Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton
(areweanticheatyet.com)315 points by doener 2 days ago
315 points by doener 2 days ago
This isn't the reason.
The reason it's necessary is because players want to be able to play with/against other players around the world. Matchmaking requires some form of anti-cheat. Running your own server as admin can't give you the degree of competitive global ranking that players enjoy today.
And cheating is an arms race. It's just hacking. You either preserve game integrity or you're going to have cheaters.
We lost a lot of other things as well. Like modding and especially maps.
It doesn't matter how good the game developers are, someone out there is could make a better map.
The studios took control of everything, and their answer is to rootkit our computers, and to buy more DLC if we want another map.
Personally, I don't accept the premise that such studio control is necessary for me to have fun playing a game.
I especially miss custom maps.
This is the truth of it. If you can unlock all the on-disc DLC or create and use your own maps, mods, skins, etc. it risks the money companies want to take from you after you've already paid the $60-$80 for the incomplete game itself.
Anti-cheat is about protecting DLC profits as much as it is anything else.
It's a shame too because we got so much good content from random people who just loved the games and wanted to create neat things for them. It was one way that some people started their careers in the video game industry and it spawned a lot of other websites and communities around sharing, reviewing, and creating all that free content.
There are hundreds of popular games with mod support. See https://mod.io/g
If anything, we are in a golden age of mods!
Not really. A huge number of players are on consoles that have little to no support for mods and games today have too many centralized online servers and companies who keep insisting on control over your local PC which means that game companies can decide what mods you can and cannot have on your system.
There was a time when the concept of "banned mods" only ever applied to a specific server out of countless other servers and locally you could do anything you wanted, even run your own server.
I agree with you in sentiment and am very nostalgic for the pre-monoculture days, but I also acknowledge that competitive games are a multi-billion dollar industry, and trying to moderate a game with millions of players in a distributed environment is just a non-starter.
You reject the premise that such control is necessary for your idea of fun.
But millions of players enjoy ranked matchmaking enough that without aggressive anti cheat you will wind up with cheaters.
I hate the root kits as well, but if you spend any time playing Valorant vs CS, you will see the difference. If I play CS consistently I'll get cheaters once or twice a week. In Valorant it's almost unheard of by comparison. It sucks, but that's just what's happening.
Do I wish I at least had the option in Valorant or whatever to host a server? Absolutely. Do I think they use the rootkits maliciously? No, generally not. Do I think studios are disincentivized to provide server hosting due to DLC or microtransactions? Definitely. But I also think there's often also a game integrity component. All of these things can be true simultaneously.
Make a list of all game genres and modes that sprung out of player modification
> The reason it's necessary is because players want to be able to play with/against other players around the world. Matchmaking requires some form of anti-cheat. Running your own server as admin can't give you the degree of competitive global ranking that players enjoy today.
Case in point, Counter Strike is a rare example of a popular game which supports both the "modern" matchmaking paradigm and the classic community server paradigm... and for better or worse the playerbase overwhelmingly prefers matchmaking.
> and the playerbase overwhelmingly prefers matchmaking
The server browser is buried under a couple layers of obtuse menus (and, at present, is completely broken on my SteamOS machine) while matchmaking is obvious and straightforward. You cannot come to any reasonable conclusions about player preference given the way the UI drives players towards matchmaking and away from servers. If they were presented on equal footing you might have a point.
Consider also TF2. It launched as a server-based game, and in the years after matchmaking was added Valve went through many UX iterations designed to drive traffic to it before it was more popular.
Counter Strike makes matchmaking far more prominent than community servers, so I don't think this is that good of an example. For a game like Team Fortress 2 where the options are presented more equally, It seems the players are closer to a 50/50 split. The reality is that most people follow the light patterns that get them in a game, which most modern multiplayer games make that matchmaking.
> can't give you the degree of competitive global ranking that players enjoy today
I'm curious to know how player stats and global rankings truly affect game adoption (not that you can accurately measure what I'm asking for). It seems to me the more popular the game the less it matters because everyone becomes a small fish in a big pond. Rank one billion out of a gajillion. The games where it matters more would be the smaller games, which have less of a cheating problem to begin with.
I do agree however that you won't get the adoption without centralization, if only because centralization is exactly where all the money resides, via DLC and other nonsense. Therefore centralization is exactly where all the marketing money goes. And without marketing you don't usually get blockbuster games. So expecting the rootkits to go away is a lost cause, until client-side rendering goes away, at least.
That may be the answer to playing these rootkit titles on Linux: just stream it. I know it's somewhat lame, and I know it adds latency, but I seem to recall a recent demonstrate of a service where the latency is very minimal. Clearly I'm a bit out of touch with the state of the art, heh.
Yeah, this is pretty clear. The community for any competitive game if you are a member of the top 100 players is always amazing. These players play the most, they end of seeing each other over and over, and you build up a rapport with the other players and can start to play against specific peoples play-styles.
However, for the vast vast majority of the player-base who is top 50% in skill, the fat normal distribution nearly guarantees that most of the people they play against will never be seen again. And therefore there is no harm for them not to be toxic to them, so most people only ever experience toxicity in online competitive games.
Server browser games solve this because players end up with "home" servers where they come back to over and over, and over time build communities who do the same. This was taken away from the players when we moved to matchmaking, and many in the player-base have a bias against matchmaking because of it.
But this is in no way required, and merely a result of gaming companies to do any work on this front. It would be extremely easy for these games to add an arbitrary community tag to the matchmaker that would attempt to put people in games with players that they have not previously reported. The matchmaker might take a little bit more time, but since these players are in the fat normal distribution, their average matchmaking times will still be incredibly low.
