Support us on Patreon
PayPalKernel-level anti-cheat feels like it's everywhere now, and will remain a thorn in Valve's side for the new Steam Machine powered by SteamOS Linux.
On Linux, there's no kernel-level mode available for anti-cheats like they would use on Windows. I know plenty of readers, and gamers across the net probably see it as a benefit due to privacy concerns, and that's fine - but it doesn't change what a lot of people want to play that can't.
This is something many bigger games simply don't want to pull away from including the likes of Call of Duty, Vanguard from Riot, EA Javelin for Battlefield and so on. While we do have some anti-cheat vendors that support Linux like Easy Anti-Cheat and BattlEye (and a few others), it's user-mode with no kernel-level and many developers really don't like that.
Valve's Steam Deck helped a fair bit, with a number of titles that do have something enabled for Linux systems at least, like with the popular ARC Raiders. What about the Steam Machine though? And even the Steam Frame since it also uses SteamOS, and can play standalone games?
Eurogamer spoke to Valve on this, with Valve believing it will help things:
"While [the] Steam Machine also requires Dev participation to enable anti-cheat, we think the incentives for enabling Anti- cheat on Machine to be higher than on Deck as we expect more people to play multiplayer games on it. So ultimately we hope that the launch of Machine will change the equation around anti-cheat support and increase its support."
The problem is, the Steam Machine needs to actually sell, and probably a lot more than the Steam Deck has managed so far to actually put a dent in things for the bigger publishers to even begin to take notice and certainly above the 3% Linux overall is at currently on Steam.
Not just the AAA lot, but games like Rust too. Alistair McFarlane from Facepunch Studios recently replied on Reddit to a request to have it enabled, and replied to note:
"There are no plans to support Proton or Linux. It’s a vector for cheat developers, and one that would be poorly maintained by both us and EAC due to the low user base. When we stopped support for Linux, we saw more cheat users exploiting Linux, than actual legitimate users.
When monitoring cheats for Rust, we keep a close eye on wider cheat communities across several major games. We look at what cheat developers are doing, and how other studios are responding.
From that experience, I’m very comfortable saying that if a game supports Proton or Linux, they’re not serious about anti-cheat. The only exception would be if they have a fully mature, dedicated in-house anti-cheat team, even then, I'm not seeing anyone handle Proton and Linux well.
Apex Legends also dropped Proton support in October 2024 for the same reasons as we did several years ago.
Could we limit Proton to Premium servers? yes, but I think it's total bullshit asking Proton users to buy the game and then $15 worth of DLC. I'd be pissed if I were forced to do that.
When we stopped supporting Linux, users made up less than .01% of the total player base, even if that number has doubled, or tripled, it's not worth it.
I know that every time I post something like this, some Proton and Linux users call us lazy or dismissive. The reality is that fighting cheaters on one front (Windows), is already a never-ending battle. Adding more fronts multiplies that challenge without adding meaningful benefit to the wider player base."
A similar story for Apex Legends where their team noted they saw a "meaningful reduction in the amount of cheating recently" once they blocked Linux. In that article we also referenced the same McFarlane from Facepunch, who made a similar comment years ago. Nothing there has changed it seems.
So even if the Steam Machine sells a bunch, this is a technical problem that needs solving. Who will be the ones to do it? Valve or game publishers / developers? It's going to be complicated.
We're currently tracking it on our own curated dedicated anti-cheat compatibility page. You can see just from that how some of the most popular games around simply won't work at all. You can also follow our anti-cheat article tag. We'll be sure to keep you up to date on the Linux / SteamOS anti-cheat situation as it develops.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
It would force the devs and publishers to actually do their homework and help linux gaming as a side bonus.
One man can dream.
