As Epic Games continue ignoring Linux / Steam Deck for Fortnite they're putting it on Windows Arm

@hardpenguin That "mystery" is called Micro$oft...

@finaldest If that is true, why would you choose Epic over GOG, since GOG sell games that let you own it for life? They both have open source launchers, they both have popular storefronts, but Epic offers the same licensing as Steam where you don't actually own the game just a license to play it.

@poiuz I'm sorry I guess your memory is rather hazy regarding how much time, money, and effort Valve have put into Linux improvements as a whole. This is from just over 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/zopqs3/valve_is_paying_100_opensource_developers_to_work/

Valve is Paying 100+ Open-Source Developers to work on Linux Technologies

See except for the recent The Verge interview with Valve.

Griffais says the company is also directly paying more than 100 open-source developers to work on the Proton compatibility layer, the Mesa graphics driver, and Vulkan, among other tasks like Steam for Linux and Chromebooks.

This is how Linux gaming has been able to narrow the gap with Windows by investing millions of dollars a year in improvements.

https://www.theverge.com/23499215/valve-steam-deck-interview-late-2022

The addition of Proton is in fact so significant that before Valve releasing it, you had to run the entire Steam application with WINE if you wanted to play Windows games with any decent reliability. Times were wild.

I think it is worth mentioning that most games have worked on Windows ARM either day one or after a couple of Snapdragon driver patches, anyway, without need of support from the developer. It's just the usual suspects, Fortnite and Valorant and League of Legends and perhaps PUBG and their shenanigans, that give trouble as they give trouble also in Linux.

If that is true, why would you choose Epic over GOG, since GOG sell games that let you own it for life? They both have open source launchers, they both have popular storefronts, but Epic offers the same licensing as Steam where you don't actually own the game just a license to play it.

GOG also only sells you a licence to play it - that's how software works. It's exactly the same if you buy a physical copy, for that matter.

not defending epic on this one but some devs dont trust linux because cheaters can modify the kernel to break anticheat. the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

not defending epic on this one but some devs dont trust linux because cheaters can modify the kernel to break anticheat. the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

It's not the only solution, just the one that they prefer.

GOG also only sells you a licence to play it - that's how software works. It's exactly the same if you buy a physical copy, for that matter.

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it. https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/gog-reminds-everyone-why-they-should-buy-games-there-and-not-steam-or-epic-games

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it.

No they do not. They neither have ownership of the games, nor can they sell that ownership to you. You are licensed to use the games, and they are authorised to sell that licence to you. They reserve the right to remove all the games from your library.

We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog


Last edited by CatKiller on 15 Mar 2025 at 7:30 pm UTC

the only real solution for that is verified boot with a signature whitelist. that would mean you can only play on popular distros with one of their official kernels but its better than nothing

No. The only working solution would be to design the games to be cheat-resilient in the first place, under the assumption that the client cannot be trusted at any time. This notion that a game developer would somehow be able to wrest control of a PC from its very owner is ridiculous. People who think that ever works don't really understand security.

My assumption is Arm laptops are going to become the norm for reasonably powerful and cheap school aged users. Therefore Epic wants to support Arm devices simply to retain access to children with a parent's credit card.

GOG sells you an actual lifetime ownership license. The publisher cannot remove the game from your library once you buy it.

No they do not. They neither have ownership of the games, nor can they sell that ownership to you. You are licensed to use the games, and they are authorised to sell that licence to you. They reserve the right to remove all the games from your library.

We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog

They say it right at the bottom of that paragraph and elaborate further down. It's for personal use, and if required, like if you're caught reselling your copy, they can of course deny further access. But a Publisher can't just revoke your license "just because" or if they're shutting down the game.

Also they're referring to your GOG library, and nothing short of sending law enforcement to confiscate your hardware can deny you access to any games you've already downloaded. Once they're on your computer, and if they're DRM-free, it's yours to keep.


Last edited by wytrabbit on 16 Mar 2025 at 3:27 am UTC

But a Publisher can't just revoke your license "just because" or if they're shutting down the game.

Yes, they can.

Also they're referring to your GOG library, and nothing short of sending law enforcement to confiscate your hardware can deny you access to any games you've already downloaded. Once they're on your computer, and if they're DRM-free, it's yours to keep.

I'm sure you'll agree that "they probably won't bother to come to your house" is an entirely different kettle of fish to the total ownership that you were claiming earlier. GOG is no different legally to Epic, Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo, nor anyone else that sells you a licence to use software.

Oh ok, so if they revoke a license how are they going to stop you from playing then?

Oh ok, so if they revoke a license how are they going to stop you from playing then?

I think that is not the question here... That way you can argue you can always download a pirate torrent mirror of the game in question (same file checksum, everything) to always be able to play it...

