Support us on Patreon
PayPalWere you hoping to easily play Fortnite on the upcoming Steam Deck? Well, Tim Sweeney the Epic Games CEO has made it clear that it's not going to happen officially. The thing to remember right now is that both Easy Anti-Cheat and BattlEye do support Linux. Both for native Linux builds and for Windows games run through Steam Play Proton. However, it's all user-space with no Kernel modules.
On Twitter, user Stormy178 asked if there were plans to make Fortnite compatible with Steam Play Proton to which Sweeney replied:
Fortnite no, but there's a big effort underway to maximize Easy Anti Cheat compatibility with Steam Deck.
The questioning continued and when asked why, Sweeney followed up with:
We don’t have confidence that we’d be able to combat cheating at scale under a wide array of kernel configurations including custom ones.
Another user mentioned it seemed that Epic's CEO didn't trust their own product, Sweeney obviously couldn't let that remain unanswered with:
With regard to anti-cheat on the Linux platform supporting custom kernels and the threat model to a game of Fortnite's size, YES THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!
In a number of ways, he's actually right. Windows is closed source, so is the NT Kernel and usually 99% of drivers for it are too. Client-side anti-cheat obviously relies a lot on security by obscurity, so people can't see everything it's doing. This is part of the problem on Linux, where the Kernel and practically all development on it is done right out in the open and it changes rapidly. Developing anti-cheat against such an open Kernel probably isn't going to be even remotely easy. There will be ways though, especially if something like the Steam Deck had a fully signed Kernel and some sort of guarantee it's being used - probably numerous ways smarter people know of.
Really though, overall it doesn't give a lot of confidence for developers who might be looking to hook up their anti-cheat ready for their games to work on the Steam Deck.
The big difference it seems, is the size of the playerbase and how much of a target each game is. Sweeney is not saying it's not suitable as a whole, just that Fortnite is a massive target for cheaters:
The threat model for anti-cheat varies per game based on the number of active players and ability to gain profit by selling cheats or gain prominence by cheating. Hence anti-cheat which suffices for one game may not for another game with 10, 100, or 1000 times more players.
One user followed up by suggesting it was just a case of Sweeney not wanting Fortnite on a "rival's platform", to which Sweeney gave this answer:
Epic would be happy to put Fortnite on Steam. We wouldn't be happy to give Steam 20-30% of its revenue for the privilege. Supporting Steam Deck hardware is a separate issue, but the market for non-Steam-hosted games on limited availability Steam Deck hardware is how big exactly?
With that in mind, you're going to need Windows or to stream it via GeForce NOW on the Steam Deck. At least for games without such anti-cheat, you should be able to use the Heroic Games Launcher on the Steam Deck.
It does mean there's space open for another game to take its place on the Steam Deck officially.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: dvdAnticheat is so dumb. It's just like DRM... The only thing that reliable stops cheating is a paywall??? Paying gamers don't cheat, is that the logic here?
AntiCheat is not a tool against piracy, it's against cheating. Aim bots, texture alterations, value tampering, tampered collusion detection, everything that is running client side that the server depends on being legit. It really has zero to do with DRM.
Last edited by Beamboom on 9 February 2022 at 1:22 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Tim Swe
Clearly his comment will hurt the confidence of other Studio when activating Proton support.
This is a very bad communication that's undermining Valve's efforts.
Quoting: CorbenHow about learning to fix it? What use does EAC have if it's compatible with Wine/Linux but it's not safely protecting from cheating?
Thank's Tim for destroying any hopes for games using this POS (piece of software :P) to be running on Linux.
I can't believe it... this statement renders all efforts from Valve bringing these games to Linux or the Deck worthless...
Clearly his comment will hurt the confidence of other Studio when activating Proton support.
This is a very bad communication that's undermining Valve's efforts.
4 Likes, Who?
On the one hand, Fortnite isn't big loss. On the other hand - spreading such fear is just bullshit. The same bullshit as the claim they would have to give valve 20-30% - it's not apple, if you have your own payment option ingame, 0% of that goes to valve (if i'm not completely mistaken).
It's always the same with Tim's tweets: best to ignore them as 99% is either useless bullshit or fearmongering bullshit...
It's always the same with Tim's tweets: best to ignore them as 99% is either useless bullshit or fearmongering bullshit...
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CorbenHow about learning to fix it? What use does EAC have if it's compatible with Wine/Linux but it's not safely protecting from cheating?
Thank's Tim for destroying any hopes for games using this POS (piece of software :P) to be running on Linux.
I can't believe it... this statement renders all efforts from Valve bringing these games to Linux or the Deck worthless...
That's the whole point, it can't be fixed. It isn't even really working right now. What he says is correct. Windows has a limited set of binaries coming from Microsoft and other driver developers. The Linux kernel can be configured in any number of ways that lead to a near infinite number of possible binaries. And if you rely on knowing what is there, then you have an unsolvable problem.
