5 ms·

All Valve has to do is say “Your software cannot deliberately exclude linux support including kernel anti-cheat to be listed on Steam.” And that would be that,

by hananova 11mo ago

All Valve has to do is say “Your software cannot deliberately exclude linux support including kernel anti-cheat to be listed on Steam.” And that would be that, the few devs big enough to make it on their own would leave, and everyone else would adapt.

pityJuke 11mo ago
Worth noting: Valve’s own first party tournaments for their own game require kernel level anti-cheat (from a third party vendor). Valve themselves have given up on allowing players in their own title play competitively in a Valve sponsored event with a kernel level anti-cheat. I can’t imagine they’d ever be this brash. There is no adapting without a proper solution for securing game integrity.
- wiredpancake 11mo ago
  You clearly are very misinformed on how Valve operates and runs the competitive CS2 environment. Valve does not require a Kernel Level Anti-Cheat for "first party" tournaments. It is not stipulated anywhere in the Major Rulebook: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/counter-strike_rules_and_regs/blob/main/major-supplemental-rulebook.md https://github.com/ValveSoftware/counter-strike_rules_and_re... The reason third-party anti-cheats are commonplace at these events is because most tournaments opt to use Faceit or similar for game scheduling. This was the case before VRS (with RMRs) and the TO could choose an anti-cheat of their choosing. This always ended up being Faceit AC or whatever platform the matches are scheduled via (For example, PGL used Challenger Mode, which used Akros Anti-Cheat). ESL of course uses Faceit because (ESL Faceit Group). You do not understand how Majors are run. It is very hands off from Valve. Only recently, with the introduction of VRS has Valve started controlling and implementing dedicated rules into the ecosystem for TOs.
  - pityJuke 11mo ago
    > The reason third-party anti-cheats are commonplace at these events is because most tournaments opt to use Faceit or similar for game scheduling. This was the case before VRS (with RMRs) and the TO could choose an anti-cheat of their choosing. This always ended up being Faceit AC or whatever platform the matches are scheduled via (For example, PGL used Challenger Mode, which used Akros Anti-Cheat). ESL of course uses Faceit because (ESL Faceit Group). No it isn't. They're not using it by happenstance, because it is a feature of the platform, they're using it because it would not be competitively viable without it. PGL caught major flak for using Akros [0] because the tool was not good enough at the time to handle a Major qualifier. Just because something is not specified in the rulebook does not mean it is not de facto. Not a single Valve-sponsored major has ever lacked a third-party kernel anti-cheats, from the qualifiers (when they existed), to the VRS eligible events. Yes, I am simplifying for the audience by calling them first-party. They're technically all contracted events on a tender process [1] (well, even TI is contracted out to PGL as of late). The point still stands: events on Counter-Strike, with sponsored by Valve and with tight in-game integrations in the form of stickers, blog posts[2], and other advertisements, all rely critically on kernel-level anti-cheat for game integrity purposes. Or to put it more succinctly: there is no viable pathway for a player to get their autograph into Counter-Strike 2 playing on Linux. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/19499bu/akros_anti_cheat_addresses_the_terrible_major_rmr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/19499bu/ak... [1]: https://www.hltv.org/news/40764/valve-sets-start-of-march-as-deadline-for-2027-and-2028-major-proposals https://www.hltv.org/news/40764/valve-sets-start-of-march-as... [2]: Today's blog post for the Starladder Budapest Major: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/730/view/578276333072682039 https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/730/view/57827633307...
Goronmon 11mo ago
Is there an feasible alternative to "kernel anti-cheat" available on Linux?
- Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago
  There isn't. When it comes to anti-cheat on Linux, it's basically an elephant in the room that nobody wants to address. Anti-cheat on Linux would need root access to have any effectiveness. Alternatively, you'd need to be running a custom kernel with anti-cheat built into it. This is the part of the conversation where someone says anti-cheat needs to be server-side, but that's an incredibly naive and poorly thought out idea. You can't prevent aim-bots server-side. You can't even detect aim-bots server-side. At best, you could come up with heuristics to determine if someone's possibly cheating, but you'd probably have a very hard time distinguishing between a cheater and a highly skilled player. Something I think the anti-anti-cheat people fail to recognize is that cheaters don't care about their cheats requiring root/admin, which makes it trivial to evade anti-cheat that only runs with user-level permissions. When it comes to cheating in games, there are two options: 1. Anti-cheat runs as admin/root/rootkit/SYSTEM/etc. 2. The games you play have tons of cheaters. You can't have it both ways: No cheaters and anti-cheat runs with user-level permissions.
  - likeclockwork 11mo ago
    I'm not letting a game company have root on my PC. How does that kind of exposure for something as frivolous as gaming even make sense?
    - 0x457 11mo ago
      That's how gaming on windows work. You're a minority with that opinion.
    - paxys 11mo ago
      Something that is "frivolous" to you is a passion or even a profession for others. Competitive gaming is a massive market worldwide, and it wouldn't exist without the ability to enforce a level playing field. Not everything has to be a holy FOSS war.
brian-armstrong 11mo ago
The games would just leave Steam. The big publishers want their own platforms and launchers anyway.
- vkou 11mo ago
  That's not the trend that we're observing. As much as publishers and developers want to control their sales channels, the current trend is for them to move towards Steam, not away from it. The more likely outcome is that developers would segment matchmaking into people with kernel-level anti-cheat, and people without it. This seems fair to me.
  - jsheard 11mo ago
    Several big publishers did move away from Steam until Valve conceded some of their revenue, reducing their cut from 30% to 25/20% at certain revenue thresholds. That convinced the publishers to return to Steam, but it showed that Valve isn't immune to being flexed on by the bigger players.
- conor- 11mo ago
  The big publishers already have their own launcher and platforms and are increasingly moving back onto Steam because they see higher PC player counts and sales when their games are there
- 59nadir 11mo ago
  Games can leave Steam, but whenever they do they run into the awkward issue that gamers aren't usually coming with them, at least not in numbers that justify trying to create your own thing.
Yokolos 11mo ago
Yeah, I would hope not. Trying to impose your will on suppliers and b2b customers like this is how you get hit with an antitrust lawsuit.
superxpro12 11mo ago
Ironically, this might create a perverse incentive to shift gamers to linux as all the hackers jump from windows to linux to take advantage of the lack of KMAC.

