Comment by neverkn0wsb357
12 hours ago
Given the current momentum, it feels like (to me) the adage of “Windows is for Games” is going by the wayside.
If you look at Steam, and OSs like Bazzite it’s clear the consumer-side is finally shoring up. But that aside, from an economic incentive, game providers (for example Amazon Luna), don’t want to be paying the licenses for running Windows machines for Video Game Streaming on Demand. In fact, at my time there one of the major thing I worked on was figuring out how to stream the games using Linux + Proton + Vulkan so we could use the AMD machines.
Honestly the biggest hurdle was (and probably still is) Anti-Cheat and BattlEye.
At any rate, I’m personally happy to see this trend as I haven’t had a Windows OS since Windows 7.
>Given the current momentum, it feels like (to me) the adage of “Windows is for Games” is going by the wayside.
I think that games have been a strategic priority for Windows for a very long time. Going all the way back to DOS/4GW on Windows 95. But the impression I get from Microsoft is that they kind of don't want the hassle of maintaining a desktop OS anymore, and they would be happier if everyone went elsewhere.
I think that's the key explanation. Gamers are no longer a mass market user group for microsoft - they target all the casual computer users. Gamers actually want full control of their computer, pay attention to details and care about performance: that's a niche user base, and it's clear why their interests overlap with the linux community: user needs trump everything.
I'm not sure. They put a ton of effort into things like DirectX, were outright anticompetitive against OpenGL, and there was an atypically high degree of competence and vision throughout. It probably wasn't about the games but about tying people to Windows. People didn't make games for Linux because there were no gamers on Linux. There were no gamers on Linux because people didn't make games for Linux.
On top of this, gaming used to be (and probably still is) the main reason to cycle through PCs. If you're just going to browse the web, use relatively low resource software, etc then a PC or even laptop from a decade+ ago is 100% fine. The reason consumers upgrade is going to be heavily weighted by games. And each of those upgrades often comes with new OEM software that was licensed and other economic benefits to Microsoft.
---
As for modern Microsoft, I agree with you from an outsider's perspective, but I'd bet internally it's a different game. Microsoft seems to be having major issues with labor competency, on both the implementation and management side, and it's making their entire ecosystem collapse. Anything that has major outward visibility (like desktop OS) is going to make the circus most immediately visible. I have little doubt they have the same stuff going on internally with their other offerings.
The last few years it has felt like that, Microsoft is more than happy to sell to everyone while also having Windows.
I mean Windows is still a huge cash cow for them and is THE desktop OS but the actions they are taking with it sort of makes it feel like a second class citizen.
> and is THE desktop OS
Part of the problem seems to be that desktop OS use as a whole is cratering as more and more folks who grew up in the smartphone era enter adulthood. Outside of tech circles, I meet a lot of folks who have a phone + tablet but no actual computer...
1 reply →
[dead]
Online multiplayer games keep trying to allow linux users in and keep having to lock them out because there's an instant influx of cheaters.
The Nintendo Switch (which runs Linux) was a favorite of cheaters after jailbreaks came out.
When anyone can compile and run their own kernel with god knows what for modifications, that makes it substantially easier for cheaters and substantially harder for anti-cheat. I don't see that ever changing.
You can't rely on server-side detection either, because some of the cheats are so advanced they go to great lengths to "behave" like a highly skilled human player would with their aiming
The status quo's days are numbered. Online chess shows how.
An AI will play these games like a human but better. The AI can be totally separate from the windows box wearing anti-cheat ankle bracelets just as your brain a separate thing to the windows box when when you play. It can interact with the box via keyboard, mouse or controller.
No windows kernel module is useful in detecting and deterring chess cheating no matter how fanciful or factual the vibrating "device" stories are.
Anti-cheat by kernel module, it's day will be entirely done very soon if it isn't already.
"Any time you beat a computer at a game it let you win." Are we there yet? If not, how long?
Your argument appears to be nihilistic in nature: "don't bother fighting the cheating because it's inevitable." Forgive me, but I won't be giving up that easily. No anti-cheat is perfect, and we're not aiming for perfect. We're aiming for a reduction, and the harder we make cheating, the fewer cheaters there are. If cheating requires special hardware to mimic mouse and keyboard input, that significantly cuts down how many cheaters one will encounter in a given day. I have no doubt that the threat vector here widens and deepens as AI becomes more integrated into our operating systems. That does not mean we should give up or accept cheating as inevitable.
China solved this years ago with mandatory ID verification to play video games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system_for_online_ga...
This was to prevent children from getting addicted but also leads to real life penalties for cheating in video games.
1 reply →
It never was fair to play vs computers in reaction games or skill games.
IE: Quakebots and Fighting games have perfect reaction times and perfect combos. They can simply block perfectly and counter attack perfectly and never drop a combo.
You act like cheating is new to video games??
--------
We never wanted bot in these games. Still don't want them today, and it's a big reason that playing on public boxes (ex: at an arcade or eSports tournament) is still a thing.
Defeating an opponent in a tournament is a big thing for fighting games. The risk of cheating online is always there so online tournaments are simply never taken as seriously (ie: as much $$$$ risked as real life tournaments).
7 replies →
> "Any time you beat a computer at a game it let you win." Are we there yet? If not, how long?