WRT player stats and rankings: I'm inclined to disagree. Rankings in small team-based game communities tend to be pretty noisy. Matchmaking often ends up constrained by the number of online players searching for a game at the same time, so the teams may not be well balanced, and the outcome of the match can be decided by the presence of a single highly skilled player who happened to be searching for a match at the right moment. The resulting rankings aren't necessarily a good measure of player skill.
Larger games have the luxury of being able to place players into teams consisting entirely of other players of similar skill levels, against teams of similar composition. The results of those games are a better reflection of those players' skill.
> Rankings in small team-based game communities tend to be pretty noisy.
PP wasn't talking about ranking stability. PP was talking about the "Why should I give a shit about the leaderboard when ten million people play the game, and I'm someone with life obligations that aren't 'playing this game, exclusively', so I'm always in the middle of a sea of strangers because I can never git particularly gud?".
You might argue that the solution to that is to have separate rankings for folks in your friends' (or whatever) list, and I agree... but I'd get the same thing as filtered-to-friends-only leaderboards with leaderboards that are restricted to the population of players on the private servers on which I play. Plus, private servers give you the option to benefit from active admins who ban cheaters and other shitheels forever. [0]
[0] Or encourage them to cheat and be godawful, if that's the sort of server that they want to run. All-cheats-all-the-time and/or vent-your-spleen-24/7 servers are fun, too... just so long as folks are informed of what they're getting into by joining.
How did it work in the early Steam (CS 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, CS:S) and GameSpy days?
I think a big part of it is the stakes were just lower. There wasn't money and careers in it the same way there is with egaming now.
More distributed and more manual. More administrative overhead. More localized culture we all get nostalgic for. Much more effort to play against peer competitors.
It's the same phenomenon you see in many sectors.
Access is democratized and the friction/barrier to play is dramatically lowered/free, and the localization is diluted or non existent and just a monoculture.
PunkBuster and later VAC were commonplace. Anti-cheat middleware is not new by any stretch.
People are still playing Battlefield 4 (2013) on user-hosted servers. Right now.
The only way that "around the world" can be relevant is ping, and the best way to manage ping is by sorting a list of servers by ping.
Cheating is an arms race that no one needs to participate in. Moderation was a perfectly good workaround until major game studios decided to monopolize server hosting.
What, 2000 players? 5000?
Moderating that game is multiple orders of magnitude off of major titles.
No Battlefield game is even in the top 100 of esports earnings.
> Matchmaking requires some form of anti-cheat.
Does it though? Unless winning has real-world rewards, does it really matter that much if you are playing against someone who is cheating, if with cheating, they are evenly matched against you? Assuming the matchmaking works well, people who cheat would end up getting matched with either other people who cheat, or people who are good enough to compete against cheaters.
Not sure how to understand these questions. Have you ever played in a competitive game of any type, virtual or real?
A cheater isn't evenly matched against you. No one is good enough to compete against wallhacks/aimbots, never mind that it shouldn't matter. It ruins the experience, ruins games, ruins the spirit of competition and sport.
Did you played in this era ?
- If you were too good on some server, you'd get banned.
- If the admin doesn't know well cheating, he could tolerate something that was obvious cheating.
- Cheaters could just change server often.
It used to be easy to just ban peoples yes, and it was as easy to switch servers.
Plus on most competitive game today, you have custom lobbies, which do exactly what you want, and there is a reason why only a minority of players uses it.
Custom lobbies don't meet the same need. That's for playing with your friends, or at least, people you vet yourself. Community servers are a sub-community in of themselves: people tend to play on the same servers on a regular basis, allowing you to build rapport, community norms, and have substantially more direct moderation than company-run servers.
Yes, sometimes you run into power-tripping moderators. That comes with the territory of having moderators. But the upsides, of being embedded in a usefully-sized community, and having nearly constant human moderation, not to mention the whole "stop killing games" of it all, far outweigh the need to shop around a bit for a good server.
I think the ideal middle ground is something like Squad's server system: The developers offer a contract to server owners, establishing basic standards that must be met to be a recommended server. Rules forbidding the crazy bigotry that milsims tend to attract, minimum server specs to ensure smooth gameplay, an effective appeals process. If a server meets those requirements, and signs the agreement to keep meeting those standards, they get put on a "recommended" server list (which 90%+ of the playerbase exclusively use). Other servers go on the "custom" server list, which can be modded, or spun up for certain events, or whatever.
two or three months ago, I played a game that did exactly what you proposed, V-Rising, it have a server browser, I played a week with friend on a busy server. Then the server was gone for two weeks. When it was back, mosts of the bases were gone due to inactivity.
That's the kind of things that were common too, maybe you forgot about it.
All the multiplayer games I play today are either community server based, or I exclusively interact with private lobbies.
My negative experiences with community servers represent a pretty short list. Sometimes servers die, but games die sometimes, too. That's obviously only an issue with persistent-state games, like Minecraft, but it's unfortunate when it happens. Can't say it was so frequent that it impacted my enjoyment of any games as a whole.
All true, but of course you're missing the player agency component that renders those issues moot. If any of the above happens, you can simply find another server.
Private games (now called "custom lobbies") were available back then too, they're not equivalent to a public server browser.
They are functionally equivalent for the player. The problem with player hosted servers is that it was very hard to get a fair and balanced competitive match, where now it's extremely common with matchmaking on servers hosted by the game company.
I hated wasting a whole half hour server hopping until I found one that didn't suck
I did indeed play in the era LanceH is talking about, and I agree with them! We had many thriving communities with no serious cheating problems because of community moderation.
Yes, there were poorly moderated servers, but you could simply leave and try a different community until you found one that clicked for you. When you require equal moderation everywhere, you throw the baby out with the bath water.
Initially, until you found the right community run ones? I don't see the issue. Today is worse, especially when there is no server browser but just a blackbox that drops you in a random match.
This ignore actual history: anti-cheats started on community run servers. Because the majority of admins are not dealing with cheaters it because they enjoy it, but rather out of necessity. I see everyone here appreciating good admins, not many people are going to be volunteering themselves.
Punkbuster for Team Fortress. BattleEye for Battlefield. EasyAntiCheat started for Counter-Strike. I even remember Starcraft Brood War ICCUP's anti-hack client. You can see this in modern community servers too. Face-IT and ESEA for CS2 have more anti-cheat, not less. FiveM, which modded GTA V for community servers, never worked for Linux even before they added anti-cheat to the full game, because they had their own anti-cheat, adhesive.
Admins for modern game servers are not going to be interested in turning off their anti-cheat. That just gives them more unpaid work for little gain.
The only actual problem with cheating is leaderboards.
When you have accurate matchmaking, you will be playing against other players of a similar skill level. If you we're playing in single-player mode, it wouldn't bother you that some of the players were better than others.
Whether the person you're playing against is as good as you because they have aim assist, while you have a 17g mouse and twitch reflexes shouldn't matter. You're both playing at equivalent skill levels.
The only reason it matters to anyone is that they want their skills to be recognized as better than someone else's. Take down the leaderboards, and bring back the fun.
I say, let the people cheat.
I worked at a company once that didn't use any anti cheat. I once asked why, and they said the matchmaking system solved the problem for them. The matchmaking was good enough so cheaters only ever played with other cheaters, and it kept the numbers up.
Honest players never really complained, so I guess it worked for them.
I play online FPS with friends for fun. I don't care about leaderboards, but I know people that do and don't want to take them away from them.
You can't have accurate matchmaking and allow cheating. People cheat for a variety of reasons, at lot of cheaters are just online bullies that enjoy tormenting other players. In a low ELO lobbies, you would have cheaters that have top tier aim activated only if they lose too much, making the experience very inconsistent.
Top tier ELO would revolve around on how the server handle peeker advantage and which cheater as the fastest cheating software. It's an interesting technical challenge, but not a fun game. As soon as a non cheating player is in view of a cheating player, the non cheating player dies. That doesn't make for a fun game mechanic.
>"Top tier ELO would revolve around on how the server handle peeker advantage and which cheater as the fastest cheating software. It's an interesting technical challenge, but not a fun game"
Fun fact, this does exist. There used to be old CS:GO servers that were explicitly hack v hack, would make it abundantly clear to any new visitors that stumbled upon the servers that you would NOT have any fun without a "client", and it was a bunch of people out-config'ing each other. It was actually kinda cool for those people, it would NEVER be fun for anyone else.
Not just single player. Even in competitive multiplayer a lot of the complaints about "cheating" are actually complaints about matchmaking, and "cheating" is a giant red herring (griefing is a different matter, of course, that gets lumped into the umbrella term of "cheating"). But trying to explain this is typically like pissing against the wind, because people already believe in the existing status quo (no matter how irrational it is) and no one wants to change their beliefs unless it obviously and immediately short-term benefits them.
Comments like this just make me upset to the point I can't cohere an appropriate argument. It's so out-of-touch with reality and completely ignores the core problem that I have to believe you're just fucking with us.
No, it is not fun to play against smurf accounts using hacks. They aren't doing it for the leaderboards, they actively downrank themselves to play against worse players!
And no, it's not fun to play against cheaters who are so bad at situational awareness their rank is still low, but who instantly headshot you in any tense 1v1 and ruin your experience.
And no, I actually do care that people are cheating in multiplayer games because it's not fair. Since when do we reward immoral fuckwits who can't or won't get better at the game?
Why don't we just start letting basketball players kick each other and baseball players tar their hands while we're at it. Who cares if the sanctity of the sport or competition is ruined - we're a community of apathetic hacks.
This is fine if you are low level, because the cheaters will be too good to play in the low level games.
If you are in the higher skill levels, you might end up playing too many cheaters who are impossible to beat. If the cheat lets you be better than the best human players, the best human player will end up just playing cheaters.
> If you are in the higher skill levels, you might end up playing too many cheaters who are impossible to beat.
It's almost kind of worse than this. If you are in higher skill levels, you end up getting matched with cheaters who lack the same fundamental understanding of the game that you do and make up for it with raw mechanical skill conferred by cheats.
So you get players who don't understand things like positioning, target priority, or team composition, which makes them un-fun to play with, while the aimbots and wallhacks make them un-fun to play against.
And as a skilled player, you are much better equipped to identify genuine cheaters in your games. Whereas in low skill levels cheaters may appear almost indistinguishable from players with real talent so long as they aren't flat out ragehacking with the aimbot or autotrigger.
At least in the world of chess (which has the OG matchmaking system, ELO), cheating is genuinely a problem.
The problem is that it doesn't matter how good you are. You will not beat a computer. Ever. Playing against someone who is using a computer is just completely meaningless. Without cheating control, cheaters would dominate the upper echelons of the ELO ladder, and good players would constantly be running into them.
> Without cheating control, cheaters would dominate the upper echelons of the ELO ladder, and good players would constantly be running into them.
...and, even worse, if they ever got to the very top of the ladder and started only playing against other cheaters, then they'd actually weaken their cheats so that they could drop down in ranking to play against (and stomp) non-cheaters again, and/or find creative ways to make new accounts.
Cheaters ruin games. The fact that the GP is so deluded as to claim that "The only actual problem with cheating is leaderboards." suggests that they've never actually played a competitive matchmade game on a computer before.
You're saying it's not a problem when cheaters to completely ruin the experience for top-10% players
There are still plenty of games that use community hosted servers for multiplayer. I play some of them (Rust, for example).
First, cheating is absolutely still an issue in Rust. Sure, server admins can kick them out... once they have been discovered, verified by an admin, and kicked. The damage is usually done by then, and that is the best case scenario... often, the admins aren't available at that moment, because they are normal people who are not online all the time.
Plus, this means you have to search and find a good server to play on. That isn't always easy, and limits your ability to find a good game.
Second, lots of games I love to play don't make sense in the 'server hosted by a community member' model.
I love playing sports games... Madden, FIFA (now called FC), NBA2k, etc. The best way to play those games is often 1on1 against someone who is close to your skill level. It isn't fun to play against people way worse or way better than you.
The only way to do this in a way that lets me get a good game whenever I want to play is to have some sort of matchmaking system, that keeps track of how good i am and finds players who are about the same skill level. There is no way this would work on user hosted servers, and even if it did, why would a user hosted server be better at solving this problem than a company hosted one? You need a TON of players to be able to do good skill based matchmaking 24 hours a day.
I have been playing multiplayer online games for over 30 years. I started playing when I had to call my friend on the phone, tell him to tell his family not to answer the next call because it was my modem calling, and then hope to god my sister didn't pick up the phone during our game and break the connection. We had to develop a code to signal if I was actually trying to call him to talk about an issue; if I called and hung up immediately it meant I was voice calling and the next call he should answer with the phone.
I have played every iteration of multiplayer gaming. I played Warcraft II when you had to pay $20 to subscribe to Kali to use their virtual IPX service. I played local Counterstrike games at the college dorms on the local network (which was not even a switched network!) I run Minecraft servers for my kids on my local network. I have written multiplayer games for both peer-to-peer and server based multiplayer.
No, you can't recreate the modern convenience and pleasure of company provided matchmaking by going back to community hosted servers.
Interesting thing I noticed trying to play old versions of Call of Duty a year or two ago -- the oldest ones which supported hosted servers, there are still players, but once they switched to matchmaking either no one is playing or its so tiny you never get connected.
> It used to be pretty easy to just ban people from playing
I ran servers for a lot of games. It was often difficult to ban people from playing. First off, someone with ban permissions would have to actually be online at the time. So often nothing would happen at all, you'd just have to leave and find a different server. Second, one could get banned, often just change their IP or use a different CD key or whatever other identifier the game used, and hop back on with a new identity.
Meanwhile discoverability of similarly skilled matches were a challenge, along with actually playing with a group of friends against new people. Its not some perfect panacea, there are a lot of things people disliked about picking private servers to play on.
Back in the "small communities on their own servers" people also cheated. It was never entirely clear who cheated and who was just good and/or lucky with plenty of false positive bans also. Nothing about this was "easy" in any way. Which is why anti-cheat tools like PunkBuster have been around for 25 years.
> caused by the game companies that took away the standard method of playing multiplayer -- players running their own servers
Let's be real, what % people among those who game are interested in running their own game server? I'm definitely one of them, and one of my earliest tech memories was setting up a CS 1.6 game server for a bunch of classmates (and being unable to play myself because the computer had nowhere near enough capacity for both the server and the actual game running at the same time); but it's a minuscule percentage.
This isn't a problem because any given server can support hundreds or thousands of weekly players, so only 0.1% of your playerbase needs to run a server.
We had this, it worked, for years. I'm baffled by all the posters saying it won't, because it did.
There are games I play were one of the players' machines becomes the server. In some it's transparent to them, you just join their world or lobby, in others it's explicit and you even have to input the host's IP to enter.
Standalone servers you need to run separately and care for are much more rare.
For a casual CS server the ratio could perfectly be 1:50 and that'd be fine. That's how it used to be with, i.e., CS:Source.
Then, there are companies that ran a bunch of them, which lowered the ratio even further.
IMO, it's more effective, cheaper and easier to mod smaller forums (be it web communities or game server communities) than to do for huge ones.
> Let's be real, what % people among those who game are interested in running their own game server?
Let's put it differently: What % of people among those who program are interested in maintaining open source software?
A very low %, and yet it's a thriving ecosystem.
To bring it back to gaming: How many people who game are interested in modding, or creating models/maps/etc? Again, a very low %, and yet...
Running/renting hardware and connectivity and administrating a service and development are slightly different.
It's not the 2000s anymore - you don't have to run/rent "hardware" and worry about "connectivity" and whatnot. For most games that offer dedicated servers, there are services with easy to use panels with fancy colored buttons and everything.
As another example: how about hosting a website?
Community-run servers weren't a magic bullet, and they had a lot of other problems that modern matchmaking systems solve more effectively.
Absolutely!
The entire narrative of "cheating" is a giant misdirect. People don't actually care about cheating, they care about fun. If a player is making the game less fun, it does not matter how.
The real problem is that ~10 years ago major game studios decided to monopolize server hosting. This means that the responsibility of moderation is now in their hands. The only way this problem can ever be resolved is by giving the authority to moderate servers back to players. Until then, the responsibility to moderate will be unmet, no matter how fascist and authoritarian game studios become. Fascism cannot guarantee fun!
Even if custom game servers were a preferable experience, which I would argue against, it doesn't really do anything for this problem.
By the time you have to wait for someone to cheat just to ban a single user, the disruption is already done. Your 4v4 45min game is already disrupted and everyone has already wasted their time now that you have to kick someone.
It's kind of like thinking you can forgo anti-bot measures because your website's users can just report the bots: by the time it's your users' problem, you've ruined the experience for everyone except the bots.
I would much rather my 45 minute game be disrupted and the user booted permanently by moderators VS every game be disrupted for months while the developers try and work out which parts of my privacy they can invade to maybe hopefully boot the cheaters.
> By the time you have to wait for someone to cheat just to ban a single user, the disruption is already done. Your 4v4 45min game is already disrupted and everyone has already wasted their time now that you have to kick someone.
The difference is there is usually an existing level of trust between people playing on a private server. Usually your group would know ahead of time if someone is going to potentially be a problem.
Furthermore, even with public dedicated servers, there's a psychological aspect to it - it's no longer just a random matchmaking server; you're almost walking into someone's house. Many people feel a lot more pressure not to misbehave
Then there's the fact that you don't have to wait many days for your cheating report to hopefully be acted on. Our game got interrupted? Well, that sucks, but we can just ban that guy and go again and we likely won't have to worry that our very next game will also contain a cheater
Finally: these defences always have an implicit assumption with it: that the horribly pervasive anti-cheats actually... you know, work. They do, to a rather limited extent, but cheaters are still rampant, so what's the point?
If I already have a preformed 4v4, then I don't need anticheat.
The question is what to do about the rest of the time for everyone else. Shopping around private servers and dealing with individual server admin quirks is a regression from matchmaking UX that Starcraft had in the late 90s or that Halo 2 had in the early 2000s.
counterpoint: my 45 min 4v4 game gets terminally disrupted if I can't run the game on my device
Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience. That's how bad cheating is.
> Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience.
Does it mean a better experience though? This isn't like, a theoretical GP is talking about. We don't have to imagine if
> That's how bad cheating is.
Seems like the answer is no?
The only multiplayer game I currently play is Beyond All Reason (a RTS game).
It's a free and open-source game, so creating a cheat client would be especially easy. But I've never encountered cheating.
I think there's a few reasons for this:
1) The playerbase is small and there is no auto-matchmaking, just a traditional list of servers. This results in the same group of people always playing together. People don't want to cheat when they're playing with acquaintances they see frequently.
2) Spectators are allowed in every game. The top-ranked games usually have several spectators.
You might think this would result in even more cheating, but in practice the spectators would prefer to watch a sneak attacks succeed, because it's funny. It's boring to be whispering the enemy secrets to you buddy on a private Discord, it's more fun to watch your buddy die in a surprising and funny way.
Also, the spectators can spot if a player does something that suspiciously well timed or lucky. The spectators see all, so they have the information needed to spot suspicious behavior.
3) Official servers create an official record of what happened in every game. The entire community has access to all the recordings. If someone thinks cheating is happening they can link to the official game recording on Reddit (or whatever) and everyone can see what happened.
4) An active moderator team reviews every report of cheating. There are official moderators that do the banning, but also volunteer moderators which can watch the recordings and create a trusted written account of what happened; this makes the official moderators have an easier job.
Hi, one of the BAR devs here. Glad to hear the tall praise for the project and even happier to hear you've been having a great time playing it!
One of the additional safeguards against cheating within BAR is the shared simulation that all machines connected to any given match have to perform. As the entire process is synced between all these machines, any mismatch is immediately picked up by other machines and the server hosting the match itself and results in an automatic booting of that player with the desynced game. If 15 machines can agree on an event happening in the simulation, and 1 can't, why should the 1 be trusted? This includes things like the economy reserves for a given player or the behaviour of their units, not just the physical simulation of the projectiles and their trajectories and hit registers.
Hello, CM for BAR here, nice to see it mentioned :)
As Zephyr says state manipulation cheats are impossible since they would lead to desyncing any online battle.
Since every user technically has access to the whole game state there are user side cheats possible, like LoS hack, but these are easily detectible (as well as spectator cheating) and very active moderator team makes sure anyone using them is perm'ad so it's not worth for people to try them and it's been super rare so far.
Smurfing (using alt accounts with lower ELO to get weaker opponents/avoid moderation) is probably the most prevailent type of "cheating" but there is a lot of active and passive countermeasures implemented so most players will rarely experience issues with that.
Seems more likely that the cause is that RTS isn't a popular genre among gamers and Beyond All Reason is obscure[1] even among RTSes. There's no fame or money to make it worth investing in cheating.
[1] Among the general public, not RTS aficionados. Which is unfortunate; Total Annihilation and its spiritual descendants like BAR deserve more love.
Even as an RTS player I've never heard of it, but I have learned recently that I've missed out on an entire niche scene based off of TA. Been playing RTS's since 1994ish and only recently bought TA to go back and play through it. Never owned it back in the day.
I don't think they're saying cheating doesn't exist for the game, they're saying the popularity/incentive is too low to attract many cheaters compared to esports games.
I'm saying they have their fair share of cheating and they have managed to moderate it well without using any form of anti-cheat software.
Of course a small game is going to have fewer cheaters. They have fewer cheaters, but they also have fewer moderators; it's literally like 4 or 5 people doing it in their free time.
