←back to thread

Games run faster on SteamOS than Windows 11, Ars testing finds

(arstechnica.com)
400 points _JamesA_ | 6 comments | 25 Jun 25 19:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.439s | source | bottom
Show context
jekwoooooe ◴[25 Jun 25 23:54 UTC] No.44382924[source]▶
The last missing piece for full Linux gaming is anticheat. Last I looked into it, the major vendors don’t want to support it due to lack of kernel security and the ones that do, game devs refuse to allow it (destiny for example)

One we can play AAA games I am literally ditching windows forever. Steamos is the best thing that has happened to gaming

replies(12): >>44382994 #>>44383197 #>>44383513 #>>44383658 #>>44384010 #>>44384377 #>>44384747 #>>44387107 #>>44387167 #>>44387626 #>>44387787 #>>44388562 #
TheCraiggers ◴[26 Jun 25 00:05 UTC] No.44382994[source]▶
Anti-cheat today is a stop-gap measure at best. For various reasons such as improved OS security and security concerns with this software, ring zero anti-cheat won't be around forever. Besides, it's a cat and mouse game where the vendor is the mouse.

We already have the technology now to do it better. A combination of only sending what info a client should have, and server-side checks. As soon as something like UT ships with that built in we can hopefully forget about this horrible hack we currently have to check for cheats.

replies(5): >>44383053 #>>44383144 #>>44385731 #>>44386229 #>>44392780 #
hypeatei ◴[26 Jun 25 00:18 UTC] No.44383053[source]▶
As long as games are running on user hardware/OS, you'll always deal with cheating. Server-side checks and computation can only go so far.

For example: in competitive shooters (where cheaters are most prevalent) you can't have things appearing out of thin air. The client needs to know about things ahead of time to play sounds and to give other environmental hints.

replies(4): >>44383118 #>>44383165 #>>44383204 #>>44385884 #
1. bloqs ◴[26 Jun 25 00:48 UTC] No.44383204[source]▶
so consoles are better
replies(3): >>44383227 #>>44384282 #>>44386647 #
2. armada651 ◴[26 Jun 25 00:52 UTC] No.44383227[source]▶
They are often more convenient and secure. If you don't mind a single-purpose device that severely limits your ability to modify your experience. Better is subjective after all.
3. zrobotics ◴[26 Jun 25 04:53 UTC] No.44384282[source]▶
How would consoles be any more immune to computer vision based cheating? Instead of feeding the output to a spoofed keyboard & mouse, you'd just be feeding it to a controller input. I'm not really seeing any difference in technical challenge here, and you wouldn't even need esoteric hardware since console controllers are USB devices anyways.
replies(2): >>44387836 #>>44389164 #
4. Der_Einzige ◴[26 Jun 25 12:13 UTC] No.44386647[source]▶
Someone doesn’t know about the chronus zen or how big console cheating is!

Let’s just say that my finals experience isn’t the same as yours! ;)

5. ◴[26 Jun 25 14:33 UTC] No.44387836[source]▶
6. literalAardvark ◴[26 Jun 25 16:59 UTC] No.44389164[source]▶
Since the hardware is better controlled and secured, and hardware attestation is a solved problem these days, it's not particularly difficult to enforce security to the point where you'd need to hardware hack a controller and connect it to a physical camera to bot.

That's still gonna be annoying for players, but it'll greatly decrease incidence, and if reporting a player for botting requires buying and hacking a new controller... It should be quite effective.