Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: TurkeysteaksServer side anticheat is unfortunately a dream (Poor Counter Strike), and cheats only keep getting more sophisticated. Is this problem solvable?

You hit the nail on the head. The problem is not solvable as long as players have access to the hardware.... and even then that likely won't stop it. This is the same problem we see in the InfoSec world. The more sophisticated counters there are to Cheats (and Malware), the more sophisticated workarounds will exist. It's not winnable and the more complex the Anti-Cheat gets, the more complex the Cheats will find be.... and this doesn't even include how OS vendors really want to start isolating applications from the system itself. Besides Docker/Flatpak/Snap on Linux - Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android all have ways to sandbox applications so they don't have direct access to the system.... it's just that none of these systems have, as of yet, been enforced on developers.

It's like Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft trying to stop physical hacks on their consoles. You simply cannot short of creating legal gates to even learning Electronic, Mechanical, Software, Systems, Network, etc Engineering skills.... Kind of like how some Law Enforcement want to hamstring Encryption or make it illegal without realizing that it's just Mathematics... you know that thing you learn in school?

It is *client-side* anti-cheat that is the pipe dream, for the very reason that the players have access to that end. That's why client-side will never really work. Only ones to tell you the client-side is the way to go are the ones making $$$ from it.

It's all in the metrics at the server-side with proper data-analytics. Gather the data and the patterns for cheating will be right there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: BeemerThey should put up stats. I want to see:

• Total Linux user count pre-block


• Total of Windows user count


• Pre-block count of users allegedly cheating


• Post-block count of users allegedly cheating

The statements of "we've identified Linux OS as being a path for a variety of impactful exploits and cheats" and "this will impact a small number of Apex players," seemed a bit at odds. If it's such a small number, how are the hacks "impactful".

They install a cheat into your system to prevent cheating. It honestly should be illegal to do that.

They have all the metrics they need on their end to kick users or ban them. This is exactly what A.I. expert systems are for.

This type of comment *always* seems to appear, and I'm seeing a lot of it across social media in reply to this news. I'm really surprised people don't understand, so here's it in simple terms.

There's a difference between counted players, and cheaters when these situations appear.

The number of Linux players will be (in percentage terms) low. The statements aren't at odds at all. Even a small number of cheaters can cause huge problems for the whole of the player-base, of which is mostly not-Linux.

You could have 100 Linux players, 1000,000,000 Windows players and 2 people on Linux doing cheats that affect everyone. That's what they mean. We've seen this info repeated by various developers, that Linux enables the cheats because it's harder for devs to block.

Hope people get that now.

I beg to differ. There is the number of players, the subset that are cheating, then further subsets by OS. All cheaters potentially affect all non-cheating players, be it by screwing up rankings, or just making matches unfun or pointless.

Rather than put in resources to fix the problem, they're using Linux players as a scapegoat. Think about it. Given all the choices they had, the one they chose was the least impactful and, more importantly, the cost in resources was almost negligible.

Banning Linux players was easy and cost them very little. And they will still have a cheating problem. As a dev 25 years ago (or more) said, "The client is in the hands of the enemy".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They should put up stats. I want to see:

• Total Linux user count pre-block


• Total of Windows user count


• Pre-block count of users allegedly cheating


• Post-block count of users allegedly cheating

The statements of "we've identified Linux OS as being a path for a variety of impactful exploits and cheats" and "this will impact a small number of Apex players," seemed a bit at odds. If it's such a small number, how are the hacks "impactful".

They install a cheat into your system to prevent cheating. It honestly should be illegal to do that.

They have all the metrics they need on their end to kick users or ban them. This is exactly what A.I. expert systems are for.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

When they first decided to go "unity", I was running Ubuntu. Did an update and suddenly my min/max/close buttons weren't on the right anymore. It's a little thing but for me personally, disruptions/unexpected changes in my workflow can cause issues. Naturally, I went to the forums because this is Linux - I can move it back, just need to fix a config. Nope - "We have plans for that space" is the only answer I found.

I ditched Ubuntu right then and there. Similar issues have cropped up over the years but that's the only time I've run into something purposefully locked down.

Whether or not Canonical has a "Not invented here" issue, there is a history of the community going one way followed by Canonical doing their own version.

Canonical could have kept going with Gnome, branding bits of it for their fork and such. Nope - Unity - Now ditched.

