> That's why some developers choose not to enable it
That's an excuse. It's mostly incompetence or more often than not the company doesn't think it's worth the effort. With more Linux users, the balance will eventually shift from "fuck them" to "we have to figure out a way".
You’re posting an argument from 6 years ago. Not including Steam OS, the Linux market share has almost quadrupled since then (to ~3.2%); including Steam OS, it’s up to ~24%. And continues to trend upwards.
You also don’t need to arbitrarily support Linux. It’s not difficult to say “this has only been tested on Fedora, Ubuntu, POP, and SteamOS; other distributions are unsupported officially”.
Most game studios pay someone else to make the anti-cheats and many already have Linux versions that the studios choose to not enable.
Besides, if your anti-cheat only ever looks at the system level, it'll easily be bypassed by hardware cheats. At some point I think anti-cheats will have to "know" the game to be able to detect anomalies. It's the only way to effectively stop many categories of cheats.
Those Linux versions are generally not kernel-level. Do you know of any that are?
And yes, of course it's not fool-proof. It's not supposed to be. It's about probabilities: for a given online game, what is the chance that I end up in a match with someone who is obviously cheating and using that to ruin the game for everyone else? The harder you make cheating, the lower that is.
Well yeah, it always comes down to money. Even on an indie level Linux support is a commitment.
https://reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/e2ww5s/mike_rose_linux...
Now if you do care about quality, having a committed, technical audience giving quality big reports is a godsend. But that's not where we are this decade rife with layoffs and rampant outsourcing in the industry.