pityJuke 11mo ago

Worth noting: Valve’s own first party tournaments for their own game require kernel level anti-cheat (from a third party vendor). Valve themselves have given up on allowing players in their own title play competitively in a Valve sponsored event with a kernel level anti-cheat. I can’t imagine they’d ever be this brash. There is no adapting without a proper solution for securing game integrity.

wiredpancake 11mo ago
You clearly are very misinformed on how Valve operates and runs the competitive CS2 environment. Valve does not require a Kernel Level Anti-Cheat for "first party" tournaments. It is not stipulated anywhere in the Major Rulebook: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/counter-strike_rules_and_regs/blob/main/major-supplemental-rulebook.md https://github.com/ValveSoftware/counter-strike_rules_and_re... The reason third-party anti-cheats are commonplace at these events is because most tournaments opt to use Faceit or similar for game scheduling. This was the case before VRS (with RMRs) and the TO could choose an anti-cheat of their choosing. This always ended up being Faceit AC or whatever platform the matches are scheduled via (For example, PGL used Challenger Mode, which used Akros Anti-Cheat). ESL of course uses Faceit because (ESL Faceit Group). You do not understand how Majors are run. It is very hands off from Valve. Only recently, with the introduction of VRS has Valve started controlling and implementing dedicated rules into the ecosystem for TOs.
- pityJuke 11mo ago
  > The reason third-party anti-cheats are commonplace at these events is because most tournaments opt to use Faceit or similar for game scheduling. This was the case before VRS (with RMRs) and the TO could choose an anti-cheat of their choosing. This always ended up being Faceit AC or whatever platform the matches are scheduled via (For example, PGL used Challenger Mode, which used Akros Anti-Cheat). ESL of course uses Faceit because (ESL Faceit Group). No it isn't. They're not using it by happenstance, because it is a feature of the platform, they're using it because it would not be competitively viable without it. PGL caught major flak for using Akros [0] because the tool was not good enough at the time to handle a Major qualifier. Just because something is not specified in the rulebook does not mean it is not de facto. Not a single Valve-sponsored major has ever lacked a third-party kernel anti-cheats, from the qualifiers (when they existed), to the VRS eligible events. Yes, I am simplifying for the audience by calling them first-party. They're technically all contracted events on a tender process [1] (well, even TI is contracted out to PGL as of late). The point still stands: events on Counter-Strike, with sponsored by Valve and with tight in-game integrations in the form of stickers, blog posts[2], and other advertisements, all rely critically on kernel-level anti-cheat for game integrity purposes. Or to put it more succinctly: there is no viable pathway for a player to get their autograph into Counter-Strike 2 playing on Linux. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/19499bu/akros_anti_cheat_addresses_the_terrible_major_rmr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/19499bu/ak... [1]: https://www.hltv.org/news/40764/valve-sets-start-of-march-as-deadline-for-2027-and-2028-major-proposals https://www.hltv.org/news/40764/valve-sets-start-of-march-as... [2]: Today's blog post for the Starladder Budapest Major: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/730/view/578276333072682039 https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/730/view/57827633307...