Thanks for this, BAR looks really great and open source is very important to me. Definitely gonna try this out!
Link for others: https://www.beyondallreason.info/download
As most of you know, these anti-cheat systems are functionally equivalent to rootkits. There is zero visibility into how these privileges are used for targeted attacks. Due to geographic location of the large game companies this has a geopolitical angle. Fingerprinting of devices and the networks they are in provides a lot of metadata that is most definitely fed into their intelligence apparatus.
I remember trying to install Valorant for the first time, and its ridiculously invasive anticheat kernel mod (or whatever it's called) gave me my first blue (or was it red??) screen I'd seen on Windows in years.
Immediately uninstalled it and haven't ever played Valorant to this day. Fuck that crap, if your community is so toxic that you need a rootkit to keep cheaters at bay, then maybe it's more of a community problem than a technological one. And yes, if this means that you have to block all of China in order to do so, then that is still a community problem. Put your rootkits on your Chinese servers, separate them out, and let the cheaters fight amongst themselves.
> if your community is so toxic that
It's nothing to do with a toxic community.
It might not be the sole reason (and most likely isn’t), but toxic communities breed these sort of behaviours, especially in games that are extremely hostile to casual players.
I'm curious, do they have to be? Would it be possible to boot the program + the anti cheat into it's own VM or something? So they know I am running on trusted hardware, but I know that the aren't reading my emails? Genuinely curious and don't know the answer to this.
The anticheat will try to detect the VM and it will give a warning, so that's not a solution. Ideally keep leisure time devices and work devices separate. Consoles are a good solution because you are never tempted to use your emails on those.
But also you need to think about who your adversary is. Other countries have access to all your icloud mail and photos all the time. Something like dropbox and onedrive is scanned and catalogued in the background.
Hardware supply chain is a difficult topic and each layer of abstraction has their own mini operating system in the firmware, and past has shown many of them have backdoors.
Yes, and more than that, the kernel-level-anticheats are unable to spot someone using a Cronus ( hardware aim assist among other stuff [0] ).
I'm never going to play again online on any FPS because that whole incoherent bubble of crap disgusts me.
The multiplayer games community is toxic, and players are focused on success whatever the cost is. And I don't even want to touch the question of match making with a 10-foot-pole. Local, self-hosted or in small community is the best.
>Local, self-hosted or in small community is the best.
It always makes me happy to fire up Quake via Darkplaces or even ioQuake3 and still see servers up and people playing.
Unpopular opinion, but we would be better off with a single open trusted implementation of anti cheat (aka drm) which can attest whatever requirements are desired by the game is met. The only real problem is that it would likely be limited to approved kernel images and someone would need to own that validation and signing infrastructure, but you could imagine having multiple trusted entities have this role.
Kernel anticheat is not really effective because it can be circumvented on the hardware level, for example using direct memory access with a second computer and screen to show the hidden game state.
Cheating is a meat space problem and there is no technical solution to it. Thats why in tournaments there are referees standing behind the players. Ultimately it comes down to checking if metrics like reaction speed are humanly possible, but a rootkit is not really needed for that.
> Cheating is a meat space problem and there is no technical solution to it
Cheating is an arms race - the number of people who are willing to run a second computer with DMA connected to a single machine is vastly smaller than the number of people who are wiling to download a dodgy file from the internet and run it.
> Ultimately it comes down to checking if metrics like reaction speed are humanly possible, but a rootkit is not really needed for that.
If it was that easy, cheating would be a solved problem. An awful lot of play is "I know the reload time is 0.75s, so they're going to appear when they've reloaded" - that's way beyond human reaction time. And that's at "mid level" play - at gold/sliver levels in league of legends knowing cooldowns is considered base knowledge. At higher levels of play, _all_ of your players are statistical outliers.
This hasn't been true for a very long time. The kind of cheats that can survive even very basic anticheat for a long time cost a decent amount of money on subscription basis. Most cheaters by volume pay quite a chunk of change to cheat.
> Kernel anticheat is not really effective because it can be circumvented on the hardware level, for example using direct memory access with a second computer and screen to show the hidden game state.
Incorrect. DMA (direct memory access) is and can be prevented [1] and detected [2].
[1] https://www.faceit.com/en/news/faceit-rollout-of-tpm-secure-...
[2] https://community.osr.com/t/detecting-pcie-dma-based-cheatin...
This is theoretically possible, but I don't think most cheaters would have the equipment or skill to do this. Cheating is only rampant in games where people can just buy and download cheats... if it requires a lot of skill and hardware, it won't be a big issue.
It's not just theoretically possible, you can buy kits that do this already.
I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion. I've seen it suggested multiple times, and IF done correctly (open/transparent) would solve most of the complaints with the ring-zero anti cheats. Still won't solve every cheat, especially hardware, social and perhaps good VMs. I would require the app/game to disclose what it requires to be true.
I'm ordering a new laptop to work on LLM stuff, and while I thought about jumping through the hoops to get Linux running with secure boot...
I had a realization, it's a cold day in hell when someone else is going to tell me what I can run on my computer. All the latest multiplayer games are now requiring secure boot on Win11 as well
I'm actually wary of all these anti-cheats, they're literally hyperinvasive maleware.
I don't need gaming that much.
And if I do I'll stream it with Gamepass or another cloud service.
What irritates me is when games that don't even benefit from anti-cheat require it. Helldivers 2, for example. My dudes, it's a co-op game. My teammates and I are all on the same side! Moreover, the vast majority of people are gonna play with their friends, not randoms. And if your friend is using a cheat and it bothers you, you just ask him to stop. There's no reason for a game like Helldivers 2 to require anti-cheat at all, let alone the rootkit variety. And yet...
