Live data from Hacker News

Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

phoronix.com

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only a very small part of the rendering needs to be done on the server; notably, the camera could still move, and the client could still make the usual heuristic predictions about where things are, so it wouldn't feel laggy. This is just nonsense. The data that the client uses to make those heuristic predictions is the same data the cheats, so once you send that extra data over you've undone the benefit of not send…

> The data that the client uses to make those heuristic predictions is the same data the cheats, No, it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lag#Make_clients_extrapolate > plus youve added an intermediate network hop for your remote rendering I never said anything about an intermediate network hop. It's not that expensive to cull a few tris, diff the geometry and then send it – especially if you can compress the info…

Thanks for a wikipedia article on networkiong basics. Believe it or not, I do have some experience in this area, I've worked on networked games on physics and gameplay for almost 10 years. The information you use to extrapolate (position + velocity) is the same information a cheat is going to use. If you have enough information to draw _a_ thing on screen, a cheat has enough information to say "fire at that thing".

> It's not that expensive to cull a few tris, diff the geometry and then send it

Multiplayer games are doing this aggressively already. This is an out of the box feature in UE4 and Unity. The second the client gets this information, the cheat has the information too.

> all you need to do is turn locating obscured players into a computer vision problem. > I don't know where this “intermediate network hop” comes from.

You either send the positions to the client, along with an association for what it belongs to, or you render the _entire_ scene on a remote "client", which means streaming the video back to the end users device. The video streaming introduces an extra hop on the network as you now need to go from end user to streamed client to server, rather than end user to server. If you don't render the whole thing, at some point the client gets sent the information that it needs, and the cheat has it.

> An HDMI splitter, a USB HDMI capture card, a Raspberry Pi and a USB cable. Not that expensive.

Apolgoies, when you mentioned a "streaming rig", I thought you were talking about having a secondary gaming PC hooked up. Just because it's _theoretically_ possible doesn't mean it's actually happening though.

> It's functionally equivalent.

I fundamentally disagree. One of these (kernel level cheats) are readily being sold on the internet, available to anyone with a debit card/paypal/btc and a computer, and the other requires dedicated hardware, along with the knowledge of how to write these cheats in the first place.

> stopping a lot of people from being able to play the game entirely, because it was easier for the developers.

The numbers of people who are legitimately stopped from being able to play the game entirely are very small, but those people do exist, and it sucks for them. Your blame of `it's easier for "the developers"` however is untrue. It's not because it's easier, it's because (at least right now) it's necessary.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is an underlying assumption that you’re entitled to play the game, therefor anti cheat is violating your freedoms. But if we remove the assumption that you are entitled to play any game how ever you please i think this argument somewhat falls apart. If you don’t like their using anti cheat, then just don’t play those games which use it. I just don’t think enough people agree with you that it will work i…

It's not entitlement to want to play the games I paid money for without my computer getting owned. This is basic respect, not some insane notion. Why are game companies entitled to complete control over our computers?

Then don't give these companies your business. I certainly don't. There are enough games that don't pull this kind of shit to keep me entertained.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think 90-99% of users only use Browser+Office+Games which could work well in any of the big operating systems. Linux Desktop evangelists have been saying this sort of thing for about a decade now, only they used to exclude "games" from that list because Linux was so terrible as a game platform. Their constant underestimating of "average computer user" is, in my opinion, one of the big reasons they've completely a…

Just because it works well enough on other platforms doesn't mean that users will switch. Usually they won't. If they know MS Office and MS Windows from work they don't want to use LibreOffice in private. (And MS Office and MS Windows Server is far superior in the business context in many ways.) I stopped caring what most people use. I prefer to use Linux and OpenSource software in general for myself but I don't push…

Totally, it always bugs me when people complain that Linux is too technical and fragmented and that this way it'll never be mainstream. Who cares, really. I like having all this choice. In fact I'm using FreeBSD (though it could as well have been Linux) as daily driver because I don't get these kind of choices in mainstream software. I don't care if it never gets big, if it did I probably wouldn't want it anymore.

For example Ubuntu is getting very close to that point already. They stuff lots of stuff in it that I don't want (like snaps) and make them really hard to disable completely. Exactly the kind of thing I left Windows and Mac for (as daily drivers - I still use them for my work)

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#324
post #312
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the same place that real-life competitions tend to have rules about cheating that are enforced. Why do people think that they get a free pass because they can't see the opponent face to face? If you want to play with friends, plenty of multiplayer games offer that without anticheat (Arma lets you even uninstall the anti-cheat and play on anti-cheat disabled servers).

Does my local basketball competition requiring all competitors to submit negative doping tests before competing? Do they get to monitor me for 24 hours before the game? Because that's the level of seriousness of most gaming and the proportionality of using a rootkit to prevent cheating. Sure, the Olympic athletes (or I guess in this analogy, eSports pros competing online) get the full "we're going to make very sure y…

But if you play online with strangers, you're not really participating in a local basketball competition are you?

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#325
post #324
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does my local basketball competition requiring all competitors to submit negative doping tests before competing? Do they get to monitor me for 24 hours before the game? Because that's the level of seriousness of most gaming and the proportionality of using a rootkit to prevent cheating. Sure, the Olympic athletes (or I guess in this analogy, eSports pros competing online) get the full "we're going to make very sure y…

But if you play online with strangers, you're not really participating in a local basketball competition are you?

Why? Do I get to pick the people on the opposing team in the local basketball competition? I didn't specify a local club for a reason. Just because it's some competition organisers rather than a matchmaking algorithm doesn't change my perspective.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#326
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the cheater is just running stockfish on a separate laptop, is the anti-cheat system also going to turn on the webcam and track eye movement? > Being awarded a win by e-mail a day That is only half of the story. The other half would be in banning the cheater and making them lose access to their account, i.e, impute a real monetary cost to being caught cheating. Make it expensive for those caught cheating and…

>Make it expensive for those caught cheating and equally expensive for those making false report Well now you've tipped the scales too far. Nobody is going to make a report, even when it's justified, if they're risking their account to do so.

The cost can (should) be progressive for repeated offenses, and it can be divided if multiple people make the same (wrong) call. Say you get one "free" report per month, but you don't lose it if either you were correct and/or more than 5 people reported the same person.

The important thing is not about being "perfectly provably fair", it is just to curb abuse (on either side) so that people still can have fun playing without having to accept such invasive software on their machines.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#327
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if another player can run faster or fly or has perfect aim, everyone else is basically playing an unwinnable game. Not a gamer, so forgive me if the proposal is stupid, why not just treat cheaters like they do on (li)chess? If I am playing with someone that I believe to be cheating, I flag/blacklist that user and simply don't play with that user afterwards. That by itself is enough for me to play against only hones…

Overwatch briefly had a system like this, where you could mark players in your matches positively or negatively, so they'd be more or less likely to show up in your future matches. They had to remove it after a top level player could no longer find fair matches. He was waiting 10-20 minutes before getting matched with much lower skilled players. He was by all accounts a pleasant person, but he was so good at the game…

You fix that by adding handicaps. Not only it solves the problem of lower-skilled players still being interested in playing better opponents, it gives top-level players a way to continue improving their own game even when the opposition is weak.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#328
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, they're completely irrelevant. Of all the affronts to computing freedom, anti-cheating is the worst. The truth is the online gaming model where we play with untrustworthy strangers is completely broken. We should all be playing with friends we can trust instead.

"Online games are bad" is a hot take.

Yup. If you expect to be able to play with nice trustworthy people, it's horrible.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#329
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. Where is this "right not to be cheated in an online game" coming from anyway? Sounds absurd when you put it in proper terms, that is someone else taking control over your computer.

From the same place that real-life competitions tend to have rules about cheating that are enforced. Why do people think that they get a free pass because they can't see the opponent face to face? If you want to play with friends, plenty of multiplayer games offer that without anticheat (Arma lets you even uninstall the anti-cheat and play on anti-cheat disabled servers).

> Why do people think that they get a free pass because they can't see the opponent face to face?

We don't think that. We think anti-cheating rules aren't important enough to justify shipping literal malware to people's computers and taking over their machines.

Re: Steam survey shows Linux marketshare hitting 1.0%

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they can be installed along with the games under a gaming only account on the Linux machine, that is, with zero permissions on system and other users files around, that's fine with me. Completely ineffective. It will be trivial to circumvent those protections. Might as well not bother. The truth is cheaters are merely excersising their computing freedom. It's my computer, the game is merely running on it. If I w…

I think there is an underlying assumption that you’re entitled to play the game, therefor anti cheat is violating your freedoms. But if we remove the assumption that you are entitled to play any game how ever you please i think this argument somewhat falls apart. If you don’t like their using anti cheat, then just don’t play those games which use it. I just don’t think enough people agree with you that it will work i…

Sometimes the malware is not disclosed and a game may start to use a malware after you bought it.
Post reply on HN