@phil995511 I couldn't find commercial cheating software, so you appear to be right about that part.
I did find open source cheating software. [External Link]
Here an opensource cheat for old versions of half-life. [External Link] and I know that several Windows cracks are also Linux compatible.
@BlackBloodRum might have more insight in the commercial side though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@kmturley Linux does something similair/better [External Link].
The problem isn't and has never been Linux features.
Android and TeslaOS are Linux distros with a high focus on security and deeply trusted by games.
RHEL is deeply trusted by production software.
Most to all their features are integrated directly into the Linux kernel you use.

The problem is trust: the games don't trust it, because you could've modified the kernel to lie to them and the users don't trust it, because they've no easy way of checking this is truly what is happening.

So, either one of the parties has to gain trust or the source of trust for the vendors has to be moved outside the kernel, since I'm a programmer and not a social sciences student I propose the second.

Edit:
Places where this trust can be moved to: the development environment(homeomorphic encryption), external servers(game streaming) or hardware modules(TPM)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@Eike, because than the other gamers will come and visit your house when you cheat.
I prefer Kernel anti-cheat personally.
Also permabans can be more perma.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@Purple Library Guy
On an AMD machine this actually makes sense.
See the primary problem with your solution is that it's still hard to confirm that you run what you think you're running, but AMD's competitor to SGX actually works with mini kernels in vms.
The real question is. Wouldn't it be easier and just as good/bad to dual boot? Maye its cheaper, Windows is expensive.

Edit:
Correction it would be easier on an AMD machine this feature I just referenced does require exactly 0 reboots.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@Uso, @Shotm7 and many others who suggest custom kernels as the solution.
Custom kernels are the problem, because people can legally and practically make their own kernel, make it return whatever they want and install it on their own device.
Anti-cheat makers, which are people who are defending against the owner of the device their software is running on don't trust the kernel to help defend against its master and on Windows Microsoft at least attempts to claim that title on Linux a principled stance has been taken to not claim that title.
Yes even signed kernels are treated as suspicious UEFI level cheating already exists.

Feature wise Linux wins all the rounds in anti-cheat.
Acceptable KASLR, tainted kernels, great hardware security modules integration, etc.
This just doesn't matter, because one could've and probably someone has made a kernel that showed all the signs of having these features, but didn't actually help.

If you ask me the technical solution isn't in the Kernel at all.
It's in the things the anti-cheat developer does trust: the development tools and the trusted execution environments.
To express this belief I hereby release EASLR(Executable Adress Space Layout Randomization) under the gplv2.1 [External Link].

Edit:
Yes, I value this freedom flowing from this principled stance too and the lack of monopolistic power originating from it.
As such EASLR doesn't stop anyone from modifying anything on their computer.
It hampers undetectable mass distribution of this capability on the specific programs we're trying to protect.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@PurpleLibrary guy.
The answer to your question is in essention anti-cheat.
Much like the closed nature of windows makes it more attractive for anti-cheat solutions and drm than Linux, does the closed form of the xbox platform make it more attractive to anti-cheat solutions than pc. This ROG ally is a pc it doesn't matter how much it pretends otherwise.
Better DMCA protection, predictable OS(the last full jailbreak was at least a decade ago), etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is good news for desktop Linux and Valve.
They see the need to address the SteamDeck separately and not push needless extra stores.
EA'll intentionally be one of the latest to allow their software to run on desktop Linux systems.
They're fighting Valve and keeping Linux down means that Microsoft can keep Valve in check.
Yet they've SteamDeck became enough of unit on itself to be addressed separately even though with the same motivations(remember SteamDeck isn't even half of the Linux market share).
Lets hope they'll need a SteamOS and/or an Arch statement next time, because it shows effort on their part.
Every time they need to split the platform it means they're now dealing with two problems instead of one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@Cyba.Cowboy
I understand your excitement over arm, but am very certain this will not happen anytime soon.
X86 is AMD's oligopoly.
For X86_64 it's even the licensor instead of the licensee, while for ARM it would need to license again and before you say.
Also Apple's chips aren't competitors for AMD.
Apple never bought or considered buying AMD and it is not selling these chips to AMD customers(they're not selling these chips B2B full stop)

As such there are few ways to convince AMD to step away from x86.
One is proof that it's doomed in the short term, but it's latest models are competitive with Qualcomms ARM desktop processors in preformance and battery life(AMD's only realistic opponent from the ARM side).
Another is provide an opportunity for growth, but AMD is already growing faster than it can handle, because the market leaders in its two most major segments have left or self immolated(NIVIDIA went AI instead of productivity, Intel hasn't innovated on serious level for more than a decade).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@gradyvuckovic Chess is older than d&d.
It's easier to imagine that people want to play what they see(a football game) than an individual part of what they see(the footballer).

Also it's easier to make.
FPV is hard and it still requires strategic simulation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i'll leave aside the usual "why do we even need another launcher" argument for a second to say this... why do game devs have such a hard time making well behaved launchers?! it's a windowed app folks, literally any app besides games got this right... it's really not rocket science! you're all embarassing yourselves in front of your customers before they even go into the game!

Launchers are a sign of strength not weakness.

Making launchers is hard and there is barely any opensource support for it.

Why do games still do it
1. Launchers are generally where the drm and anti-cheat are primarily based to the point that implementing launcher free drm is a challenge.
Games have separate launchers, because they consider Valve drm and anti-cheat inadequate or because they want to minimize their steam dependency.
2. Launchers allow you to advertise your company to gamers. Suddenly you've a special {company} program on your computer, which is named after the company instead of the product.
3. Not working with launchers means uploading your game binary to steam. This is a bigger problem than you think. Steam has used this access several times against the wishes of other parties: keeping games accessible to past licensees when the developer pulls the game from steam, Scrutinizing your game for viruses, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments