this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
255 points (99.6% liked)

Linux Gaming

15177 readers
675 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 hour ago

Cool, fuck EA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 minutes ago

Does this have anything to do with the other Steam related headline I read in a post earlier: " Games now have to disclose kernel level anticheat on steam?"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 minutes ago

They just can't stop killing this game, the last few updates have been dog shit and now they do this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago

Lame. :/ Guess I'm changing my review then.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago

These fucka banned me 2 years ago and I never even played the damn game. My brother convinced me to download this and when I opened it, bam, already banned. They new I was just too good and would win every game. Literally the only game I've ever been banned from.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 hours ago

K bye.

Who am I kidding? I never bothered with that crap.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Just a reminder you can add a publisher to your steam ignore list such as EA or Ubisoft.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 minutes ago

Wtf. I did not know this. Thx

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

Whaaaaaaat!?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If you accidentally ban linux users in three[1] different[2] banwaves[3], then linux was only halfway supported in the first place, even if they overturned (almost) all of those bans.

I think the real reason they did it was EA's financial situation. Since money is tight, the amount of resources they were willing to put into real linux anti-cheat probably dropped to "none at all," and now we're here. Otherwise other cheater-prone games like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Halo, The Finals, DayZ, Hunt Showdown, etc would have probably dropped/blocked linux by now too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I would be so upset if Hunt Showdown did this.

Hell, I'm mad Apex Legends did it and I have very little time invested in that game.

I really wish game developers would stop with this kernel level anticheat nonsense that doesn't even work. Everyone in every gaming community just points the finger, people that play games using Easy Anticheat say Battleye sucks and vice versa.

If kernel level anticheat actually worked, there would be a definitive answer to which games have good anticheat.

[–] [email protected] 155 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The fact that companies think client side anti cheat is a good idea is so insane. Maybe try designing your server better instead of blaming the operating system for not letting you control your users

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 hours ago

Aside from better server side detection, which is I agree is severely underdeveloped, I'd say that the next big step should be a much bigger reliance on reputation-based matchmaking, ideally across games. It would need to be built in a way that's not abusable by devs or trolls and should be as privacy-respecting as much as possible (as in, not having to validate with your ID South-Korean style), which isn't an easy task. Working properly however, it would keep honest players from seeing any cheaters at all with no client-side anticheat required at all, which would be nice.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (12 children)

Genuinely curious, because this isn't my area of expertise, but how do you design a server to be "better" if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Example, if the client is compromised - because as they've said, they have no way to "attest" that the kernel is not compromised - how would the server know any better?

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data? Is there a real answer to this problem or are we just wishing they come up with an impossible solution?

My general understanding is that EA is 100% correct. Now, on the other hand, maybe the should just limit plays between Linux <-> Linux so people can at least still enjoy the game (I'm moving to Linux soon so I'll basically no longer be able to play the game, which is, as my primary gaming addiction, a huge loss I'm willing to take).

There's compromises EA could take, but I think the Linux market share is just too small for them to care to spend any resources - even though they're raking in billions (~$3.4 Billion) and could spare a few resources to find a good middle ground. Capitalism at it's finest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

I see you all over this thread and I want to share something you might find interesting.

You keep mentioning the server can't handle the anti cheat because it needs to trust client data. Here's an interesting thought: how is client anti cheat supposed to work when it needs to trust input data?

Look up direct memory access cheats. TL;DR Two computers are hooked up such that PC 1 runs the game, PC 2 reads memory from PC 1, and can then output keyboard/mouse inputs, as well as wallhacks/esp. How is the client side anti cheat supposed to know that the keyboard and mouse inputs are legitimate? How is the client side anti cheat to know wallhacks are being used when they are being rendered on an entirely different machine?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Genuinely curious, because this isn't my area of expertise, but how do you design a server to be "better" if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Check the data on the server ("oh no, incredibly expensive"). Don't give any data to the client it doesn't need, like enemies around the corner ("oh no, now my game is so very laggy because caching and future position assumption just became impossible")

Example, if the client is compromised - because as they've said, they have no way to "attest" that the kernel is not compromised - how would the server know any better?