Elden Ring: Nightreign is also a co-op PvE game that has anti-cheating in it. The most common way people cheat is by fudging then items equipped to their character that slightly alter their stats and abilities. Since the game is rouge-like and all of your character information and equipment you can assign before entering the game is handled locally then all it takes is editing your save file which the game and server have no way of (or makes no effort to) detect.
Also, after a brief period, all of the cheaters disappeared because just repeatedly winning a PvE game get boring.
Yep. I've seen quite a few free-to-play gacha games of the "Dress up your pretty princess in cool clothes and do cute activities in a relaxing, no-stress world." variety that have serious anticheat. There's no leaderboard, no multiplayer, it's totally singleplayer.
Why the serious anticheat? To try to prevent you from cheating your way to possession of all the cool clothes for your pretty princess.
burying the lede here killer. the answer is "we want to get paid"
the cool clothes cost $$$ or are randomally found. 0.0000004% chance to get, or pay money for better odds.
or pay lots of money to just get it.
It's also bad with games that have been sucked into the live service hell-vortex. I can't fire up a quick game of Madden against the CPU because EA has turned Madden into a multiplayer lootbox casino, so they chuck Linux-blocking anti-cheat on the whole damn thing, single-player and all.
Not all anticheat fails to work in Wine/Proton.
The super invasive kernel-mode variants (that is, the sort that's in Valorant) flat out fail, and surely always will. It's my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that with some others (like Easy Anti Cheat), it's a choice made by the game dev as to whether running in Wine/Proton will be permitted or not.
I'm a pretty prolific gamer, but at the start of the year I finally kicked Windows to the curb.
It's been fine. Surprisingly few games I'm interested in to begin with have anticheat that doesn't work on Linux, and it's comforting to know games aren't allowed to just shove trash into kernel space at will.
I dropped my Game Pass sub immediately after they upped the sub price and unplugged my Xbox Series X. I have a Bazzite machine, but I've had issues with the NVidia drivers and not enough patience to deal with it. So i'm currently ONLY using my Steam Deck OLED for gaming. When i want to play big AAA games at my desk (SD in docked mode), i'll use GeForce Now and all of it has been a wonderful experience, even the online "competitive" FPS games like BF6. Much better than my experience on either Windows or Xbox. I'll never go back... and i'm impatiently waiting on my Steam Machine!
Yep same; have had Linux on my laptop for a decade plus, but finally switched my desktop over a few years ago, and I have no regrets. The real magic is that I no longer feel the need to do any research before buying a game; it usually just works. Granted, I don't really play competitive multiplayer games, so YMMV (but even that might be about to change if the Steam Machine sells well enough).
The thing is I still need Windows for music production.
Linux will never compete here.
They said this about gaming too... all it takes is Valve-esque sponsor
The sad thing is linux, like MacOS, is often vastly superior for audio routing and latency.
Personally I gave up all my audio productions tools that don't support Linux, but since music/audio work is just a hobby for me that's easier to do. I do miss my old DAWs (Ableton/Reason), and I miss a lot of VST plugins.
Not everyone can just re-base their setup on linux (for me Renoise & VCV Rack), but I can get plenty of joy out of a complete lack of Windows, license management crapware, invasive rootkit level DRM, etc.
Side benefit: it pushes me to get some more external hardware, but I have to do investigations on how some companies do firmware updates which often require MacOS/Windows or Chrome Browser (fucking webmidi looking at you Novation)
> I don't need gaming that much.
Counter point: gaming is fun, and indy games are worth investing in. Voting with your wallet works better if you vote for behavior that's not user hostile, rather than only abstaining.
Just to be clear, the anti-cheat systems that support Linux run at the user level and don't require secure boot. Those kernel-level and secure boot restrictions only apply to a handful of games, and they all explicitly block Linux users anyway. For example, I've been playing Arc Raiders a lot recently in Linux, and the user-level EAC works just fine.
The user-level cheats are extremely bad. For example, Elden Ring uses EZ Anti-Cheat and it works on linux and that game is infested with PvP cheaters.
> ...Elden Ring uses EZ Anti-Cheat and it works on linux and that game is infested with PvP cheaters.
I would question how good Elden Ring's use of EAC actually is.
Given that -at launch-
* Players who were using a Japanese locale couldn't play the game unless they removed EAC
* Removing EAC substantially reduced the amount of incredibly noticeable hitching and stuttering
my hunch is that EAC was hastily slapped on very, very late in the process due to demands from some US-based PHB.
Lots of games don't need invasive anti-cheat. You can just play those. There are literally too many awesome games on the market to ever be without something great to play.
Many people have one or more Discord groups where someone will say "let's play Valorant tonight" and then everyone just installs it. Linux is fantastic for local gaming on a handheld or in the living room, not so much when your non-Linux friends pick the game.
I honestly don't understand why any game is even checking if secure boot is enabled.
If anything it's for the OS to care about that, not individual programs. Afaik, secure boot doesn't (on it's own) prevent the running of arbitrary software, so how is it actually preventing cheating?
I was in a similar situation and ended up buying a PS5. It ended up being exactly what I wanted.
PS5 completely supports mouse and keyboard at a hardware level. It's up to the game though if they support it. The new Doom games don't support it on console even though M&KB are obviously supported on Windows for example. Other games do like the Quake 1 & 2 remasters. I think even Monster Hunter Wilds does if you really want to.
