I bought Farcry 3 Blood Dragon some years ago. I seem to recall I had to install some kind of mod otherwise the game would hang on startup or had long delays because the installed version tried to communicate with some long dead Ubisoft gaming service that they'd shut down the servers for years ago. Funny they were still willing to collect the money for the game that they no longer supported.
Valve can't even make their own anti cheat system work (VAC) on Windows let alone on Linux so not surprised that 3rd party publishers with 3rd party anti cheat system is giving up. I mean they technically work as a software but they don't fullfil their purpose, to block cheaters.
I suppose the only good solution is like those "game streaming services": move all the logic to the server and use the client only as a rendering device.
Even sending metadata so the client can use local sprites to render the enemy is hackable, if the end-user knows the coordinates where to render the enemy, it can immediately tell the server that "user aimed at $COORDS and pulled the trigger"...
i find it quite amusing that some people forget that opensource software is a double edge sword in these cases.
> "why can we run windows games the way we want and often better than windows?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
> "why cant we stop people tampering with their own systems to stop cheating?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
but my addendum is:
> I suppose the only good solution is like those "game streaming services": move all the logic to the server and use the client only as a rendering device.
we are in the "dark ages" of AI/computer vision usage and this wouldn’t stop aimbots that are screen readers. Overall the proposal is the "lesser evil" but still quite fucking evil.
---I stopped buying Ubisoft games after CoD MW2 when they stopped allowing dedicated servers and switched to P2P. The gameplay was trash. Can't say I miss it.---
Ubisoft didn’t make either iteration of MW2. That was activision.
But a year after that bullshit, then Ubisoft started pushing the always-online requirement for even single player games like assassins creed. Maybe you were thinking of that?
I recently moved to Linux for gaming. Last time I tried was around 2008 and I guess I was reluctant to move gaming to Linux because that experience was far from smooth.
Honestly, it's like magic that I can run "The Finals" on highest settings without any hiccup. It literally 'just works'. Happy that I could completely get rid of Windows (it was only there for gaming). It's still hard to believe, given back in 2008 when playing CS I had framerate bugs, text would not render properly (even after messing around with it for some days), and mouse input was.. not ideal. It's come a long way since the days of WINE.
FWIW, I moved from Debian to "Nobara Linux" for this. Mostly because I was in the mood for some distro hopping as well. Highly recommend the experience. (https://nobaraproject.org/). It was a smooth experience from the start, no issues installing it, drivers worked out-of-the-box, audio settings all worked fine, and Steam was pre-installed as well. Super cool.
Would not move back to Windows gaming for Ubisoft games lol.
That's the caveat of Proton. Running games on unsupported platforms they are not meant for. And if it doesn't work who's fault that? Valve? The dev? No one because it's open source so fix your own?
Honestly Valve should have a stricter warning if a game is Windows only
The situation here isn't that the game doesn't work. It does work, it's just the Ubisoft isn't happy with the quality of Easy Anti Cheat's (their third party anti cheat provider) Linux offering.
At Valve's scale, it becomes the publisher's problem. Which is, in this particular case, a good thing imo. I certainly don't mind the pressure on publishers to ensure basic compatibility with Linux
ok, 10%. but you're trading full root/admin access to game code on your pc... is it really really worth?
People are so brain washed that it is essential that here we are, sad companies won't take the option you giving them root access on linux too!
a much better solution would be absolutely no root kit, but players picking "never play with this player gain". done. boardgame.com does this and it is very much perfect and flawless.
Not much difference when a user space program alredy can read all your files and memory of processes of your user. People just read big bad kernel or rootkit without considering what's alredy possible.
The Verdana font that your message is written with - how can you be sure that its TrueType bytecode hasn't escaped the sandbox and snuck into your ring0?
You either put some trust into the systems made by other people, or you don't touch computers at all.
Wouldn't it be possible to have two tiers of servers here? Like have one that's accessible to everyone with a possibly increased risk of cheating and one restricted to Windows users.
I remember in the old days some games had optional anticheat and there were servers with and without it.
Going forward, I simply will not be purchasing any game that does not work on Linux. I realize that I'll be missing out on some titles, but Windows simply isn't worth the headache. CachyOS has been working great for me. Proton has been amazing. I have had zero problems with the games I typically play -- some of which are multiplayer. Luckily, I have not run into anti-cheat issues yet.
