't be automised, and the system to integrate the community in the process isn't built into the game (hence it's the same as simply rejecting the community strength here). No matter how deep one can bury their anti-cheat, even in enclaves like SGX, nothing ensure _enough_ to make them much more worthy, like they dig even further into the softwares.

The whole thing simply take away user abilities for _not good enough reasons_ within the implementation. Especially since we even saw people still cheat in super high competitive games, even at pro events...

And before people call me whatever: Anti-cheats are fine until they argue them digging their claws into _your_ system is for your competitiveness, then they are bullshitting. Sadly to make such a point, accepting community review would mean accepting the tool isn't good enough. One can do it and it'll improve the quality of the anti-cheat system, or one can reject it and stick to digging deeper into people systems. What they now need to do is convince people it's legitimate, while we still don't even have a look at the sources.

And this is before acknowledging that cheating is a _business_ nowadays. We do open source security because the Kerckhoffs's principle is true. We should have a similar stance on cheating, as they are far more akin than what people seems to get.


Last edited by MisterPaytwick on 5 March 2022 at 2:06 pm UTC

Studies show that 99% of cheaters in Destiny use Microsoft Windows platforms, therefore it is logical to remove 99% of cheaters to remove platform support for Windows.

/what-i-did-there

Bungie's Strawman defenses are pretty pathetic and low-effort low-IQ.

By their own logic they should never leave the comfort and safety of Consoles.

This is just discrimination and lazyness + excuses.

Quoting: rustybroomhandle"Oh no, we have a cheating problem on Windows, best keep those stinky Linux users out. Everyone knows they're mad haxx0rz that sit in their hoodies in the dark cheating at video games."

Q: If a non-negligible number of players of this game on Windows cheat, do you think people playing it on Linux (especially on the Steam Deck, which is supposed to "just work" and not even require you to know it's running Linux) are less likely to do so?

The issue is clearly not that Linux players are *more* likely to cheat, it's that they haven't verified that their anti-cheat measures, which work somewhat on Windows, will work on Linux. My guess is they will figure it out if the Steam Deck sells enough to make it worth figuring out.

The thing is that cheater can trick battle eye saying to it that its running on steam deck, while its running on windows. Using for example WSL? and skipping all check on the windows kernel.

Just wondering...