- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- steamdeck@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- steamdeck@sopuli.xyz
From the article
Microsoft has officially announced its intent to move security measures out of the kernel, following the Crowdstrike disaster a few short months ago. The removal of kernel access for security solutions would likely revolutionise running Windows games on the Steam Deck and other Linux systems.
There was news that battlefield one would stop working because they were implementing fairfight(?) but it’s still working and someone in game chat told me it wasn’t kernel level in battlefield one version of the anti cheat. Any facts to this?
I think FairFight is the old anti-cheat, which at least used to be server side only.
So the best kind of anti cheat? (Does it prevent hackers good?)
It did alright, don’t think I saw that many obvious cheaters in BF1. BF5 would occasionally have obvious cheaters, but I would hope they get banned eventually just because it’s over the top (shooting people through walls, infinite ammo, perfect aim). Difficult to say with more subtle cheats, but I suppose if they’re indistinguishable from players who are just good at the game then I think most people won’t ever notice.
On the flip side I got permabanned from multiplayer in BF5 after EA falsely accused me of cheating, though I suppose that could’ve happened with any kind of anti-cheat, and could’ve been fixed by having half-competent support.
The problem with EA is that they never bothered to moderate their games. In the end you get spinbotters and shit whilst legit players have to deal with rootkits because they’re too stingy to pay for someone to review reports and develop moderation tools.
the Overwatch system in Counterstrike (and a bunch of other tools and policies in tandem with VAC) have been way more effective; I was always more certain that a blatant or suspected cheated would be dealt with in CS than in battlefield.