Whether all this actually leads to a "working" anti-cheat is highly debatable. It is well known that neither EAC, nor BE prevent cheating entirely. Which makes it soft of like a barrier. The higher the barrier, the more skill it takes to get around it and the fewer people that will actually bother. And as he said, this does depend on what "value" can be gained by doing so. This also explains why the native versions of AC (which do not get root access), are rated as a lower form of anti-cheat than their windows counterparts. This was never going to change, even with the work that Valve was doing.
In the end, the only solution that would satisfy the creators of client side anti-cheat would be to have some sort of a signed Linux system that they can get root access to. While this might work for the Steam Deck, I doubt many of us would tolerate that. So until it is fully demonstrated that client side anti-cheat is ineffective, even as a barrier, we'll be out of luck.
6 Likes, Who?
When windows 8.1 and the microsoft store system came out, Tim Sweeney said it will kill the video game industry, and then he follows that exact pattern to try to kill video game industry with epic store, and when an opportunity arise to get out of this system he just doesn't get involved.
10 Likes, Who?
Well, he could just release a native version of Fortnite, so he doesn’t have to deal with the insecurities from proton/wine.
9 Likes, Who?
Dribbleondo Feb 8, 2022
Quoting: JahimselfWhen windows 8.1 and the microsoft store system came out, Tim Sweeney said it will kill the video game industry, and then he follows that exact pattern to try to kill video game industry with epic store, and when an opportunity arise to get out of this system he just doesn't get involved.
That is...an amazing leap in logic. If memory serves, they were against UWP apps and all the issues that entails; proprietary ways of making games that aren't easily distributable in other stores bar the Microsoft store and Xbox, acting like a form of DRM. Not surprisingly, this caused a lot of backlash, and Sweeney was not the only one against UWP and Mike's store. I remember the Linux community also complaining, rightly, that UWP acts as DRM to lock games to one platform and OS; Windows. Microsoft, in a rare sense of self-awareness, course corrected and UWP was scaled back to be more about leveraging Xbox and PC cross-compatibility, which has garnered more favorable press.
The epic store by comparison is an underfeatured launcher which has exclusives that only stop the game being on steam, and nowhere else. It can be on GOG, Microsoft Store, other consoles, just not Steam. It's not even in the same ballpark for comparisons, and that is in no way killing the videogame industry, if anything forcing players to use multiple storefronts reinvigorates a once-stagnant scene. Say what you want about the method, but it did have an effect.
Last edited by Dribbleondo on 8 February 2022 at 10:40 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: EhvisIn the end, the only solution that would satisfy the creators of client side anti-cheat would be to have some sort of a signed Linux system that they can get root access to.Not really. I mean, that's what they want to do, because that's what they do on Windows, and having your application running all the time gets you valuable marketing and metrics. But userspace applications under Linux can have secure enclaves that are hidden from other applications, from the kernel, from hypervisors, whatever. They don't need kernel-level client-side anti-cheat; they just want it.
13 Likes, Who?
> Epic would be happy to put Fortnite on Steam. We wouldn't be happy to give Steam 20-30% of its revenue for the privilege.
Fortnite is F2P, so...
Yes, I know there are in-app purchases, but I'm pretty sure* there's a way to route them away from steam.
When there's a will, there's a way. Clearly there is no will here.
And it's no wonder, epic has been trying hard (and failing miserably) to compete with steam and putting their flagship product on steam would be like an ultimate surrender. Of course he won't admit it, but then why even say that they "would be happy to put Fortnite on Steam"?
All in all I am inclined to think that his whole communication is just slithering between lies and half-truths.
(*) I may be confidently wrong here ;-)
Last edited by pb on 8 February 2022 at 10:41 am UTC
Fortnite is F2P, so...
Yes, I know there are in-app purchases, but I'm pretty sure* there's a way to route them away from steam.
When there's a will, there's a way. Clearly there is no will here.
And it's no wonder, epic has been trying hard (and failing miserably) to compete with steam and putting their flagship product on steam would be like an ultimate surrender. Of course he won't admit it, but then why even say that they "would be happy to put Fortnite on Steam"?
All in all I am inclined to think that his whole communication is just slithering between lies and half-truths.
(*) I may be confidently wrong here ;-)
Last edited by pb on 8 February 2022 at 10:41 am UTC
6 Likes, Who?
Doc Angelo Feb 8, 2022
Quoting: tpauhow about tuning the match making system in a way that rapidly pita people with a normal skill against each other?
Good people are challenged and cheaters remain mostly amongst each other.
This right there. This is how it should work. We know that there are very well working match making systems. But sadly, the game industry seems to have lost the knowledge how to implement well working systems.
Or... it's that they found out how to abuse match making to make more bucks with their in game store. Sounds ridiculous and over the top. It indeed does, and I wouldn't have believed it - if Activision wouldn't have applied for a patent with literally this functionality, described in plain English for everyone to see.
2 Likes, Who?
Doc Angelo Feb 8, 2022
Quoting: DribbleondoHow is he using lies in this situation? Fortnite is popular, the threat model he describes makes a lot of sense.