There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows, unless it's been specifically engineered to block Linux, and publishers of those games will simply not be getting my money anymore. If Windows was still as pleasant and non-invasive as eg KDE Plasma on Cachy, it would be a different story, but I haven't used it in months (previously I did my desktop gaming in a windows VM) and the feeling of relief is almost tangible. Windows 11 is _so fucking bad_.
I understand that there may be some semi-legitimate arguments around anticheat, but a) not my problem, and b) back in the day we dealt with cheaters by having a persistent dedicated server community with admins ready to kick or ban. The publishers took that away from us.
> There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows
The announcement is a proof that your statement here is incorrect. Ubisoft is not banning Linux because they hate you and your money, but because there's a hard technical blocker to implementing an efficient anti-cheat system on Linux and the cost of overcoming this technical blocker is presumed to be higher than the loss of revenue they're incurring from losing your business.
Except we already know the anti-cheat system they use works on Linux, because other products use it. Therefore we have no evidence that the blocker here is technical: it could be political, process-driven, simple incompetence, or anything else. In any of the latter cases, there can be no conclusion of correctness of the parent comment's claim.
I don't play For Honour, but I'm monitoring Apex Legends pro scene and I know that Respawn has banned Linux because none of the existing anti-cheat solutions were good enough and they did not have the resources to make their own custom anti-cheat work on Linux.
Before the ban the cheater population was disproportionally high on Linux.
So your claim is that it's actually impossible to implement "efficient" anticheat on Linux? That's interesting. But it's not the same thing as "the cost of overcoming this technical blocker is presumed to be higher than the loss of revenue they're incurring from losing your business", so I am not quite sure what point your comment is supposed to be making.
If your point is simply that the publishers think this is a good business decision for them, that's obvious, because they're a business and they aren't going to make decisions they think are bad. But I am not sure how your muddled logic about feasibility feeds into that point.
> So your claim is that it's actually impossible to implement "efficient" anticheat on Linux? That's interesting.
This is absolutely not my claim and it's a pretty absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
My claim is that there's ample evidence that anti-cheat on Linux happens to be a pretty hard technical blocker and multiple companies at this point have chosen to ban the platform outright and take a revenue loss over trying to overcome this blocker. This directly contradicts your claim of "obviously few or no hard technical blockers" existing.
This does not imply it's impossible to implement. It implies that at this point implementing it would not justify the cost. This pretty much 100% matches the any reasonable interpretation of the term "technical blocker"
You seem to be fixated on picking apart the wording of my original comment, so let me help you understand it:
> There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows
'Few' there is doing a fair amount of work: it allows that some significant (or "hard" if you prefer) blockers may still exist (this is consistent with my own observations of game compatibility in aggregate). So your (implicit) insistence that I claimed there are no blockers is obviously nonsensical already. But, furthermore, I went on to say this:
> unless it's been specifically engineered to block Linux
Which precisely describes a game that previously worked on Linux, with anticheat even, but now has been updated to remove that compatibility! It also describes a game whose anticheat has been configured that way since launch.
Also, your implication that "hard technical blocker" and "not worth it to implement" are interchangeable is ridiculous in any scope, whether you're Valve deciding whether to commit tens or hundreds of man-years to Proton development or a one man shop considering a hacky workaround in a client's dated web framework.
You are just barking at the mailman. I'm done here unless you can respond to the actual substance and nuance of my comments rather than a strawman.
This is funny since they are literally using "Easy Anti Cheat" and that fully supports Linux.
From what I understand Easy Anti Cheat, makes it very easy for developers to run on Linux, basically it is a compile setting to support it. It is one of the anti-cheat providers that had decent Linux support since the beginning.
Back before Proton and when it was new developers often denied requests for turning on Linux support, however this is the first time I head a developer actively turning it off.
I think it speaks volumes of their intent that the game is to be "fully removed from the Linux platform", and they won't offer the single player experience or non competitive experience for Linux based customers.
On top of that it seems to me they tried sneaking this statement in an announcement titled "Ranked FAQ". This shows they have no respect for their customers.
EAC supports Linux, but by doing so you're disabling a number of security features since you're making the anti-cheat run entirely in userspace.