I did that for years and I recommend it as well. Pure linux desktop + console for games is a nice combo and a good separation of functions.
Of course... at this point I am back to having a PC with a beastly GPU and I boot Windows for games and CAD. It is hard to resist high framerate 4k gaming once it becomes a possibility, so now I need to figure out the secure boot problem for the occasional game that requires it.
A PS5 is an even more locked down system! There are vastly more games, many I already own, that work on Linux.
I don't personally have a problem with a system being locked down in general. I have a problem with my computer being locked down, or getting rootkits installed on it. So for me at least, playing those games on console is a good solution.
That's the seperation of concerns that drives me to a Switch alongside my computer. Though I'm by no means a "serious" gamer by most people's standards.
I'd much rather invest one powerful machine that cand do work and games instead of two that take up extra space and generate more e-waste.
I still play on my ps2 ... because consoles are linked closely to the games of that generation I would guess that they are tech that are on relative terms least discarded
It's funny that game makers make a fuss about anti-cheat not working on Linux but then publish Switch versions of their games. That platform has almost zero security and is commonly emulated with cheats even in multiplayer these days.
If people cheat in the switch, they can blame Nintendo. If people cheat in PC, they can blame the anticheat. Without anticheat, they have to take the blame.
Based on the latest report from Dice/EA/BF6, seems indeed like they're detecting hardware-based cheating as well: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2807960/view/4972134...
Although who knows, they might be outright lying about that just to scare cheaters, but I tend to default to assuming what they're saying is more or less true.
Looking at the accessibility alternatives they suggest, they were probably detecting XIM users, not the much nastier PC stuff like DMA cards.
Client side anti cheats is a lazy excuse why they don't want to spend on server side anti cheats anyway.
How do you stop a client-side wallhack with server side anti-cheat?
The thing is: the Switch has a clear ToS, and if the user breaks it they can get into trouble. OTOH, if you release your game in Linux... that's it
The Switch is a closed proprietary platform, so Nintendo can give some guarantees, and if the user does something at the Switch level, the responsibility of legal action will be on Nintendo, saving up headaches to the publisher.
Beaches of a Terms of Service agreement have no inherent legal penalties.
Some actions which breach ToS may be illegal, but that has nothing to do with them being outlined in a ToS.
At this point - you would think that cheaters could be detected on the server side by either training a model to flag abnormal behavior or do some type of statistics on the movement patterns over time - is a client-side anti-cheat really required?
Many forms of cheating revolve around modding the game locally so that certain textures can be seen through walls, so you always know where opponents are. So you aren't breaking any laws of physics, you are just able to make much better tactical decisions.
The obvious solution would be, just don't send data to the player's client about enemies that are behind walls. But this is a surprisingly hard thing to engineer in realtime games without breaking the player experience (see: https://technology.riotgames.com/news/demolishing-wallhacks-..., and then notice that even in the final video wallhacks are still possible, they're just more delayed).
In Minecraft one of the common ways to catch people using x-ray hacks or transparent texture packs is to run statistics on the blocks mined. If the ratio of stone-to-diamond gets significantly out of whack it's a sure sign someone is cheating.
In blackjack card counting is (probabilistically) caught by tracking player winnings. If someone is beating the odds a bit too much it's a fairly good indicator they are counting cards. Of course in this case getting it wrong isn't so bad from the casinos perspective either since then they'll just kick out a player that was costing them money anyhow.
When the enigma cypher got cracked they had to be very careful about when to act on information gained. If they started beating the odds too much the Germans would cotton on to enigma being broken.
My point being that cheating will almost by definition improve your odds. There are definitely ways to catch that sort of thing happening without installing rootkits. You just might need to hire a couple mathematicians to figure it out.
> So you aren't breaking any laws of physics, you are just able to make much better tactical decisions.
With respect I'd like to disagree on this subtly. A lot of games have the client send their cursor position at relatively frequent updates/packages (i.e. sub-second). So the server knows pretty precisely in which direction and to which object a player is looking.
This in turn can be readily used upon when using wall-hacks, as most players, who use wall-hacks tend to almost faithfully follow objects behind walls with their cursor, which good moderators can usually spot within a few seconds, when reviewing such footage (source: I was involved in recognizing Wall-Hacks in Minecraft, where players would replace textures, to easily find and mine diamonds underground).
That final video is recorded to look better than it is too: the delay is based on position, not time. In a real game you'd be moving slower and have the enemy's data on screen for longer.
What you’ll find is that a subset of players define a behaviour and now you have to prove that that behaviour is cheating. For most behaviours that could be cheating, it will overlap with skilled players.
Examples would be pre-aiming corners and >99th percentile reaction time.
You need a false positive rate well below 1%.
This is done, and generally doesn't work as well. Your model will catch people using yesterday's cheats, but the cat-and-mouse nature of cheating means that people will adapt. Funnily enough, cheaters are also training models to play games so that they can evade cheat detection. The kernel-level anticheats are designed to prevent the game from running if they detect you are running any software that interacts with the game. Much simpler for the developer, and circumventing it usually requires running your cheats on a second machine which a) limits what you can do and b) has a higher barrier to entry.
Amongst the discussion of rootkits and anti-cheat, I would like to add that part of the reason it is necessary is caused by the game companies that took away the standard method of playing multiplayer -- players running their own servers.
It used to be pretty easy to just ban people from playing, now we're 100% reliant on their ability to do it. So we have anti-cheat which roots our computer, and still doesn't 100% solve the problem.