He is stating that his anti cheat solution works good for games with less players, but it's bad for games with many players. How does this make sense to you? How about this: "My product is bad for your health, but luckily not a lot of people are using it, so it's not really bad for most people!"
It's stupid. It's so stupid that you know he's hiding something, because we know he's not stupid and actually believes this crap. That's how I know he's lying. Sadly, as you can see, many people fall for this kind of argument tactic.
Quotenot everything he says is untrue
That's also a good example. You are of course correct that not everything he says is untrue. But I didn't say that, and I'm sure nobody ever said something ridiculous like that, so I'm not sure why you're arguing against a position that nobody expressed.
7 Likes, Who?
AussieEevee Feb 8, 2022
The way I see it is... if you cannot prevent cheating without a kernel level driver, then you are a failure as a games developer. I'm sorry, but the only things that mess with my kernel are me, the OS, and viruses. What is Fortnite? It's not me or the OS... Therefore it must be a virus.
11 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Feb 8, 2022
QuoteWith regard to anti-cheat on the Linux platform supporting custom kernels and the threat model to a game of Fortnite's size, YES THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!
Quotebut the market for non-Steam-hosted games on limited availability Steam Deck hardware is how big exactly?
Oh dear, that paradox again. He's worried about a big influx of cheaters from a negligibly small market?
Lots of cheating or tiny market. You can't use both excuses at the same time.
14 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CatKillerQuoting: EhvisIn the end, the only solution that would satisfy the creators of client side anti-cheat would be to have some sort of a signed Linux system that they can get root access to.Not really. I mean, that's what they want to do, because that's what they do on Windows, and having your application running all the time gets you valuable marketing and metrics. But userspace applications under Linux can have secure enclaves that are hidden from other applications, from the kernel, from hypervisors, whatever. They don't need kernel-level client-side anti-cheat; they just want it.
Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself now? Why would a company that believes in the value of client side anti cheat want their system hidden from the kernel? That goes against their philosophy.
Quoting: rustybroomhandleOh dear, that paradox again. He's worried about a big influx of cheaters from a negligibly small market?
If it works and money can be made, it would grow quickly among cheaters. Do any of us really want to see Linux gaming grow "that" way?
0 Likes
Quote"It does mean there's space open for another game to take its place on the Steam Deck officially."
I keep hearing whispers of that game being Apex Legends. Sure hope it's true!
0 Likes
rustybroomhandle Feb 8, 2022
Quoting: EhvisIf it works and money can be made, it would grow quickly among cheaters. Do any of us really want to see Linux gaming grow "that" way?
No, I am just saying that his logic is contradicting itself.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EhvisAren't you kind of arguing against yourself now? Why would a company that believes in the value of client side anti cheat want their system hidden from the kernel? That goes against their philosophy.No. You've got your Windows application doing things that you want to keep secret. Cheats move to kernel space, so they can keep looking at (and changing) your application. So you move part of your application to kernel space. So the cheats run your application (and Windows) in a VM, so the hypervisor can keep looking at (and changing) your application. So you move your application to its own VM with your own hypervisor. And so on.
On Linux, you don't really need to do that, because there are people in the Linux space (such as, say, Amazon) that are quite keen on keeping one user's application isolated from another user's application, and from their infrastructure.
Tim's claim is that you can't trust Linux users because they might have compiled their own cheating kernel (like Windows users are able to create their own cheating kernel space drivers) so you want to hide your secrets from a potentially untrustworthy kernel.
Last edited by CatKiller on 8 February 2022 at 11:18 am UTC
5 Likes, Who?
I don't understand... at this point most people don't need native Linux support or stellar Proton support. Just tick the damn checkbox that enables EAC under Proton and the community will take it from there! If the EAC team created that solution and released to all developers, why would that be insecure? He said that they would have to "support different kernels", but they don't have to support anything! He is just stubborn and don't want his precious game available to a few more thousand players. This guy is just a waste of our time :P
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: dvdAnticheat is so dumb. It's just like DRM... The only thing that reliable stops cheating is a paywall, but that of course would destroy games like fortnite. The only remotely acceptable anticheat is VAC anyway. That one doesn't need access to your credit card either.
I don't know if a paywall is the only way, but you are right about it being similar to DRM. Sweeney is basically saying it's not in his financial interest to make it work. People defending him are saying he's right, but being right about the technical limitations doesn't preclude him from finding another method. It's all about money.
The question is, how badly do you want to play Fortnite? If you had to provide your government ID and a face scan to match, would you? That way if people report you for cheating, your real life self could get banned. There are other methods besides AC software that can discourage cheating, but Epic would have to be willing to try them. But to quote a famous rapper, "If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense," and Epic is all about that money.
4 Likes, Who?
ewertonurias Feb 8, 2022
Why am I not surprised?
Tim Sweeney has already shown to be averse to linux when it comes to games, I believe this will not change.
Tim Sweeney has already shown to be averse to linux when it comes to games, I believe this will not change.
2 Likes, Who?
See more from me