Remember these games aren't Linux native either, so it allows Windows-using cheaters to lie to the process that they're on Linux and to only use userspace protection. The cheat then runs in kernel space and remains invisible.
The only realistic way to solve this on Linux is enforcing secure boot w/trusted kernels and then running the anti-cheat in sandboxed eBPF kernel space. Embark is looking at this approach.
> The only realistic way to solve this on Linux is enforcing secure boot w/trusted kernels and then running the anti-cheat in sandboxed eBPF kernel space. Embark is looking at this approach.
Assuming secure boot, there’s another realistic way, which is to use vendor-signed readonly Linux OS images — not just kernels — that disallow process memory access to root, come with signed kernel drivers, and offer secure attestation support chained to secure boot. Steam Linux and Bazzite could both implement this easily; the former has a fixed hardware target list and the latter is already an ‘all in one’ solution. Since Linux users are generally competent at dual-booting, one would simply dual-boot into the sealed image to play PvP multiplayer games, no eBPF development or maintenance of anti-cheat required. Embark is within their rights to evaluate the workload of supporting DIY unsigned Linux instances through eBPF but doing so would create a viable competitor to an attestation-derived Valve Anti-Cheat for Steam Linux, and so likely inspire the giant in the room to step up and obsolete it.
> EAC supports Linux, but by doing so you're disabling a number of security features since you're making the anti-cheat run entirely in userspace.
I see I was assuming EAC is EAC, but it seems there is a difference between the kernel mode version (windows) and the client mode version (linux). There are different assurances and therefore not the same security can be guaranteed.
In that case it can indeed be that the assurances on linux are not sufficient. However I think the EAC marketing or documentation is a bit unclear/misleading around this issue.
Still I think they should offer the game for the customers on linux, though maybe they are not allowed in the competitive lobbies?
> Steam Linux does not supported sealed/signed boot with secure attestation
Even if it did, you wouldn't stop DMA cheaters from hacking the game. This is the slippery slope we see on Windows with Ring 0 anticheat being defeated with spoofed PCI hardware.
It does; I play games backed by Easy Anti Cheat on a VM Windows running on Nix. It does require fiddling with the settings to make it look like you’re not in a VM, but completely doable.
You're conceding my exact point back to me. Linux-compatible anticheat uses many of the same pre-TPM measures that Windows 10 used to combat software cheating, and prevents the 95% majority of software hacks and process injection. The remaining minority of cheaters cannot be stopped on Linux any easier than you can stop them on Windows. Both OSes have escape hatches that cannot be easily closed.
Which is why I said, even if Linux enforced TPMs, secure runtimes and signed kernels, you'd still be loading firmware blobs and trusting HID/PCI hardware just the same as Windows. Linux would still be attacked, singled-out and made a pariah regardless, so it's good that Valve and the kernel devs generally ignore these design suggestions.
Prediction duly recorded. I sure hope you’re right, but I’m too cynical after decades of ‘ignoring attestation makes the underlying problem go away’ from my Linux peers consider a positive outcome likely.
Opposing that logic, we should only support 1 or 2 GPUs (just like consoles) and lock down Windows to run nothing but games. Then the problem will actually be solved, like on PS5 and XBox!
Really, "stopping cheaters" is a slippery slope and it's worth pointing out that cheaters persist (on both OSes) regardless. Some measures have a negligible impact on the OS, others are a dealbreaker that would cause people to abandon the platform. In an age of realtime AI inference and sub-milisecond computer vision, all peripherals and apps are suspect. There are people cheating with unblockable methods right now, and those people will continue to exist for as long as Windows supports any degree of third-party software or hardware.
Because EAC and other anti cheat offer basically no protection on Linux, basically anyone can vibe code an undetectable cheat. The situation on Windows isn't exactly great but it funnel cheat creators into a few methods that can be detected.
I expect competitive multiplayer to shift towards dedicated locked down gaming distros (such as steamos) that will offer fully signed hardware backed (tpm) remote attestable system for anti-cheats. Which will make casually playing such games pretty awkward.
There's a couple different ways to look at this. From a charitable point of view to ubisoft, they do not advertise support for Linux. Instead they openly state it's a window's only game. So when a third party (i.e. Valve) makes shim that grants linux functionality, it's not really on Ubisoft to maintain that.
