Back in October 2024, Respawn announced they were blocking Apex Legends on Linux platforms (including Steam Deck). Apparently this has worked quite well for them.
Am I to believe that cheaters would install Linux, just use a cheat in a game?
You seem to severely underestimate the extreme lengths cheaters will go to in order to cheat. Not only are modern cheats very expensive (like 20+ dollars per WEEK subscriptions), but the ones that are the hardest to detect require a second PC connected to the main PC using a direct memory access module so that the cheat can read the game’s memory in a way that is impossible to notice for the Anti-Cheat running on the game PC. On top of that they spend time and money on stolen/farmed accounts, spoofing hardware and phone numbers, and buying entirely new PCs when they get detected and banned.
Installing Linux is a tiny obstacle compared to all the other shit these losers are willing to go through in order to cheat.
If they know who is on Linux and who is reported as cheating, they wouldn’t use such a speculative metric to conclude that the cheaters are using linux.
I would find it very hard to believe that they don’t know which OS each client is using.
(Replying to myself) Even if these numbers are legit, we don’t know the process or exact metrics used.
This data may include falsely banned players on Linux (which was reported before they restricted Linux) and may exclude many cheaters on Windows (any of those who weren’t caught). We don’t know.
Sounds like a scapegoat. Am I to believe that cheaters would install Linux, just use a cheat in a game?
If they can detect cheaters, couldn’t they also detect if the cheater is using Linux? Where’s the stats?
You seem to severely underestimate the extreme lengths cheaters will go to in order to cheat. Not only are modern cheats very expensive (like 20+ dollars per WEEK subscriptions), but the ones that are the hardest to detect require a second PC connected to the main PC using a direct memory access module so that the cheat can read the game’s memory in a way that is impossible to notice for the Anti-Cheat running on the game PC. On top of that they spend time and money on stolen/farmed accounts, spoofing hardware and phone numbers, and buying entirely new PCs when they get detected and banned.
Installing Linux is a tiny obstacle compared to all the other shit these losers are willing to go through in order to cheat.
As someone who only has minimal passing knowledge of the current competitive games - what do cheaters get out of going to such lengths?
Mostly they get to be cunts on the internet and get off on the hate.
Some hide the fact that they’re cheating and try to pretend they’re actually good players.
Usually there’s no real or monetary reward, other than like boosting services that might use cheats.
That’s just…sad.
They tweeted this graph in early December:
Note how the graph is missing labels and how neither it nor the tweet include information on how these metrics were gathered.
If they know who is on Linux and who is reported as cheating, they wouldn’t use such a speculative metric to conclude that the cheaters are using linux.
I would find it very hard to believe that they don’t know which OS each client is using.
And then cheating rises again.
So whatever caused cheating to decrease relative to the population (assuming that’s what’s being measured) is probably to blame.
Here’s a different explanation:
A better test is to keep support for Linux for the launch, then drop it in a minor patch update a few days later.
That chart doesn’t even show correlation. Cheating was having a downward trend then. Continued the downward trend after banning Linux users. What?!?
I wonder how the graph looks compared to school semesters stopping and starting. I bet it’s similar
(Replying to myself) Even if these numbers are legit, we don’t know the process or exact metrics used.
This data may include falsely banned players on Linux (which was reported before they restricted Linux) and may exclude many cheaters on Windows (any of those who weren’t caught). We don’t know.