Recent testing revealed that Arch Linux, Pop!_OS, and even Nobara Linux, which is maintained by a single developer, all outstripped Windows for the performance crown on Windows-native games. The testing was run at the high-end of quality settings, and Valve's Proton was used to run Windows games on Linux.
Cool what about games with anti-cheat
If you’re not just being facetious, https://areweanticheatyet.com/ is a good source.
According to them ~58% of anti-cheat games work. There’s been a large uptick of anti-cheat support since the Steam Deck.
According to ProtonDB, 86% of the top 1000 games on Steam function (Silver+ rating). It’s a pretty safe bet that the most of the missing 14% is probably due to anti-cheat.
Yeah mostly just talking shit. I love my steam deck.
Thanks for this. The one multiplayer game I’ve been consistently playing apparently got Linux anti cheat support enabled 2 months ago.
I think installing Linux on my gaming/work PC will be a winter holiday project for me 😀.
Now to pick a distro.
Is it Hell Let Loose? I started playing it since they support Linux now, very well done Battlefield-like game. I haven’t played much BF since 1942.
Yep, that’s the one haha
Cool what about malware? /s (no really anticheat is malware)
Anticheat isn’t malware. Malware has adverse effects on your system.
AC uses some techniques that some forms of malware also use (but far from all)
Malware defined as any software that does not benefit the user but wastes systems resources would fit here.
And that definition depends on how you define “benefitting the user”. If someone has an online match ruined by a hacker, I’d argue that they would have benefitted from the game running some kind of anticheat.
Do we define user as the singular individual person? Or do we consider the user as a collective, and factor in the larger benefit to the masses? It could even be argued that the people running cheats are the ones running malware (specifically, malware that targets the other users in the match) and should therefore be treated the same way we treat people who use more traditional viruses and trojans at the detriment to others. The same way you wouldn’t want some virus-ridden machine connecting to your home network, (you’d probably want everyone to at least be running a basic virus scanner and have common sense when browsing,) you would want everyone in the game running anticheat to ensure there is no malware.
Very few people would say that it’s okay to waste others’ time and computer resources on a bitcoin miner trojan… Most people would (correctly) determine that it is theft. But then when it comes to online games, the same people feel entitled to waste other peoples’ time and computer resources by ruining their matches.
If your security relies on software in the control of the end user you have a problem.
That’s largely a corporate decision that is out of the hands of the programmers. Generally speaking, security specialists would agree with you. But running anticheat on the server costs server resources, which means you need more servers to accommodate the same number of players. Running it client-side is a cost cutting measure mandated by the corporate bean counters who did the math and concluded it’d be cheaper for the company to spend the users’ computer resources instead.
While I agree that client-side security isn’t the best solution, it’s certainly better than no solution. It’s the same argument people have against self-driving cars. The self-driving cars don’t need to be perfect; They just need to be better than the average driver. If they can reduce the number and severity of accidents that are currently happening without them, then they should be implemented. Even if the solution isn’t perfect. Because an imperfect solution is better than doing nothing at all.
You’re right and it’s a pragmatic approach to the problem. They only need broad technical effectiveness to change user behaviour.
I’d argue that it’s not strictly cost cutting but cost transferring. The total client resources most likely exceed that which would be needed on servers.
Anticheat benefits the users by…reducing the number of cheaters in games. Big concept to wrap your head around, I know.
There are several forms of anticheat. The ones that just run when the game is running, is usually fine. However, there is the Riot anti cheat which just runs all the time and isn’t uninstalled when Valorant is uninstalled. That is malware.
what about single player games? how does that anticheat benefit any user?
Are there single player games with anticheat?
There are games with single player and multiplayer modes that come with anti cheat. I had some game a few months ago that was a Steam freebie (can’t remember the name) whose anti cheat didn’t install properly on Windows and it didn’t allow me to launch regular single player, only mod mode.
I know that Resident Evil games come with Denuvo, for example.
DRM isn’t anti cheat.
I don’t think that is a widely accepted holistic definition of malware. But even if, AC is not waisting resources. It’s taking the resources it needs to perform its job.
I’ve been playing games that use EasyAntiCheat (Hunt Showdown and Chivalry 2) and they seem to work fine.