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.

▲

caconym_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Same.

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.

▲

rwz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

caconym_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

rwz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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"

	▲	caconym_ 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

stonogo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	rwz 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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 the cost of maintaining their own solution was not worth the revenue Linux support was bringing. Before the ban the cheater population was disproportionally high on Linux.
	▲	Hikikomori 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It may run on Linux but it doesn't really do much in terms of stopping cheaters.

▲

mihaelm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm pulling for Microsoft to create an XboxOS for PC you can just freely install on any machine, as that's about the only thing I care about regarding Windows. Then I could see myself dualbooting that when I want to play my Xbox collection. And it'd be nice to build a beefy machine to max them out on, once the PC component prices settle a bit.

They're playing with that with the Xbox Full Screen Experience on ROG Xbox Ally, but it's still running Windows 11 underneath. I just want the Xbox.

▲

summermusic 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

We should invest in solutions outside of Microsoft for games. Even if Microsoft comes out with XboxOS, and even if somehow it isn't terrible, it will eventually be terrible and will enable companies to continue to do anti-consumer B.S. like what Ubisoft is doing here.

▲

caconym_ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given how dogshit Windows 11 is, and how dogshit the Xbox-branded apps have consistently been in the last 10 years or so (it's genuinely impressive how bad they are), it's hard to see why a new Microsoft thing wouldn't have all the same problems. They just don't make software to serve the user anymore.

	▲	mihaelm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I like the software side on my Series X, so if they can bring that over to PC as an OS, that'd be great. I agree the Xbox on PC experience hasn't been stellar so far and I hope they ditch that app with the next generation, for the sake of current userbase. It was serviceable at best in my Windows 10 days. For anything not gaming related, I have Linux or MacOS.

▲

Hikikomori 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This might be what steamos becomes. Fully controlled and can only run games and some software like discord.

▲

bigbuppo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been in the same boat, but with mac. I'm tired of keeping a windows machine around just to play a few games.

Using a Windows 11 machine stirs up some old trauma I try to forget.

▲

bezoz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]