Well, my choice of game is influenced a lot by what my friends want to play as well, and we tend to cycle through various games at different times. So I’d want to have the ability to play whatever they want to play. We have been playing Battlefield 6 a fair amount recently, so that one would require Windows.
Helldivers 2 works on Linux but we’ve basically retired that for now because of some scummy behavior by the devs. I have hopes that it will come back, but it has a bad taste for now.
Probably most of the other games we play would work (since most of them don’t have over the top anticheat). I haven’t checked all of them, though. It’s hard to know how often I would run across one that doesn’t work.
Regardless of how you see those things or what they actually do, it’s basically certain that the developers do not see them as malware. And I think it’s reasonable to assume good intentions in making those choices, because it is a PvP game where cheating can negatively impact other players. I would give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions.
Many of the things that the Helldivers 2 devs have done could be excused with the benefit of the doubt as well, but they have stacked up a lot of broken promises, and recently there was a case of very blatant deception. It could be argued that it was not technically lying, but it was obviously intended to deceive. And there has been no apology for the deception since then, either.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions.
The developers are rarely the ones making the choice. I do give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s been shown it doesn’t actually prevent cheating and you’re refusing to let your customers choose how they play. They get the benefit of the doubt that they’re honestly trying to prevent cheaters, but not that it’s a purely benevolent decision towards customers. It’s a trade off, and the option they’re taking is bad for consumers and isn’t effective anyway.
For what it’s worth, cheating in BF6 seems pretty rare. So, it seems that something they’re doing is having an effect at reducing cheating. There are probably other methods that they could use, though.
I’m guessing that their decision ultimately comes down to money - they probably figure that other methods would be more expensive to achieve the same result, and that the lost revenue from people who are turned off by the anti cheat is less than that cost.
Cheating in ARC Raiders also seems very rare —and it’s ahead of BF6 now in players.
There’s two issues. Cheating in general is pretty uncommon, though it has an enlarged impact on players in games with high skill, lower player count, high information. Counter Strike, for example, it’s easy to tell when something feels off, so it’s easier to detect cheating. The upset it causes people also has a re-enforcment factor that makes it feel more common.
Meanwhile in BF, with tons of players all around, sprinting full speed, and low information, it’s hard to know if someone is cheating. Was it luck or skill, or did they have ESP and saw you through the wall? The chaos hides cheats. However, I saw day 1 that cheats were active and working in game. They’re there, but they’re a lot more invisible.
For example, I play Squad. In Squad you build FOBs where players respawn. There’s a type of cheating (doesn’t require hacks) called “ghosting” where you have a player on the other team who gives information about where FOBs are, for example, so you can destroy them. It’s almost impossible to detect. Any ghosting that happens could just as easily be luck/skill, and more often than not is. You could assume there’s no cheating happening. It is rare there, but it isn’t zero. There’s no Kernel level anti-cheat (for Linux at least).
I’m guessing that their decision ultimately comes down to money - they probably figure that other methods would be more expensive to achieve the same result, and that the lost revenue from people who are turned off by the anti cheat is less than that cost.
Yes, it’s executuves making a short-term purely financial decision. It’s also probably not even the wrong one with those factors in mind. However, it does long-term damage to your reputation. The devs who build for Linux get praised for supporting customer choice. The ones who push kernel level AC get roasted for it. Sure, it’s doing fine now, but will they have lower revenue in 5-10 years because of it?
Regardless, I personally think it’s bad, and as such refuse to support them. I also choose to spend time and effort pointing out the issues to people so they can decide it’s a bad choice in the future.
Well, my choice of game is influenced a lot by what my friends want to play as well, and we tend to cycle through various games at different times. So I’d want to have the ability to play whatever they want to play. We have been playing Battlefield 6 a fair amount recently, so that one would require Windows.
Helldivers 2 works on Linux but we’ve basically retired that for now because of some scummy behavior by the devs. I have hopes that it will come back, but it has a bad taste for now.
Probably most of the other games we play would work (since most of them don’t have over the top anticheat). I haven’t checked all of them, though. It’s hard to know how often I would run across one that doesn’t work.
I don’t know what the Helldivers devs did, but you don’t think it’s scummy that BF6 requires malware, like Windows and kerbel level anti-cheat?
Regardless of how you see those things or what they actually do, it’s basically certain that the developers do not see them as malware. And I think it’s reasonable to assume good intentions in making those choices, because it is a PvP game where cheating can negatively impact other players. I would give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions.
Many of the things that the Helldivers 2 devs have done could be excused with the benefit of the doubt as well, but they have stacked up a lot of broken promises, and recently there was a case of very blatant deception. It could be argued that it was not technically lying, but it was obviously intended to deceive. And there has been no apology for the deception since then, either.
The developers are rarely the ones making the choice. I do give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s been shown it doesn’t actually prevent cheating and you’re refusing to let your customers choose how they play. They get the benefit of the doubt that they’re honestly trying to prevent cheaters, but not that it’s a purely benevolent decision towards customers. It’s a trade off, and the option they’re taking is bad for consumers and isn’t effective anyway.
For what it’s worth, cheating in BF6 seems pretty rare. So, it seems that something they’re doing is having an effect at reducing cheating. There are probably other methods that they could use, though.
I’m guessing that their decision ultimately comes down to money - they probably figure that other methods would be more expensive to achieve the same result, and that the lost revenue from people who are turned off by the anti cheat is less than that cost.
Cheating in ARC Raiders also seems very rare —and it’s ahead of BF6 now in players.
There’s two issues. Cheating in general is pretty uncommon, though it has an enlarged impact on players in games with high skill, lower player count, high information. Counter Strike, for example, it’s easy to tell when something feels off, so it’s easier to detect cheating. The upset it causes people also has a re-enforcment factor that makes it feel more common.
Meanwhile in BF, with tons of players all around, sprinting full speed, and low information, it’s hard to know if someone is cheating. Was it luck or skill, or did they have ESP and saw you through the wall? The chaos hides cheats. However, I saw day 1 that cheats were active and working in game. They’re there, but they’re a lot more invisible.
For example, I play Squad. In Squad you build FOBs where players respawn. There’s a type of cheating (doesn’t require hacks) called “ghosting” where you have a player on the other team who gives information about where FOBs are, for example, so you can destroy them. It’s almost impossible to detect. Any ghosting that happens could just as easily be luck/skill, and more often than not is. You could assume there’s no cheating happening. It is rare there, but it isn’t zero. There’s no Kernel level anti-cheat (for Linux at least).
Yes, it’s executuves making a short-term purely financial decision. It’s also probably not even the wrong one with those factors in mind. However, it does long-term damage to your reputation. The devs who build for Linux get praised for supporting customer choice. The ones who push kernel level AC get roasted for it. Sure, it’s doing fine now, but will they have lower revenue in 5-10 years because of it?
Regardless, I personally think it’s bad, and as such refuse to support them. I also choose to spend time and effort pointing out the issues to people so they can decide it’s a bad choice in the future.
I’m not particularly interested in ARC Raiders because I don’t like the chaos of FFA (or more than 2 teams in general).
I get it, but you’d be surprised how friendly people can be there. Especially solo, it’s like a 90+% chance people just work together.
I didn’t mention it to recommend it though, only to point out that it probably isn’t their AC that is (creating the illusion of) preventing cheaters.