Linux is officially at 99% for me.
Linux is officially at 99% for me.
I was a long time Windows user, starting with XP. I only tried Linux a few years ago, and while I loved it, at the time I had to dual boot for a couple specific Windows only things (VR and flight/racing sim hardware).
A couple months ago though, I got sick of it. I figured if I really wanted to do those things, I could boot up a VM, or just force myself to be patient and wait for a proper Linux solution. So, I wiped all my drives and installed Arch. Around this time, I also got an AMD RX 7600XT, so that was a nice performance boost, plus it waranted a switch to Wayland.
Let me tell you, I have been so pleasantly surprised by basically everything I've tried. Cyberpunk 2077 through Heroic Launcher, for example, with 15 odd mods. Runs at a solid 80fps at 1440p on high settings, the only graphical issue I noticed was flickering volumetric clouds. This game ate my old card (the venerable GTX 1080) alive even on Windows.
Just last night, I found my joystick, an old VKB Gladiator + Kosmosima grip, plugged it in and it worked perfectly.
What has really, really impressed me though is VR. I have a Quest 2 that I used to use via Steam link to play my PC wirelessly. Obviously that isn't an option on Linux (yet) but that's where ALVR comes in. Sideload the client on the quest, run the streamer on the desktop, start SteamVR, and bam, it works. The first game I tried was Elite Dangerous, one of my all time favourite games and easily my favourite VR epxerience. Now, I won't go ahead and claim it's perfect, hence the 99% in the title. After fiddling with the settings and making sure I had hardware encoding/decoding set up right, I had very good clarity, up to 120hz refresh rate, but occasional blockiness and artifacting, especially in heavier graphical scenes, like during docking. However, out in open space, it felt just like the ED I know and love.
At this point, I'm just going to look at fiddling with some settings and hopefully smoothing out the stream, but the fact that I can play my favourite games, with my favourite hardware, with great performance and in VR, and the amount of setup is really comparable to what it is on Windows is just kind of wrinkling my brain. Plus, only a couple months ago, this wasn't the case. Support for things that were once doomed to be dual boot material for the foreseeable future is coming along rapidly. This is a great time to be a Linux gamer.
You're viewing a single thread.
I switched from Windows to Linux during the whole Vista debacle back in 2008. For basically ten years I was out of the PC gaming scene. I fucking love Proton and what’s its done for Linux as a gaming platform. Now I play (almost) everything on Linux, no sweat. The only things I ever need my Windows partition for anymore are things with those shitty anticheat platforms that just assume you’re a cheater if you use Linux. Cause, you know, Linux scary.
those shitty anticheat platforms that just assume you’re a cheater if you use Linux. Cause, you know, Linux scary.
To be fair, the people at the cutting edge of modern computing are statistically very likely to be Linux users. Therefore it's not entirely unreasonable to have some prejudice against Linux users.
But as a sweeping measure these anti-cheat measures are absolutely unacceptable. The only other explanation is that they just don't want to bother with the market share still being low compared to Windows.
Personally, if a game requires anti-cheat, it's probably not a game I'd enjoy playing. Not a big fan of competitive gameplay. But for those that are, this needs to stop. Especially with all the new bullshit Microsoft has been pulling in Windows lately.
To be fair, the people at the cutting edge of modern computing are statistically very likely to be Linux users. Therefore it’s not entirely unreasonable to have some prejudice against Linux users.
Can we drop this "linux is hackerman territory for cheats" stereotype?
Most people cheat on windows. Not cause they are technical or knowledgable.. but because they have a credit card
cause they buy cheats designed for windows.
The overwhelming majority of people out there cheating are cheating using tools they bought and use on windows.
So if anything, its Windows that should be treated as the pariah dog of hackers. Cause its where the credit swiping script kiddies are.
Can we drop this "linux is hackerman territory for cheats" stereotype?
