EAC is also spyware which installs a Kernel driver with privileged access. Valve's VAC works fine without this invasive tech.

VAC doesn't work fine. For the last 18 months, TF2 has been infested with aimbots that make the game unplayable on any public server.

That doesn't mean it should be more invasive, but it doesn't work fine.

Considering the complete lack of attention TF2 gets from valve I wouldn't consider it a fair reflection of VAC's effectiveness. It had been infested for ages before a media outcry about the bigoted chat spam finally spurred valve into action, yet all they did was ban f2p accounts from using chat.

I don't play CS that much but afaik aimbots are there as well. I know that it has manual reports/user review systems so I imagine VAC is not effective as an automated tool

Counter-Strike has a bunch of anti-cheat systems, but they solve different problems (VAC, Overwatch, Prime Matchmaking, and VACNet). These systems all work together and I'd say it's pretty effective. TF2 could do with the same.

But my original point is that you don't need Kernel based spyware to do anti-cheat.

And it's not effective at all unfortunately. CS at global elite is unplayable because of cheaters.

CSGO is unplayable at global elite too because of cheaters.

VAC also does not work under Proton:

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3225

I found this in the article:

> EAC or other anti-cheat technology

What does the E stand for here?

OK I googled for the various other community members that don't know this particular acronym:

https://www.easy.ac/en-us/

Still never heard of it beyond this reference, but I assume it's a part of some popular games? (Scroll down on page above to see.) They list Fortnite but I thought that used something with a different name. Battleye? Do these games use multiple anti-cheats?!

Fortnite in particular does use both Battleye and EAC.

What is EAC? Exact Audio Copy? Some sort of protection?

> Exact Audio Copy

Someone knows his plextor

Sounds like an anti-cheat software, maybe?

Easy Anti Cheat

There has been some success in just implementing more missing Windows APIs that EAC needed. This allowed a few titles with EAC to run.

EAC will update themselves each time a public method to defeat them is published since this is exactly what you would do if you wanted to run a cheat.

Making wine compatible with EAC is very different than making an EAC bypass. The end goal is for EAC to be able to do the same checks as it could as when running on Windows.

How can EAC trust/verify anything that comes from an operating system that anyone can modify/compile themselves?

I really think we need to get out of the habit of calling game developers 'Lazy', especially for an industry that is famous, notorious even, for overwork and crunching.

I think it would be fairer to say that it doesn't get prioritised, especially over anti-features such as microtransactions, DRM or things of that ilk. Calling them lazy is disrespectful, hurtful and betrays a lack of understanding of the development process and the industry at large.

It doesn't help that game dev (IMO) is literally the most difficult software development possible:

- massive front-end visual dev, both static and animation, that often require logistics and endless fiddling to get it just right - hefty back-end dev, especially when dealing with massive latency questions (e.g., MMOs) and calculations (e.g., 4X strat) - audio design that must sync with graphical elements - on top of all that, higher standards for input syncing to video output than almost any other type of app

...and then overworked and crunch-time to top it all. I'm amazed that we're even getting finished games these days now that devs can sell a near-playable v0.6 as "Early Access"!

To not enable a feature that EAC explicitly provides and would allow people to use a product, and that requires almost no additional work (since it's not linux support in general, just EAC linux support), I consider to be lazy. Although, it's probably a mgmt decision, not a dev decision.

I understand linux support takes time and it usually isn't worth it. But this is just flipping a switch from what I've heard.

I think flipping the flag is likely not the only amount of work. Support will at the very least involve customer support, legal, marketing, sales etc. Dev effort to enable is likely not a factor in their reasoning to not support the platform.

Even then, I would be reluctant to call it institutional laziness. Businesses strive for efficiency. Can not doing a high cost thing be called laziness? Sure, but I think it's still disingenuous and misrepresents the issue.