this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
294 points (97.4% liked)

Linux Gaming

15335 readers
8 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
monolalia@lemmy.world
294
Riot official response about League of Legends on Linux for Vanguard anti cheat (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by mr_MADAFAKA@lemmy.ml to c/linux_gaming@lemmy.world
141 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/dev/dev-vanguard-x-lol/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I dare to say their solution is "good enough" to stop ordinary user from cheating - not to solve cheating problem entirely - it may be impossible - but to raise bar of cheating without getting banned

The problem is that it isn't raising the bar. Sure some low hanging collateral might be caught but in reality a department could easily fudge numbers (banrates) to justify a move to a new solution... and do. frequently. Speaking generally - this isn't the days of download an exe and become 1337 like the old days. Hackers want to get paid. You sub to services which are monetarily motivated to stay ahead of a business which gains little from fighting on this front more than 'good enough.'

They may lose some users who won't play anymore because they won't install rootkit, but keep those who would leave because of cheaters. Maybe their situation is dire enough so they would apply such drastic measures?

This wasn't a dire situation. As long as league (or any online game) has existed there have been anti cheat mechanisms in place. And the best mechanism that has always existed was server side tracking with audits. Full stop. Clientside anything is a bandaid and this is no exception. If I were to speculate on the choice? This was the cheapest option available. Dress it up how you like... companies rarely go for correct options... they go for cheap ones.

I mean, i'm all in for that, but year of linux desktop ... Linux is my favorite OS (i use arch btw) and i use it since... 2007, i think? But i sorta gave up on that belief - it's a nieche OS, and if gaming is ever coming to linux - it's not coming to linux, it's coming to ChromeOS or SteamOS.

Lots has happened with Linux sure, but recently it is becoming considerably more mainstream and is gaining a critical mass on a relevant front: gaming. Linux is (generally speaking) free vs licensed oses like windows. Want a cheap gaming system? Steam is blazing a helluva path. Devs want bigger audiences - and more eyeballs. It would be foolish to disregard the growth in this sector.

Contrary to popular belief, CEOs don't just sit around and think how to make players more miserable...

CSuites / Parent companies make money for themselves - because capitalism. Look no further than VMWare torching their userbase and salting the earth. Short term gains over long term longevity. Riot is not special here- they are being shortsighted.

[–] weirdcarrotmonster@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Look no further than VMWare torching their userbase and salting the earth. Short term gains over long term longevity. Riot is not special here- they are being shortsighted.

Hmm, good point. I'd argue that VMWare's user base was more solvent (is that a right adjective? English is not my native language), but i don't think this argument would be in my favor.

You sub to services which are monetarily motivated to stay ahead of a business which gains little from fighting on this front more than ‘good enough.’

And subscription costs too raise the bar to start cheating. Not everyone would pay to have upper hand in F2P game. Those who are willing to do it can be hand-picked by reports and manual review. We don't know their "definition of done" in fighting cheaters - maybe decreasing number of cheaters by 80% is an acceptable result? Maybe those 20% of remaining cheaters can be accounted for as "really good players" - those exist too. That would solve the problem.

This wasn’t a dire situation. As long as league (or any online game) has existed there have been anti cheat mechanisms in place.

We both don't know that, if we are being honest. If it wasn't problem at all they probable wouldn't have done anything at all - or they'd do something far cheaper. This is a speculation - i can be wrong about state of things.

Also,

Short term gains over long term longevity.

I think there is a shitty pattern — if everyone is making same bad decision (good short term, bad long term), it makes this decision not as bad as it would be otherwise. If you are the only one who is forcing players to install possibly-malicious software, you look really bad. But if every (or majority) of competitive multiplayer games requires it, this idea just doesn't sound that bad. If you already have malware on your PC - what changes if you install another one?