A pirate torrent does not provide you with a receipt.. I may no longer have access to it in my library, but I will always have a digital receipt to prove I paid for the product.

I think that @CatKiller and @wytrabbit are arguing at cross-purposes here.

@CatKiller is correct in the interpretation that the user is purchasing a license to use the software (in this case, to play the game), not actual ownership of the software. This is the same no matter which digital game store (Epic, Steam, GOG, etc.) you purchase the license (or key, if you will) from. I suspect that the point @CatKiller is trying to make is that the customer is purchasing the license not the software itself.

However, I feel that @CatKiller is being technical and, IMO, is wilfully ignoring the point @wytrabbit is trying to make. I wonder, did @CatKiller read the article that @wytrabbit linked to? GOG's primary point was as follows:

GOG's big selling point that more people should shout about is that it sells games DRM-free. When you buy a game on GOG, you get access to an offline installer for it, which you can use to install and play your games even in the event a license for it ends. It essentially uncouples the license from the game and lets you have some actual ownership of the things you buy.

Even in the event a license for it ends ...
In essence, GOG is not only selling you a license but also a backup installer that is not dependent on the digital store to function, much like the physical CD/DVD we used to get when purchasing at a brick & mortar store. Just as Developer-X cannot prevent me from installing from a DRM-free CD/DVD, Developer-Y cannot prevent me from using a DRM-free offline installer for the same purpose. While, technically, this is not ownership of the software it is, effectively, a perpetual right to install and play the game.

In the end, @wytrabbit and @CatKiller are both right. You are just looking at the issue from different angles and arguing over semantics.

However, I feel that @CatKiller is being technical and, IMO, is wilfully ignoring the point @wytrabbit is trying to make.

No, they simply have no point. Buying from GOG doesn't give you magical ownership. Their claim that it does was just wrong. There is no legal difference between buying from GOG or Epic (their initial examples), nor from Steam, nor anywhere else. There is no practical difference between buying from GOG and buying a DRM-free game on Steam, and piracy.

@CatKiller
On alternate solutions to anti-cheat compatibility with anti-cheat.
I've been thinking about it and doing research.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but you still get my proposed solutions.

1. Linktime ASLR(adress space layout randomization). This one is the most research based and the most "open". Most cheats work by mapping out the memory offsets of the program and using these to find the data and code they want to edit. This could be fixed by shipping different memory offsets. In theory all that is needed for this is an advanced linker script and relinking the code every time you ship a binary.
Attackers could still edit one binary and ship it to their customers, but a. that would upgrade their activity to copyright infringement(cheating is arguably legal, since you don't actually copy any code or assets and just modify what the vendor provided) and b. that is easily countered by giving each shipped version a random id and blocking the ones spotted too often from too many different ips at the same time.

There is no security through obscurity in this entire story, so publishing the source code wouldn't harm its effectiveness and you don't even harm individual modders that much.
2. Trusted KASLR(Kernel adress space layout randomization). KASLR is an individual Linux feature that as long it's not compromised should keep more cheaters away than the entire closedness of Windows. It's pretty Linux specific and its aimed goal is to keep hacked compromised kernel code from effectively accessing parts of the kernel it didn't need access to at compile time. It's not perfect, but much better than anything Apple or Microsoft offers. The problem is that it operates purely on your computer and as such you can read and edit it completely.
If you give something with root access the KASLR seed it can check if it has behaved like KASLR should behave, but also compromise KASLR.
The seed also changes every reboot.
I've thought up a protocol through which one can make the KASLR seed predictable only for parties with access to one of all seeds used after initializing it for this protocol, which maintains all the other security guarantees of KASLR, allowing Kernel level anti-cheat providers to provide their own initializing seed and theoretically checking for correct KASLR at their leisure.
The problem is that if one can observe during system boot the seed is used and can thus be extracted.
My hypothesis is that running this initialization step in a trusted execution environment or using homeomorphic encryption could bypass this problem.


Something both these solution have in common is that they're actually better than signed kernels, because they could work even if the entire firmware stack is controlled by the owner of the device.

3. Measured boot could work.


EDIT:
a drawback to solution 1 is that it's platform agnostic and might thus not be such a convincing argument to allow Linux to play a game.
The advantage is that it's the most "open" and vendor trusting solution.


Last edited by LoudTechie on 16 Mar 2025 at 6:49 pm UTC

@LoudTechie The thing is, their hardcore anti-tamper approach is looking at the wrong thing. You don't really care what kernel someone is using, you care what it does. So ship a cheat with your game and see if it works. Use the namespaces and process isolation that Linux already has for srs bsns for the game itself. Have a small eBPF or whatever cheat program and see if it can break those protections. If it can't, you're good to go. If someone has altered and recompiled their kernel to let cheats work then your cheat will work, which you can detect.