Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

gamingonlinux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#121

Post by john_strinlai »

tapoxi wrote: post #120
john_strinlai wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a totally reasonable ask is that people read the system requirements already visible on the store page of every game.

When the company running the store sells three hardware products where they say "ignore that, it'll work on our OS" they need to take responsibility.

the amount of hand-holding people seem to want is actually blowing my mind.

the developer says it is windows only. a 3rd party, not the developer, says the game can work on non-windows. who should you believe? a real mystery.

maybe the kids arent alright

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#122

Post by john_strinlai »

Telaneo wrote: post #118
john_strinlai wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows. > If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. if you wear it for 9 years, then try to return it, they will say no.

That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it.

if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund.

this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#123

Post by rwz »

stonogo wrote: post #84
rwz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 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.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#124

Post by Hikikomori »

iririririr wrote: post #53
LollipopYakuza wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[disclaimer: I am not a competitive player nor will I ever install such a low level anticheat] 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.

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 a…

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.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#125

Post by rwz »

caconym_ wrote: post #85
rwz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 g…

> 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"

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#126

Post by Telaneo »

john_strinlai wrote: post #122
Telaneo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it.

if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.

Doesn't sound ridiculous to me. If anything, companies should provide old versions of the game so the update doesn't affect you, so the problem doesn't happen in the first place. That way you can still play on your fridge with people using other fridges. You lose out on newer features, but you've still got access to what you paid for.

I've gotten refunds for less. If an update introduces a fault, that's on the company, no matter the fault. Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game. An update removing that functionality leaves the game with a fault, for which I can get the game refunded (or fixed, but companies tend to go with refunds).

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#127

Post by LollipopYakuza »

iririririr wrote: post #53
LollipopYakuza wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[disclaimer: I am not a competitive player nor will I ever install such a low level anticheat] 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.

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 a…

I understand the logic, but I think most people don't realize the implication or don't care.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#128

Post by john_strinlai »

Telaneo wrote: post #126
john_strinlai wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.

Doesn't sound ridiculous to me. If anything, companies should provide old versions of the game so the update doesn't affect you, so the problem doesn't happen in the first place. That way you can still play on your fridge with people using other fridges. You lose out on newer features, but you've still got access to what you paid for. I've gotten refunds for less. If an update introduces a fault, that's on the compan…

>Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game

the game specifically said it only supported windows. that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor.

if we carry this on much longer my comments are just going to be flagged, so, good luck with your refund.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#129

Post by caconym_ »

rwz wrote: post #125
caconym_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

> 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…

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.

Re: Ubisoft's FOR HONOR will block SteamOS / Linux players starting September 10

#130

Post by Telaneo »

john_strinlai wrote: post #128
Telaneo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound ridiculous to me. If anything, companies should provide old versions of the game so the update doesn't affect you, so the problem doesn't happen in the first place. That way you can still play on your fridge with people using other fridges. You lose out on newer features, but you've still got access to what you paid for. I've gotten refunds for less. If an update introduces a fault, that's on the compan…

> Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game the game specifically said it only supported windows . that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor. if we carry this on much longer my comments are just going to be flagged, so, good luck…

> the game specifically said it only supported windows.

I don't see why this matters.

> they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case.

I don't see why they should have the right to do that. They could just give me access to the unmodified product they originally sold me, rather than the one they didn't actually sell me, and we'd have no issue. They did support my use case. The fact that they aren't now is their fault, and should thus be their problem to solve.

> people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor.

The Romans weren't familiar with products being able to change from under you. It's one thing to buy a product not knowing what it does support. It's another to buy it, knowing it does work for you, only for it to change due to the whims of the seller. Not to mention we can do better. Consumer protection is important. I don't want an economy based on caveat emptor being an unbreakable truth.

> good luck with your refund.

I've already had success. I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up.

Post reply on HN