However, from a consumer perspective, this is incredibly frustrating. The average person does not think of "linux vs. windows". They just bought the steam deck and when they bought For Honor it was sold on that "platform". Again, it's hard to blame Ubisoft for this conundrum since they were never necessarily trying to be steam deck compliant to begin with, but it definitely feels wrong to take the game away from a player in this perspective.
All that being said, historically across many games such as Rust, many are quick to blame linux for cheating, but pragmatically banning linux has yet to measurably reduce the amount of cheating that players report experiencing, so I don't agree with the decision at all. It's a footgun disguised as a band aid
It’s extra hard on Linux because the amount of ways you can reconfigure a linux machine to work around boot- or root-kits, the ways you can modify a running process, and hide what is happening from an existing process.
Really, linux is meant to give you control over the software that runs in your computer. Anti-cheat is inherently about limiting what you can run on your computer. Windows is much more aimed at allowing you opt in to hard limitations.
Valve has in the past given refunds for something that was changed to deliberately no longer work on certain systems. Given that this involves their own hardware devices in this case they're likely to do so here.
This is a solved problem with dedicated servers and a proper community. They're just trying to sell you One Faceless Corp Server because it makes them more money, even though it is less efficient because of scaling problems and also you have less control.
This is "It works better in the app" applied to gaming services.
These are the same dicks that want my kids to create dedicated Ubisoft accounts just to be able to use the PS5 games they've paid for. Never buying anything from these scammers again.
After not supporting Ubsoft for years, I have no clue how popular or even which games they produce. This was my first time ever hearing about this game. Steams allows for blocking content from publishers and studios.
Ditched them once they required you to use their own launcher. Years before completely replacing Windows with Linux.
Ubisoft is dead to me so why should I retain useless knowledge?
I watch gaming-related news daily for fun and I don't remember this game at all. I remember other big publisher competitive online games fine, so I feel this one is particularly insignificant.
If your game doesn't work on Linux I just won't buy it. I have a steam machine and a gaming pc, your game needs to work on Linux. This isn't 2008 anymore dude...
Someone in EU should try to make a complaint to the local authority who is enforcing ePrivacy Directive regarding anti cheats in general. Despite what people think ePD isn't limited to cookies and rather also applies all data read or stored in "terminal equipment" via use of electronic communications networks. I would say anti cheat should usually qualify. If they want to do it without consent then they need to show that it's strictly necessary for the service user specifically requested (and that applies for each piece of data written/read, including the OS information).
There's good argument that anti cheat itself would need to be consent based. If you don't accept then you simply don't get placed in games with users who have it enabled.
The age verification is it's own can of worms. I'm currently waiting for my native country (but not the one where I reside) to actually publish their wallet implementation. I'm planning to make complaint around it because the whole thing almost certainly breaches ePD. ePD's exceptions are actually for "information society service" rather than just any service. The ISS itself has it's own sets of requirements, but the important one here is that "normally provided for remuneration". Service provided by government as part of their public duty almost never fulfills that requirement.
So in order to store or read data they would need consent. But consent requirements come from GDPR and it's unlikely that this type of consent would be "freely given" given the impact of refusal.
Aren't there EU laws on modifying software for interoperability and whatnot being legal? This and right-to-repair should block any opportunity for companies to intentionally prevent users from using their software the way they want. I'm sure the laws aren't written to actually to ensure that, but they should be.
85 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 4.4 ms ] threadEven sending metadata so the client can use local sprites to render the enemy is hackable, if the end-user knows the coordinates where to render the enemy, it can immediately tell the server that "user aimed at $COORDS and pulled the trigger"...
> "why can we run windows games the way we want and often better than windows?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
> "why cant we stop people tampering with their own systems to stop cheating?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
but my addendum is:
> I suppose the only good solution is like those "game streaming services": move all the logic to the server and use the client only as a rendering device.
we are in the "dark ages" of AI/computer vision usage and this wouldn’t stop aimbots that are screen readers. Overall the proposal is the "lesser evil" but still quite fucking evil.
Nevermind, wrong company.
But a year after that bullshit, then Ubisoft started pushing the always-online requirement for even single player games like assassins creed. Maybe you were thinking of that?
Honestly, it's like magic that I can run "The Finals" on highest settings without any hiccup. It literally 'just works'. Happy that I could completely get rid of Windows (it was only there for gaming). It's still hard to believe, given back in 2008 when playing CS I had framerate bugs, text would not render properly (even after messing around with it for some days), and mouse input was.. not ideal. It's come a long way since the days of WINE.