Canonical could have kept going with Wayland as the X server replacement. Nope - Mir - Now ditched.

Dash, Upstart - Same thing.

Canonical could have made snap universal when it came out. Nope - Initially bound to Ubuntu. I can't seem to find a definitive "Snap was announced/started at <somedate>" but it at least looks to have started about the same time as Flatpak and wasn't updated for use by other distro's until 2016 - A year after Flatpak released. Snap is still going, but if they had released it initially for all/any distro, would Flatpak have been needed?

Honestly, I think Canonical/Ubuntu were at least partially responsible for getting Linux where it is now. However, IMHO, they wanted more control over things than the Linux ecosystem would tolerate.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Same dev put out another game (w/demo) called "Franz" this year. Description and video remind me a bit of "Autoduel" from the 80's.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ugh...this whole thing about anti-cheat "whatever" is moot. I forget who said this, but it was 10 or more years ago : "The client is the enemy". I've never understood the server/client anti-cheat design that puts the anti-cheat *on the client*. No matter what you install, you cannot trust that the client is not compromised.

All the metrics we can get today should let companies like Epic or Steam aggregate the data to pull out the cheaters. Why don't the servers aggregate data on kills per sec or min? Or player time to return fire? Is the player aimed in on an opposing player for x amount of time while obstacles block the view? It's all data that can show when someone displays a super-human statistic.

Honestly, you don't even need to ban those folks. Use the data and match-makem against each other - keep them out of games where they'll simply dominate. Data will show those that are just good vs those that are artificially good.

It's like all the bots buying up the graphics cards. They're not completing purchases like a human. They bypass store pages and complete transactions within seconds. Why are those being allowed priority over legitimate retail purchasers?

It would make all this hoopla over installing anti-cheat non-existant.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"Operational costs, such as the cost of acquiring content, have risen dramatically"

What content is Humble acquiring? They have a storefront where others that make content can sell their stuff. I know occasionally in the past, they've paid to have something ported. Does Humble Bundle make games or other content for sale now?

Anyways - This is a wholly unexpected development. :grin:

May 5th, 2021

"exploring different approaches to the sliders and how splits work, along with new ways to incorporate charity into other parts of the user experience"

IMHO:

This is PR speak. They made a change they thought or hoped no one would either notice or care about, with the express purpose of forcefully increasing their profits per bundle sale.

IGN is only backtracking now because people did notice and did care and IGN figures they will lose more than they stood to gain if they kept the changes.

The quoted statement is completely unnecessary in the context of the original sliders, which give buyers complete choice on how the money they spend is split. Which of course could mean, for any given buyer, $0.00 for IGN.

The quote is only valid if they want to limit buyer choice in the sliders in the future, ostensibly to ensure a minimum percentage cut per sale. My gut tells me they'll either wait a bit, then re-introduce with some made-up back story as to why it's necessary (a story they don't have currently) OR, they will try to sneak the changes via smaller incremental ones.

Beemer

(quote edited for spelling and highlighting)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"exploring different approaches to the sliders and how splits work, along with new ways to incorporate charity into other parts of the user experience"

IMHO:

This is PR speak. They made a change they thought or hoped no one would either notice or care about, with the express purpose of forcefully increasing their profits per bundle sale.

IGN is only backtracking now because people did notice and did care and IGN figures they will lose more than they stood to gain if they kept the changes.

The quoted statement is completely unnecessary in the context of the original sliders, which give buyers complete choice on how the money they spend is split. Which of course could mean, for any given buyer, $0.00 for IGN.

The quote is only valid if they want to limit buyer choice in the sliders in the future, obstensibly to ensure a minimum percentage cut per sale. My gut tells me they'll either wait a bit, then re-introduce with some made-up back story as to why it's necessary (a story they don't have currently) OR, they will try to sneak the changes via smaller incremental ones.

Beemer

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Limbo 2010 (Colorized)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guesti am willing to bet this thing never sees the light of day,i feel bad for anyone that backed this.

I agree. TBH - I wouldn't bother giving them any "airtime" until at least a functioning prototype is vetted by an objective third party. Same for the new Intellivision console as well, and I'm really hoping that won't be vaporware.

When they skip Kickstarter (which requires some kind of functioning prototype), and start straight with Indiegogo, I stay away until it ships.

Beemer

View this comment - View article - View full comments