Now the server doesn't need to care. There's input? Validate and use it.

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data? Is there a real answer to this problem or are we just wishing they come up with an impossible solution?

Now the client can go pound sand. Server decides if it's a headshot. Client only sends coordinates of origin and target. Lag? Sucks to be you, with or without cheat.

My general understanding is that EA is 100% correct. Now, on the other hand, maybe the should just limit plays between Linux <-> Linux so people can at least still enjoy the game

That would only create more work for the developers, all for the defacto expulsion of Linux users (Way less players at all times). The best course of action here would be the actual expulsion of Linux users. Also, EA is at most 25% correct. (Not a rational argument, I just very much dislike them)

(I'm moving to Linux soon so I'll basically no longer be able to play the game, which is, as my primary gaming addiction, a huge loss I'm willing to take).

Damn, sorry to hear that. It's always bad to leave something one knows because something's become unbearable. I wish you best of luck on your journey! (I'm assuming a lot, but why else would you switch despite your choice of use of free time?)

There's compromises EA could take, but I think the Linux market share is just too small for them to care to spend any resources - even though they're raking in billions (~$3.4 Billion) and could spare a few resources to find a good middle ground. Capitalism at it's finest.

On the other hand: I quite like it. It forces them to keep their grubby little hands from my kernel.

I do not like anything anti cheat. But I also don't really like cheaters, especially in online games, so anti cheat could be tolerated. The only thing is: nothing trumps my systems integrity. Definitely not online player satisfaction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Check the data on the server

I believe this already happens to some degree.

Don’t give any data to the client it doesn’t need, like enemies around the corner

Enemies around the corner still make noise/peek/shoot/etc. You can't just hide data of nearby enemies from the client because their actions still have in-game consequences that need to be reproduced across all active/nearby players.

Now the server doesn’t need to care. There’s input? Validate and use it.

How do you validate data that is within the realm of possibilities? if my head shot would have been 1 pixel too far to the left to hit and my hacked client sends it 1 pixel to the right so it makes a hit, how does the server know this isn't fake?

Server decides if it’s a headshot.

If my fake data doesn't look out of the ordinary i'm still hacking the system and tricking the server-side validation.

Client only sends coordinates of origin and target. Lag? Sucks to be you, with or without cheat.

The math to send the perfect headshot isn't difficult if you know where you are, where the enemy is and you can only send origin & target coords, I'm not sure this solves anything.

That would only create more work for the developers, all for the defacto expulsion of Linux users (Way less players at all times). The best course of action here would be the actual expulsion of Linux users. Also, EA is at most 25% correct. (Not a rational argument, I just very much dislike them)

Agree with you 100%.

Damn, sorry to hear that. It’s always bad to leave something one knows because something’s become unbearable. I wish you best of luck on your journey! (I’m assuming a lot, but why else would you switch despite your choice of use of free time?)

Thanks! I'm a huge open source supporter and only ever installed Windows on my desktop to play games, still using Linux on my laptops. Thanks to Valve, Proton, and Wine, I'll be able to go back to Linux and maybe discover some new games.

On the other hand: I quite like it. It forces them to keep their grubby little hands from my kernel.

I do not like anything anti cheat. But I also don’t really like cheaters, especially in online games, so anti cheat could be tolerated. The only thing is: nothing trumps my systems integrity. Definitely not online player satisfaction.

Kinda agree with you on this. Although I have my desktop as a strict "gaming" machine, I wouldn't mine an EA rootkit on my Desktop Linux system if all I did on it was game. But yes, they can keep their hands off my kernel on my "work" devices.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

The server already determines if a shot's valid or not though. Once a client receives information on where the enemy is at, then the client can send message to the server that they are shooting exactly at that location.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The fact that this thoughtful comment was downvoted, while the computer illiterate reply was upvoted, speaks to the hive mind on this ~~subreddit~~. We all detest EA, but this guy has a legitimate point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

"In this subreddit"

Yeah I have a hell of a time remembering what Lemmy things are called as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

Damn, what are they called?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

Communities or "comms". Reddit would be quick to legal action if someone started using their trademarks.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data?