FWIW, I moved from Debian to "Nobara Linux" for this. Mostly because I was in the mood for some distro hopping as well. Highly recommend the experience. (https://nobaraproject.org/). It was a smooth experience from the start, no issues installing it, drivers worked out-of-the-box, audio settings all worked fine, and Steam was pre-installed as well. Super cool.
Would not move back to Windows gaming for Ubisoft games lol.
Honestly Valve should have a stricter warning if a game is Windows only
the "system requirements" section is right there, with "OS" being the first line. i dont agree that this is a valve thing.
you're all the worse.
I think it's already more than 0,1% in most popular games online, but I am assuming it would be just unplayable without anticheat.
People are so brain washed that it is essential that here we are, sad companies won't take the option you giving them root access on linux too!
a much better solution would be absolutely no root kit, but players picking "never play with this player gain". done. boardgame.com does this and it is very much perfect and flawless.
You either put some trust into the systems made by other people, or you don't touch computers at all.
it's either completely and honestly someone not technical missing the point entirely, or more likely trolling.
I remember in the old days some games had optional anticheat and there were servers with and without it.
it'd be an additional expense for a very small % of the player base of a 9 year old game.
There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows, unless it's been specifically engineered to block Linux, and publishers of those games will simply not be getting my money anymore. If Windows was still as pleasant and non-invasive as eg KDE Plasma on Cachy, it would be a different story, but I haven't used it in months (previously I did my desktop gaming in a windows VM) and the feeling of relief is almost tangible. Windows 11 is _so fucking bad_.
I understand that there may be some semi-legitimate arguments around anticheat, but a) not my problem, and b) back in the day we dealt with cheaters by having a persistent dedicated server community with admins ready to kick or ban. The publishers took that away from us.
The announcement is a proof that your statement here is incorrect. Ubisoft is not banning Linux because they hate you and your money, but because there's a hard technical blocker to implementing an efficient anti-cheat system on Linux and the cost of overcoming this technical blocker is presumed to be higher than the loss of revenue they're incurring from losing your business.
Before the ban the cheater population was disproportionally high on Linux.
If your point is simply that the publishers think this is a good business decision for them, that's obvious, because they're a business and they aren't going to make decisions they think are bad. But I am not sure how your muddled logic about feasibility feeds into that point.
This is absolutely not my claim and it's a pretty absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
My claim is that there's ample evidence that anti-cheat on Linux happens to be a pretty hard technical blocker and multiple companies at this point have chosen to ban the platform outright and take a revenue loss over trying to overcome this blocker. This directly contradicts your claim of "obviously few or no hard technical blockers" existing.
This does not imply it's impossible to implement. It implies that at this point implementing it would not justify the cost. This pretty much 100% matches the any reasonable interpretation of the term "technical blocker"
> There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows
'Few' there is doing a fair amount of work: it allows that some significant (or "hard" if you prefer) blockers may still exist (this is consistent with my own observations of game compatibility in aggregate). So your (implicit) insistence that I claimed there are no blockers is obviously nonsensical already. But, furthermore, I went on to say this:
> unless it's been specifically engineered to block Linux
Which precisely describes a game that previously worked on Linux, with anticheat even, but now has been updated to remove that compatibility! It also describes a game whose anticheat has been configured that way since launch.
Also, your implication that "hard technical blocker" and "not worth it to implement" are interchangeable is ridiculous in any scope, whether you're Valve deciding whether to commit tens or hundreds of man-years to Proton development or a one man shop considering a hacky workaround in a client's dated web framework.
You are just barking at the mailman. I'm done here unless you can respond to the actual substance and nuance of my comments rather than a strawman.
Using a Windows 11 machine stirs up some old trauma I try to forget.
From what I understand Easy Anti Cheat, makes it very easy for developers to run on Linux, basically it is a compile setting to support it. It is one of the anti-cheat providers that had decent Linux support since the beginning.
Back before Proton and when it was new developers often denied requests for turning on Linux support, however this is the first time I head a developer actively turning it off.
I think it speaks volumes of their intent that the game is to be "fully removed from the Linux platform", and they won't offer the single player experience or non competitive experience for Linux based customers.