BotchFrivarg 13 hours ago
I think it's fairly likely what will happen in the next 2-3 years is they'll make EAC work on Steam OS. Essentially all it needs is to boot in secure boot mode with a signed kernel and a module that does the verification. It will piss off a lot of purists, but it can happen. It won't work on all Linuxes of course, but it can work on these devices.Without some form of remote attestation this won't prevent the kernel from lying towards user space (including to root!) that it has indeed booted into secure boot mode, and is signed. (an example in that direction is how microg bypasses the signature requirement of googleplay in that case the android rom has been modified to lie about the microg signature) On windows being closed source this is much easier to achieve since MS has tight control over who can install drivers, sure it ain't perfect but do pull something of like lying about secure boot and signatures you'd first need to find an kernel exploit.
Anyway that out of the way I think it is my turn to call the devs who want kernel level anti-cheat lazy, because it is the lazy solution to cheaters. Cheating isn't going away and the best you can hope for is that most people don't notice it (and think that those people who where really good where just some people who are playing at a lower rank then they are actually capable of for funsies (aka smurfs)), kernel level anti cheat just moves the cheat to hardware (a raspberry pi and some advanced image analyzing can do a lot here on the low end, a PCI-e low level RAM debug card with hacked firmware does a lot on the high end). On top of that note that really obvious cheating is pretty easy to prove even without kernel level anti-cheat, and thus that kernel level anti cheat is mostly a way for devs to go "see we are doing something about those cheaters!" without having to spend a lot of actual effort. (Also that "more linux users where cheaters than legitimate" statistic is fishy, how would you know if your anti-cheat tech didn't work? If it was just that the reports on cheating dropped maybe it was just because more linux users reported cheaters? Or some kind of placebo effect where a lot of players where like "sure can't be a cheater since they banned linux users"?)
What Valve (or third-party) would need to do here is simply an easy way to make the LAN-Server reachableI agree that this would excellent, but it won't happen, because there's no money in LAN servers. None of your friends will shell out actual money for skins/inventory tabs/hats/upgrades if they're playing local.
Maybe I'm wrong there though. Maybe there's a way to allow that monetisation, but it still works in a LAN-party, as well through Steam Networks. That would be cool.
But I doubt it'll happen.
From the sounds of it Valve aren't going to go super aggressive on the pricing. I wish they would though as it would really shake things up.Sony, MS and Nintendon't all provide hardware as loss-leaders against their walled-garden stores. I suppose, in a sense, Steam is also a walled-garden, in so far as you need a PC to use it... but I doubt Valve will be happy burning money to create a loss-leader. Honestly, if the original Steamdeck launch is anything to go by, it's clear that Valve don't have a manufacturing capacity to create a loss-leader! If they loss-lead the price on Steam Machine and demand goes through the roof - they could find themselves with months- or each years-long supply shortage (ala PS5).
Last edited by scaine on 13 Nov 2025 at 10:44 pm UTC
There has been a huge increase in computing power & stable internet since the LAN-to-WAN days , and with things such as tailscale (wireguard) you don't need a cloud server or a great deal of technical knowledge.
i mean you can use steam for 'remote play' and play a co-op game, it's not quite the same as i think it doesn't cater for 16+ players in one remote play session (but i could be wrong)
I continue to call bullshit on these 'devs' statements about the amount of cheaters using Linux. Their numbers sound comically inflated.Please do not forget that kernel level anticheat is not the holy grail against cheaters.
When BF6 came out this one streamer had access to a cheat ... only took hours.
The more money is involved the more cheating there is.
On the other hand - counter strike, a game that is also a trading platform runs on linux.I agree with you, to say such a thing is to lie :
- It’s a vector for cheat developers.
- When we stopped support for Linux, we saw more cheat users exploiting Linux, than actual legitimate users.
- If a game supports Proton or Linux, they’re not serious about anti-cheat.
Globally, Windows represents 66% of PC users and Linux only 3%.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
Steam users on Windows accounted for 94.84% in October 2025, compared to 3.05% of Linux users at the same time.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?l=french
This statement must be true :
- When we stopped supporting Linux, users made up less than .01% of the total player base.
Developing cheat software for Linux isn't profitable either...
For this reason, there are no cheaters softwares under Linux.