I don't want to beat a computer, I want to beat another person.
>The Nintendo Switch (which runs Linux) was a favorite of cheaters after jailbreaks came out.
If you're saying the Nintendo Switch system software is Linux-based, I don't think that's correct. It's a proprietary system based on a microkernel architecture.
It's proprietary, but they kit bashed a bunch of existing components (iirc, Android's surface flinger, the Nvidia embedded linux drivers, and the freebsd network stack)
I think it's a FreeBSD variant, if I remember correctly.
3 replies →
Nintendo Switch does not run Linux, it runs a proprietary OS called Horizon based on the Nintendo 3DS firmware. Not sure but it might or might not have some BSD code in the network stack or something.
Pretty much everything uses BSD source code in the network stack, including Windows, so that much is a safe assumption, but there's far more that the Switch is using. According to the copyright notice, it uses the FreeBSD kernel. This tracks with reported use of BSD jails, which are part of the BSD kernel.
> You can't rely on server-side detection either, because some of the cheats are so advanced they go to great lengths to "behave" like a highly skilled human player would with their aiming
Shouldn't that be the goal of anti cheat? That cheating is indistinguishable from expert gameplay? Seems to me like these companies are just trying to avoid implementing proper infallible server-authoritative gameplay by offloading the cheat detection to the untrustworthy client, and then trying to lock down the client to make it trustworthy.
All these games already have an authoritative server. These cheaters aren't breaking the rules of the game by being invincible, super speedy, etc. they're aim-botting and wall hacking. Those cheats can't be prevented with authoritative networking.
7 replies →
What is the problem with cheating or bots really?
I feel that the solution is just to have a decent ranking/level system so that users play with other people, cheaters, bots or regular users of the same level. When I was playing mario kart with my 5y old daughter, I didn't mind she had access to helps to not run out of the road as it allowed us to play together. I don't see how different it is between say, a super skilled player, and a lower skilled player with cheat/assists. If cheating/assists system becomes so efficient, cheaters will just end up playing together and non cheater will have got rid of them and play between non cheater of similar level. Prolem solved. No?
The Nintendo Switch runs a custom operating system codenamed HorizonOS.
I was going to say. There's no way Nintendo would be caught dead with GPL anything, even GPLv2.
i am really doubting that Nintendo Switch uses Linux?... they would have to provide source code no?
Only to the kernel. And only if they patched it. Kernel modules don't count as patches. This is how myriad android vendors get out of providing source. But no, the switch doesn't use linux afaik.
And yet there's plenty of competitive multiplayer shooters that work fine on Linux. Rivals, The Finals, deadlock, CS2, Overwatch, Hunt Showdown, etc.
EA did a big announcement about switching to kernel level Anti-Cheat for Battlefield 6 to combat cheating, yet there's still plenty of cheaters around. It's looking more and more like an excuse in order to give the appearance of combating cheating.
Nah.
Linux is still too bloody awful for power users, never mind the median gamer.
Most Linux usage is SteamOS which only barely counts.
It’s a great hedge that keeps Windows almost honest. But we’re a long long long long long <breathe> long long long ways from the median gaming PC being Linux.
If you call yourself a power user and cannot use Linux properly, you are not a power user.
I am really curious: what is your definition of a power user.
Double clicking an icon real fast and be the last 10 players consistently in a public match of fortnite. That's a true power user.
What do you consider a power user? Because I'd consider an OS that refuses to let you do what you want, and constantly reverts your customisation, the opposite of power user friendly.
We're a long way not because Linux cannot do it. We're a long way because publishers refuse to take it serious.
I'd bet even more Linux usage is ChromeOS which even more barely counts, and certainly both are dwarfed by Android which simply doesn't count.
How are these statements compatible?
Like if most linux usage is SteamOS that suggests its good for gamers right?
And that all any other distro has to do, is target SteamOS in terms of gaming usability?
SteamOS is Linux.
Linux is for power users. Windows 10 with Powertoys and WSL for stuff like yt-dlp is a fine stopgap, but you can get the same workflow on Linux with a leaner system.
I never installed Windows 11 on any of my PCs, there's no place for it in my work or gaming regimen. If Linux is supposed to keep Windows honest, then some dev at Microsoft must have a Pinocchio nose.
The problem is that Windows power users arrive on Linux and think they know what they're doing, when in reality they don't know up from down. Very basic things like norms about user confirmation and warnings are frequent stumbling blocks.¹
Windows power users expect their habits and instincts to be right and treat the system as broken wherever they aren't. After all, they "know computers"! So when one of them hits a snag, even if it would have been avoided by heeding a system's warnings, reading the documentation, or adhering to its norms, they declare (for others to repeat) things like "Linux isn't (ready) for power users".
--
1: Windows power users arrive to Linux with a mixture of incredible fatigue from pop-ups and blindness to all interruptions. They are used to mindlessly batting away constant notifications and distractions. They are also used to a host of familiar warnings that they know are bullshit, and reflexively ignore. But the warnings on Linux systems are not the warnings they know. They don't actually know what they mean or which are safe. To the point that their blindness to warnings becomes outright comical, as in this infamous example: https://i.imgur.com/J39WfLK.png
2 replies →