People say "kernel level" anticheat as if that would be necessary for some reason, but I don't really see it catching on in the linux world. Steam doesn't even have root normally. Even if it did, not everyone runs exactly the same linux kernel and the only practical way to distribute a module that's going to work for most people is through dkms, which means you build it from source, which means proprietary super-obfuscated shit is not going have its intended effect (assuming it ever does.)

There's nothing stopping them from doing all the same bullshit in userspace instead.

Kernel level anticheat still can't detect all possible cheats, like Neuromuscular Aim Assist.

Microsoft even sees it as a big mistake. They're creating APIs that won't require anti-cheat to be in the kernel like that. There shouldn't be any reason it needs to be in the Linux kernel.

That said, "don't trust the client" is a nice thing to say, but it's basically impossible to make games work like that. There are certain protocol design considerations that are needed for fps games to work in multiplayer with somewhat laggy connections, and they're not completely compatible with "don't trust the client". If we all had the fiber optic connections and IPv6 that we were promised in the 90s, things would be different. The wack-a-mole game against cheaters is the best that can be done otherwise.

"Never trust the client" renders entire genres of games inaccessible for a big corporation. But those genres have billions of dollars of potential profit in them. So they will go as far as they can to make the client almost trustable. The average player of a first-person shooter doesn't really think about the implications of kernel-level anticheat at all so it's not a hard choice for them. 95% of them are on windows after all and that already gives kenel access to their PC to some entity they really have no good reason to trust.

Build your netcode with "never trust the client" as your first rule

I wish this were more prevalent. Server side anti cheat is a problem that money can be thrown at and solved but its cheaper at face value to lease that labor from anti cheat service contracts.

That all reeks of effort though.

We have memory security, virtualization and antitampering features

As someone who games entirely on Linux and wants multiplayer to work out, the features you're referring to are for keeping the application contained by the kernel, not the other way around. On a system where the user has full autonomy, no application should be able to know what is going on outside of its user space, and I don't want it to.

It'd be nice if it was a solved problem, but it's not. From consoles to phones to windows, currently the industry relies on you not having autonomy over your device for anti-cheat to work. Every other solution is either expensive (obfuscation arms race), or untenable (real time, high resolution server side validation of every property of every player).

For that matter, don't put any fish at all in a tiny bowl of water, especially without a filter or heater. The common goldfish is meant to be very long-lived and gets fucking enormous if you don't torture it to death in a puddle of its own urine.

Got to protect users from someone doing script assisted kick flips

Casuals stop playing games when cheaters prevent them having fun, and it's the casuals they need to keep happy to keep their game alive.

IMO the answer is to internally maintain a "fun to play with" metric. It would be specific to the game, but each player's actions and interactions with other players would be evaluated to determine how "fun" they are to play with (might need to be multidimensional, since different players like having different types of interactions). It doesn't matter if they're cheating, or if they're just really good, or if they use cheesy strategies, etc, if the person isn't fun to play with, then match them with other people who are similarly unfun to play with.

This would cover your point that, if there's a cheater in the lobby, and their behavior somehow makes everyone have more fun, then who cares?

What about devs removing kernel-level anticheat?

I've been running Linux for many years now and for those games that need it I reboot to Windows. It doesn't happen a lot. So many games just work on Linux, I just play those.

I think if you switched you would enjoy it so much more than Windows that you would prioritize Linux over the games with incompatible anticheats.

In due time though. Linux will always be available to you and eventually it will be suitable for your needs as well.

I thought you were being facetious and joking lol

"I'd totally switch to Linux if I could install spyware into my kernel"

I'm not sure that is what they are advocating for. They have VAC which doesn't require kernel level access. If anything they will probably advocate this and that anti cheat can work without root level access.

As long as Valve is committed to an open system, without locked down bootloader like on mobile phones, it is unlikely that kernel-level anti-cheat can be implemented.

But that also means Steam Machines are unlikely to support 4K streaming from Nextflix and co. because also DRM will also only be on the level of other Linux systems.

Only if we can also gatekeep them from using Windows. And games.

Zero chance this will be $250 it’s more powerful than the steam deck.

You'll be hoping for a while. This ain't 2005 anymore.

I would buy it 100% for sure for 250

Linux anti-cheat support means being able to play more games on Linux. You still have the option to not play them.