There is no difficulty in running an anti-cheat system under Linux, unless one deliberately refuses to do so.
Windows has always engaged in unfair competition against Linux, and this continues ;-(
I agree that this would excellent, but it won't happen, because there's no money in LAN servers
Again, developers have to go back to the roots. Instead of selling nonsense like skins/items nobody needs for 2 bucks they can develop great DLCs which really enhance the gaming experience for say 25 bucks. And guest what? When the hoster (the one who started the server) has the DLC installed, all other friends need that DLC too.
Boom, the dev earns much more money within seconds/minutes.
Quality makes money... selling trash, not.
Liam Dawe 11 hours ago
It only takes one person with cheats to potentially ruin hundreds (thousands etc) of online matches.
So both can be factually true: low users, high cheats. Developers won’t be saying this kind of thing repeatedly if it was a flat out lie and no Microsoft aren’t paying them to do so, pure FUD.
Many casual gamers don't even know what an IP address is and they do not care. Such things must be as simple as getting a beer out of your fridge;)
ElectricPrism 10 hours ago
.01%
Presenting misinformation as fact because you "feel" that your exaggeration is true.
^^ Instantly loose all credibility in seconds, Do Not Collect 200 Or Pass Go. ^^
--
Regarding "Walled EAC Gardens" on Steam.
This is really simple.
Developers follow incentives.
Valve needs to incentivize developers to get their shit together.
If your game doesn't FULLY work on the new 2026 STEAM MACHINE, you are ineligible to be in the FEATURED GAMES BILLBOARD on the HOMEPAGE.
STEAM HOMEPAGE is a place for games COMPATIBLE with Steam Hardware.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
We could have a dedicated kernel for running certain games with all the accesses and trust needed by the anti cheat.
Yeah, I grew up playing deathmatches in the likes of Duke3D, Quake, UT, Tribes, etc., and yeah, cheaters suck, but... I could always switch to a different dedicated server with some obscure mods or host my own. When the server OP is watching someone obviously cheat in-game, it's easy to just ban them and move on, because these servers were (and in many cases still are!) run as a community effort, with volunteers keeping the peace.
That's the part I miss from these modern games - by making matchmaking and server infrastructure dependent on the publisher, we lost so much. So if a multiplayer game doesn't let me host my own dedicated server I can opt to password-lock to my friends, I'm honestly just not interested. Give us standalone dedicated server binaries (hell, I'm even running one right now for Empyrion via wine), and let the community sort it out, no kernel rootkit shenanigans needed.
Of course, the real reason behind all this is so they can protect their investment in microtransactions and loot box garbage, so I'm not surprised they don't want little Timmy cheating in that fancy $$$ golden weapon skin without paying them for the privilege.
That's the part I miss from these modern games - by making matchmaking and server infrastructure dependent on the publisher, we lost so much
Yes, so much yes. I had lots of fun in CoD 1 and 2. Until some... Black Ops 2 maybe? ... was doing automatic match making. Bye FPS.
An other option is that when you enter the steam gamemode, and a game is launched, the steam environment with the game is sandboxed.
Third solution: reimplement user kick voting
I may seem like an amateur, and I am, but why not create a specific linux kernel for this kind of games ?
Because, how else are these clueless devs going to lie to their players and tell them they addressed cheating ?
Linux users can't play Battlefield 6? Good for them!
The only difficulty is just that sense of exclusion, I think. "Everyone" plays yearly release shooters and the like.
It's like being excluded from TwitX. Yeah, it has a massive presence and you'll see people talking about a service you can't use. But you'll realistically avoid a lot of drama and misery that comes with using it.
Besides, remember why GOL doesn't promote games with AI content: There's an inexhaustible supply of excellent games without AI. The same goes for games without Kernel Anti-Cheat.
How to setup OpenMW for modern Morrowind on Linux / SteamOS and Steam Deck
How to install Hollow Knight: Silksong mods on Linux, SteamOS and Steam Deck