[Draiken]

> That's why some developers choose not to enable it

That's an excuse. It's mostly incompetence or more often than not the company doesn't think it's worth the effort. With more Linux users, the balance will eventually shift from "fuck them" to "we have to figure out a way".

[johnnyanmac]

Well yeah, it always comes down to money. Even on an indie level Linux support is a commitment.

https://reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/e2ww5s/mike_rose_linux...

Now if you do care about quality, having a committed, technical audience giving quality big reports is a godsend. But that's not where we are this decade rife with layoffs and rampant outsourcing in the industry.

[deaddodo]

You’re posting an argument from 6 years ago. Not including Steam OS, the Linux market share has almost quadrupled since then (to ~3.2%); including Steam OS, it’s up to ~24%. And continues to trend upwards.

You also don’t need to arbitrarily support Linux. It’s not difficult to say “this has only been tested on Fedora, Ubuntu, POP, and SteamOS; other distributions are unsupported officially”.

[int_19h]

Kernel-level anti-cheats are considerably more complicated to make for Linux for obvious reasons like lack of ABI stability in kernel space.

[Draiken]

Most game studios pay someone else to make the anti-cheats and many already have Linux versions that the studios choose to not enable.

Besides, if your anti-cheat only ever looks at the system level, it'll easily be bypassed by hardware cheats. At some point I think anti-cheats will have to "know" the game to be able to detect anomalies. It's the only way to effectively stop many categories of cheats.