On top of that it seems to me they tried sneaking this statement in an announcement titled "Ranked FAQ". This shows they have no respect for their customers.
https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/epic-online-services/platform...
Remember these games aren't Linux native either, so it allows Windows-using cheaters to lie to the process that they're on Linux and to only use userspace protection. The cheat then runs in kernel space and remains invisible.
The only realistic way to solve this on Linux is enforcing secure boot w/trusted kernels and then running the anti-cheat in sandboxed eBPF kernel space. Embark is looking at this approach.
Assuming secure boot, there’s another realistic way, which is to use vendor-signed readonly Linux OS images — not just kernels — that disallow process memory access to root, come with signed kernel drivers, and offer secure attestation support chained to secure boot. Steam Linux and Bazzite could both implement this easily; the former has a fixed hardware target list and the latter is already an ‘all in one’ solution. Since Linux users are generally competent at dual-booting, one would simply dual-boot into the sealed image to play PvP multiplayer games, no eBPF development or maintenance of anti-cheat required. Embark is within their rights to evaluate the workload of supporting DIY unsigned Linux instances through eBPF but doing so would create a viable competitor to an attestation-derived Valve Anti-Cheat for Steam Linux, and so likely inspire the giant in the room to step up and obsolete it.
I see I was assuming EAC is EAC, but it seems there is a difference between the kernel mode version (windows) and the client mode version (linux). There are different assurances and therefore not the same security can be guaranteed.
In that case it can indeed be that the assurances on linux are not sufficient. However I think the EAC marketing or documentation is a bit unclear/misleading around this issue.
Still I think they should offer the game for the customers on linux, though maybe they are not allowed in the competitive lobbies?
Even if it did, you wouldn't stop DMA cheaters from hacking the game. This is the slippery slope we see on Windows with Ring 0 anticheat being defeated with spoofed PCI hardware.
Which is why I said, even if Linux enforced TPMs, secure runtimes and signed kernels, you'd still be loading firmware blobs and trusting HID/PCI hardware just the same as Windows. Linux would still be attacked, singled-out and made a pariah regardless, so it's good that Valve and the kernel devs generally ignore these design suggestions.
one thing is installing some software on your puter, a whole other is putting a pcie card in. Go eat some toe jam
Really, "stopping cheaters" is a slippery slope and it's worth pointing out that cheaters persist (on both OSes) regardless. Some measures have a negligible impact on the OS, others are a dealbreaker that would cause people to abandon the platform. In an age of realtime AI inference and sub-milisecond computer vision, all peripherals and apps are suspect. There are people cheating with unblockable methods right now, and those people will continue to exist for as long as Windows supports any degree of third-party software or hardware.
Ubisoft respected my wishes to not play their shitty games by not even supporting my OS of choice.
Apex is another game that also disabled it.
However, from a consumer perspective, this is incredibly frustrating. The average person does not think of "linux vs. windows". They just bought the steam deck and when they bought For Honor it was sold on that "platform". Again, it's hard to blame Ubisoft for this conundrum since they were never necessarily trying to be steam deck compliant to begin with, but it definitely feels wrong to take the game away from a player in this perspective.
All that being said, historically across many games such as Rust, many are quick to blame linux for cheating, but pragmatically banning linux has yet to measurably reduce the amount of cheating that players report experiencing, so I don't agree with the decision at all. It's a footgun disguised as a band aid
I agree that it's not on them to maintain it, but that's different from intentionally breaking it.
Really, linux is meant to give you control over the software that runs in your computer. Anti-cheat is inherently about limiting what you can run on your computer. Windows is much more aimed at allowing you opt in to hard limitations.
Looking at the Steam page for this game, there's a "year 10 roadmap" post.
'The client cannot be trusted' applies to simple HTTP exchanges as well as to game state.
Of course, if the server has to track and validate everything, it would cost more to operate game servers....
This is "It works better in the app" applied to gaming services.
Ditched them once they required you to use their own launcher. Years before completely replacing Windows with Linux.
Ubisoft is dead to me so why should I retain useless knowledge?
There's good argument that anti cheat itself would need to be consent based. If you don't accept then you simply don't get placed in games with users who have it enabled.
So in order to store or read data they would need consent. But consent requirements come from GDPR and it's unlikely that this type of consent would be "freely given" given the impact of refusal.