I don't see this as a negative thing and it is absolutely true to some degree. Most of the incredibly talented low-level developers in the world (you know, those that are actually capable of making non-script kiddie hacks) have a tendency towards Linux.
So no, I'm not dropping the "Linux is a sign you might mean business" thing, especially if their idea of a desktop environment is just a collection of terminal windows neatly tiled together. We should be proud of the fact that some the most talented coders in de world choose freedom of software over anything else.
But luckily most of those people focus their efforts on different subjects. So yes, the problem is definitely on Windows with all the 14 year olds buying cheats off the darknet using their mom's credit card (dramatized for effect).
People buy cheats ?! Is that how this works ? So there are cheat developers making a living off this ?
Yes. Thats why cheaters are so rampant in certain games.
its not because each cheater is a elite linux hackerman, using unique and custom cheats personally created by them.
Its because they are dumb idiots with mommies credit card buying a product that some asshole has made and put up for sale to ruin everyones fun.
@KrokanteBamischijf @hperrin But it needs to stop in a way that keeps those competitive games fun...
- Trusted Computing-based solutions
- Don't tell the game anything-based solutions...
- ??Trusted-Computing requires a more locked down system than any distro provides, and also (effectively) everyone going along with some MS-controlled standards for TPMs and so forth.
Ignorant-Games approaches perform terribly.
What else ya got?
A few options in my personal order of priority:
- allow private servers - you can still have competitive play, just with people you trust to not cheat
- anti-cheat on the server only - would require human moderation as well (users could submit reports, which could be compared to server logs)
- increase cost for cheating - maybe have players ante up, and lose their ante if they're caught cheating (e.g. pay for game licenses and have the license revoked); to be fair, this would require independent review
@sugar_in_your_tea Private servers exclude MMOs as a class of game. That works well for death-match style (or BG3 style) 4-player games, but doesn't work for 30-300-3000 people games.
Anti-cheat server-only allows too many cheats. There's already enough trouble distinguishing someone using wall-hacks from someone with good headphones in a game that does 3d-spacial-sound... trying to do that on the server side ... just won't work. Same applies for other ways of increasing the costs if detected
Private servers exclude MMOs as a class of game
Why? There are some massive Minecraft servers (thousands of players), and Palworld is self-hostable (closer to other MMOs), so I honestly don't see the issue. You'd have a different set of characters on each server, but that just increases the risk for cheaters who get booted.
wall-hacks
Part of anti-cheat is not sending the data cheaters use to cheat in the first place. A wall hack is possible because the client is aware of what's beyond the wall, and that doesn't need to be sent for anything that's not visible. That increases computation on the server, so games tend to send more game state than is necessary for smoother gameplay.
Same applies for other ways of increasing the costs if detected
There should be a mix of elite players among the "tribunal" for determining whether someone is hacking. Players report other players, and the server should log enough to recreate the play session so moderators can review the gameplay to make a determination. A lot of cheating is pretty obvious to detect algorithmically, so this would be in a "review" scenario where it's not so cut-and-dry.
But this takes a lot of resources, which cuts into profits, so I think studios tend to just throw on anti-cheat so they can shift blame (hey, anti-cheat didn't catch it, we'll forward your report). But I do sincerely believe it's feasible for serious competitive games where real money is on the line (e.g. tournaments for prize money and whatnot) without clientside anti-cheat. For more casual games, a higher error rate is probably fine.
@sugar_in_your_tea Your response about wall-hacks is my "don't tell the game anything" comment. It's really really damn slow. You typically don't want to do frame-by-frame determination of if an opponent is just in view or not (because that's a full render), so you send the info to the client once it's possible... at which point the client knows.
