Quoting: pilkI feel Valve has done pretty much everything they can for anticheat compatibility. The issues that remain are the Hall Of Shame (Epic, Riot, Electronic Arts, Roblox, Bungie, etc.) that refuse to make the AC work because of whatever excuse they made up that day.

The excuse typically is something like "Because Linux users are evil h4xx0rs and because open source is insecure by definition! Only closed-source operating system can ever be trusted."

Which doesn't help my impression of people using rootkit anti-cheat doing so because they're not very competent at coding or game-design. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I love my Steam Deck, and honestly the only thing I feel needs regular updating is performance, because these games are not getting any smaller or less GPU-hungry. It's fantastic how the Deck can run even more recent AAA titles, and I think Valve should make sure it stays that way (I still can't believe how well Hogwarts Legacy ran on it).

Unlike Liam, I don't necessarily see the future of gaming in mobile. Maybe I am a dinosaur, but for me, gaming always was, is and always will be desktop. The Steam Deck is for the casual 30 mins of Stardew Valley in bed or when out in the yard. My lifestyle is thankfully not very mobile (I would hate being away all the time), so the desktop serves me just fine for most gaming. The Deck will always be my supplementary device, and it does a superb job doing that.

Do we actually know how many Steam Deck units were sold so far?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisanceYou failed to answer me how much this man should earn or how you arrived at the number. There is no right number and that's why. The whole argument is just to hate the "rich". You say that this is for the terror of the elites but it should terrify anyone at allowing anybody to make law how much another person can earn. It would never end at the "elites" and would end up affecting the very people you claim to want to help anyway.

There is absolutely no good reason why we can NOT regulate excessive salaries. Free markets never produce 100% desirable results in all situations. Even free-market advocates don't deny that. Which is why in economics, it's considered to be just fine to correct market failures with regulation and/or taxation. And as I pointed out above, it's borderline insane to claim that these CEO salaries are somehow NOT a market failure.

As for who, how and when to regulate? That's the parliaments job, don't you think? They do that all the time, and the numbers aren't always hard science. Like the numbers they set tax exemptions and grants to this exact amount, despite it also could have been 1000 dollars more or less.

Whenever this topic is discussed, people go "Regulation? Dictatorship!!!!". It's so funny, because similar to CEOs, thieves also grab stuff and run away with it, because they can. And yet we made regulations against it...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Caldathras

It's worth noting at this point that Take-Two's CEO, Strauss Zelnick, was paid $42.1 million last year, which is more than two-and-a-half times the previous year. So once again, the people at the top are pulling in big numbers while cutting the people doing the work.

This needs to be pointed out more often. No one deserves this high a salary, especially at the expense of those that earn much less. Plain greed.

:angry:

What's the correct number for them to make ? How do you arrive at that number ? Who gets to decide ? I'm not trying to defend Take Two but at the same time trying to dictate how much people are allowed to make is a recipe for a different form of tyranny.

The salary should reflect somebody's productivity. I didn't make that up, economic theory did. And you can't sell me the idea that a CEO is more productive during his potty break than one of his developers during an entire year, without making me burst out in hysterical laughter.

These people stuff their pockets with money until they burst because they can, that's all there is to it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't know the guy, but he's right.

It should be legally mandated for studios to remove all DRM components one year after first release of the game and, for games having online features, to release all tools needed to operate the game on a private server on the same day the studio ceases operation of the official server.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrinIs creating a good server-side anticheat solution even possible?

The server is the only place where you can even reasonably put anti-cheat. The idea to make an untrusted system (the customer's PC) trusted by installing rootkits on it is hilariously idiotic to begin with. It has never worked and won't ever work. The only systems you can ever trust are the ones you operate and control. Which from the perspective of the game studio is the server.

And yes, it's possible and has been done before. A good example of such a design is Guild Wars 1. The basic idea is to make the client as dumb as possible and let the server do everything, including verifying user input for validity and sanity.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess every studio saved from Embracer's grasp is a good thing?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess curated app-stores are more secure if they're actually curated?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dpanter

Quoting: KimyrielleWon't affect me personally

And what if EA forces this crap into every title they ever published or developed? Will you be affected then? We already saw Capcom try this song and dance number, randomly breaking things because reasons.

Regardless of who is personally affected, moves like these are disasters for Linux gaming as well as the entire gaming industry. DRM is cancer, retroactively forcing it on older titles is despicable and anti-consumer to a degree most companies can't even bring themselves to think about. And then we have the "Triple A" monsters...

It would still not affect me personally. The Sims 4 was the last EA title I ever bought (and that's not exactly a new game), and I highly doubt I will ever buy another one. These guys just don't make any good games anymore...

That doesn't mean I don't agree with everything you said. ;)

Btw, it's a disaster even for Windows users. They'd be better off without a piece of malware running in the background that can get hacked and mess with their system because it has access to all of it. These things are not only morally questionable, but a security nightmare waiting to happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Won't affect me personally (I don't play shooters), but it's still sad for the people who liked the game. Maybe one day the developers of shooters will figure out how to design cheat-resilience into the game itself, instead of trying to take control over their customers systems, which won't ever work.

View this comment - View article - View full comments