Goronmon 11mo ago

Is there an feasible alternative to "kernel anti-cheat" available on Linux?

Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago
There isn't. When it comes to anti-cheat on Linux, it's basically an elephant in the room that nobody wants to address. Anti-cheat on Linux would need root access to have any effectiveness. Alternatively, you'd need to be running a custom kernel with anti-cheat built into it. This is the part of the conversation where someone says anti-cheat needs to be server-side, but that's an incredibly naive and poorly thought out idea. You can't prevent aim-bots server-side. You can't even detect aim-bots server-side. At best, you could come up with heuristics to determine if someone's possibly cheating, but you'd probably have a very hard time distinguishing between a cheater and a highly skilled player. Something I think the anti-anti-cheat people fail to recognize is that cheaters don't care about their cheats requiring root/admin, which makes it trivial to evade anti-cheat that only runs with user-level permissions. When it comes to cheating in games, there are two options: 1. Anti-cheat runs as admin/root/rootkit/SYSTEM/etc. 2. The games you play have tons of cheaters. You can't have it both ways: No cheaters and anti-cheat runs with user-level permissions.
- likeclockwork 11mo ago
  I'm not letting a game company have root on my PC. How does that kind of exposure for something as frivolous as gaming even make sense?
  - 0x457 11mo ago
    That's how gaming on windows work. You're a minority with that opinion.
  - paxys 11mo ago
    Something that is "frivolous" to you is a passion or even a profession for others. Competitive gaming is a massive market worldwide, and it wouldn't exist without the ability to enforce a level playing field. Not everything has to be a holy FOSS war.

brian-armstrong 11mo ago

The games would just leave Steam. The big publishers want their own platforms and launchers anyway.

vkou 11mo ago
That's not the trend that we're observing. As much as publishers and developers want to control their sales channels, the current trend is for them to move towards Steam, not away from it. The more likely outcome is that developers would segment matchmaking into people with kernel-level anti-cheat, and people without it. This seems fair to me.
- jsheard 11mo ago
  Several big publishers did move away from Steam until Valve conceded some of their revenue, reducing their cut from 30% to 25/20% at certain revenue thresholds. That convinced the publishers to return to Steam, but it showed that Valve isn't immune to being flexed on by the bigger players.
conor- 11mo ago
The big publishers already have their own launcher and platforms and are increasingly moving back onto Steam because they see higher PC player counts and sales when their games are there
59nadir 11mo ago
Games can leave Steam, but whenever they do they run into the awkward issue that gamers aren't usually coming with them, at least not in numbers that justify trying to create your own thing.

Yokolos 11mo ago

Yeah, I would hope not. Trying to impose your will on suppliers and b2b customers like this is how you get hit with an antitrust lawsuit.

superxpro12 11mo ago

Ironically, this might create a perverse incentive to shift gamers to linux as all the hackers jump from windows to linux to take advantage of the lack of KMAC.