Even if the game isn't hacked, the video pipeline "knows", and hacks have moved to be outside of the game space (thus the move to kernel-based)
Yup, "don't tell the game anything" is slow, I'll give you that. But anything that exists on the client can be hacked, even on a completely locked down console. People still cheat all the time with anti-cheat enabled, and I don't expect that to change just because they put it in the kernel.
frame-by-frame determination
A couple thoughts:
- can be predictive - clients already do a ton of prediction, this just moves that to the server
- can run in parallel to normal game update logic
- the server should have the (simplified) geometry data and can do a (relatively) cheap visibility check
The data would need to be sent a few frames ahead of time for performance reasons, so there's risk there, but if someone can wall-hack within a few frames, that's a good indicator that they're cheating anyway. I'm no game dev, so I'm probably missing some significant considerations here, but it seems like this is feasible, just expensive when the alternative is a much less expensive anti-cheat service.
And I agree with your reply, this is a hard problem to solve. I just think game companies are pushing the problem onto anti-cheat devs instead of really trying to solve it themselves in a privacy and security respecting way because it's cheaper and easier to offload a large share of that liability.
@KrokanteBamischijf @hperrin (my wife suggested auditing suspected cheats in games like battlefield by forcing them to play in real world paintball tournaments.
I think her experience as a teacher is impacting her suggestions)
@KrokanteBamischijf @hperrin Protecting code from the computer it runs on is either impossible or really really hard, depending.
https://multicians.org/thvv/mirror/obfreport.pdf
https://www.iacr.org/archive/crypto2001/21390001.pdf@A_Random_Idiot That's basically a form of @sugar_in_your_tea 's suggestion about making cheating more expensive: "We'll find your cheat program later, and retroactively find that you were cheating and ban you. Well after the match ended and everyone else's game was ruined"
You are going to always be reactive to cheating.
If you are pro-active, you'll just make it easier for cheaters to iterate and experiment and find ways around the pro-active.. and what happens then? You're back to reactive. Not to mention, pro-active anti-cheat tends to be rife with false positives, resulting in very public ban waves against innocent people.
It cant be helped, No amount of giving your butthole over to big daddy game company and their rootkits will make a game cheat-free. all they can hope for is to catch the cheaters, drop the hammer on them in bulk, so they struggle and panic to try and find out how it was detected so you can increase their cycle time before they have a new working one out.
@A_Random_Idiot That's .... not entirely wrong, but doing more to raise the barriers higher keeps the game fun longer before the cheaters ruin it.
(Again, ... limiting discussion to competitive PvP-style games)
But if youre banning people based on operating system, of what's now the only viable consumer operating system, youre basically sacrificing 100% of 'keep the game fun longer' for those players.
So if that's the philosophy, it would be wildly counterproductive to even put that on the table.
@melpomenesclevage sacrifice 100% of 2% balanced against 5% of 98%? Are you sure that's math you want them doing?
(And based on my 2nd hand experience, "5% enjoyment" kinda seems low. The cheaters do ruin things)
That’s … not entirely wrong, but doing more to raise the barriers higher keeps the game fun longer before the cheaters ruin it.
If you are pro-active, you’ll just make it easier for cheaters to iterate and experiment and find ways around the pro-active… and what happens then? You’re back to reactive
@A_Random_Idiot Yes, I think everybody has a reactive component to their plan? In the current situation, being reactive in some form appears to be table stakes.
But keeping higher barriers (is believed?) to make it easier to do that, and keeps some of the initial noise down, and pushes the timing off.
AND PUSHING THE TIMING IS A GAIN (to the makers of competitive PvP games)
Strong moderation? Shadow banning habitual cheaters to cheat leagues?
Yeah I'm right there with ya, of course it's the users fault for choosing an alternative OS, it has nothing to do with gaming companies choosing the cheapest, least effective and most invasive client side anti cheat solutions instead of more universal server side ones. Nothing at all.
I kinda get it, there's a reason games a turning towards P2P architecture instead of the traditional client-server architecture. Servers are expensive and turning the game effectively server-authoritative is even more expensive.
I imagine the cost benefit analysis rarely pays out which is why companies go for the cheaper option.