Any game that works like that is fundamentally flawed and AC is nothing but an attempt at a cheap bandaid at best.

The client should be doing nothing but rendering and sending player actions to the server and the server should be managing the game state as well as running its checks on those actions. And when one client sends actuons that are weird and doesn't line up with it's internal game state it should kick the client immediately always deferring to what ITS game state is telling it, not the client.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

And when one client sends actuons that are weird and doesn’t line up with it’s internal game state

What if my hacked client sends actions that are not weird, completely plausible, but didn't happen and instead were faked? E.g. I take a headshot and would have missed, but my client sends data that I actually shot them dead center, because I wasn't completely off? How would the server know it wasn't me?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago

The cheat in this case would send legitimate actions. Like maybe you, the human, would have missed the headshot, but your cheat corrected to the inputs that would have landed one.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

How do they know you haven't trained an AI to get headshots? The cheats often break the bounds of what is realistic in games, whether it is allowing you to see through walls (server shouldn't be sending enemy positions that aren't in view), going too fast (server should speed check pplayer positions), getting items they shouldn't have (server should do inventory sanity checks), etc. Other than that, look for signs of automated movement/things unrealistically precise for a human to do. Eventually the cheating will just be moved to a separate air gapped computer running AI on the video feed. Client side is an invasive, broken, and malicious concept.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Just tracking trended data in general would be sufficient to defeat a LARGE number of common cheats. One of the very few use cases "AI" might actually work for in a positive way. But that puts the burden on the developers and server hosters, and it's much easier to just burden the players directly instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Servers often don't send player data that is outside of the immediate area of the player, but they have to for enemies that are nearby. If they walk around the corner and your client didn't know about it, then you'll be waiting for your ping time to even render the enemy. I.e. they walk around the corner and already shot you, then you see them suddenly appear a full players width away from the corner, and you die. Aka peekers advantage amplified.

Same deal with footstep sounds, bullet tracers, a player's shadow, etc. Your client needs to know where all this is coming from and it can't do that if it doesn't know the enemy exists and where. And that is a buffer zone for hackers to derive wall hacks from.

So basically, the overwhelming majority of servers do do all those things, since the late 90's. Hacks tend to work within those bounds. The most common, impactful and hard to detect cheats are based on providing perfect mechanical inputs. Aka aim hacks. Nothing about limiting info from the server can prevent that unless you also want the legitimate player to be unable to see their enemies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

The obvious solution is to make wall hacks an intended game mechanic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Eventually the cheating will just be moved to a separate air gapped computer running AI on the video feed.

At that point it isn't cheating anymore; the AI would be legitimately playing the game!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (9 children)

Your core premise is broken. Relying on trusting anything from a remote client cannot possibly result in a fair game.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's not that simple. Especially not for real time shooters, latency is a killer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It is exactly that simple. You already have to account for latency because everyone but one player (who you also can't trust no matter how many rootkits you install) is not the server. Having a proper server doesn't change that in any way.

Client side validation cannot possibly provide any actual security, but even if that wasn't the case and it was actually flawless, it would still be unconditionally unacceptable for a game to ever have kernel level access.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 10 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Is this not the game I saw an article about like yesterday saying EA had missed revenue forecasts and EA stated a major overhaul is needed?

I guess step one is to restrict the player base more.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago

Classic "the beatings will continue until morale improves" corporate energy.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 10 hours ago (16 children)

GET THAT REFUND!

NO TUX, NO BUX

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 hours ago

This must be the drastic change to increase monetization they were talking about just yesterday.

load more comments
view more: next ›