4w ago

We need the game publishers to face more consequences for neglecting a significant segment of the market

27 comments

We need the game publishers to face more consequences for shoving BS kernel level anti-cheats and not focusing on where it actually matters, server-side.
(Which would also solve the Linux AC problem by extension)
- Game publishers: but server-side anticheat is ~~more expensive~~ HARDDDDDD

"Sir, a significant market segment says we're ignoring them."
"Are they still giving us money?"
"Yes sir."
"Then fuck 'em."
- "In which hole sir"

No. It's a video game. Publishers have no business being in my kernel.
- Anticheats on Linux don't have kernel access... Have you ever heard of people needing to type their root password to launch a steam game before?
  
  Anticheats on Linux don’t have kernel access
  Yeah, I know. I'd like it to stay that way. Furthermore, this is also why games with kernel-level anticheat still don't work on linux, despite developments in wine/proton.

Sure. Harassing developers always works. I remember when everybody did it to CDPR about The Witcher 2 so they fixed all the issues and made a perfectly working Linux version of The Witcher 3. They definitely didn't swear off Linux completely.
- Witcher 3 does work perfectly on Linux.
  
  After Valve fixed it.

We need the game publishers to face more consequences for neglecting a significant segment of the market
MacOS?
^(please ^don't ^hurt ^me, ^it ^was ^a ^joke.)
- Yes, Apple should face consequences for making game development for MacOS so difficult.
  https://youtube.com/shorts/qRQX9fgrI4s

I'm not sure extortion is the best way to get companies to support Linux. I think market share is the only real metric they care about.

unfortunately for us, I don't think we're what they would consider "significant"
- The steam deck be pretty popular these days.
  
  I know, and game support has definitely increased since its release specifically because of the steam deck (dead by daylight comes to mind), but even so, we're still a relatively insignificant chunk that isn't worth the cost to most publishers

This is like the people who give recipes bad reviews because they swapped the eggs for banana and it didn't bake right.
- Yeah instead give it 0/10 cause checks random steam review Marver rivals crashing randomly.
  But fuck linux users for rating a game bad cause developers made a deliverate descision to block their system cause "all linux users are cheaters."
  
  So, I imagine that the person you replied to would agree that's also a bad reason to rate a game.

I mean if the game you paid money for is deliberately broken to shaft you, you are a clown for reviewing the game positively. Judging by the complaints of every game with linux-breaking anti cheat, it has failed to remove any of the cheaters.

27 comments