Apex Legends is taking away its support for the Steam Deck and Linux

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Anti-cheat approach and Linux/Steam Deck

  • Many see kernel-level anti-cheat and secure-boot-style chains as effectively rootkits that grant game vendors deep control over user machines; this feels coercive and hostile to users.
  • Others argue most players want strong anti-cheat and don’t care about implementation details as long as cheating is minimized.
  • Linux is portrayed by anti-cheat vendors as “too open” (modifiable kernel, custom distros), enabling purpose-built cheating environments. Some commenters note these are features, not bugs, and that client security shouldn’t be sacrificed.
  • A few suggest Valve could ship a hardened, anti-cheat-focused SteamOS variant, while others value the Deck’s openness and don’t want it locked down.

Dedicated/community servers vs centralized matchmaking

  • One camp advocates old-school, community-hosted servers: smaller communities, hands-on moderation, social accountability, and less need for intrusive anti-cheat.
  • Another camp stresses modern expectations: instant “Find Match,” fair skill-based matchmaking, persistent rankings, and 24/7 availability that centralized systems better provide.
  • Several note community servers can suffer from poor moderation, power-hungry admins, and inconsistent availability; others counter with examples of long-lived, well-run servers even today.

Impact of cheating on gameplay

  • Strong consensus that widespread cheating destroys competitive games, especially battle royales and ranked modes where a single aimbot can invalidate 20+ minutes of play.
  • Some older players recall occasional cheaters as tolerable or even “funny”; others say scale and sophistication have changed, turning many sessions into obvious losses and driving them away from games.
  • Account bans are seen as weak in free-to-play ecosystems where cheaters easily create or buy new accounts.

Technical feasibility of anti-cheat methods

  • Proposed alternatives include:
    • Community servers plus social moderation.
    • Server-side analysis, statistical models, demo review, Overwatch-style systems, delayed ban waves.
    • Minimizing client knowledge (occlusion/visibility on server), though commenters note latency and lag-compensation constraints.
  • There is disagreement over whether server-side methods are cheaper or more expensive than client rootkits, and whether they can distinguish elite play from “humanized” cheats.
  • Some highlight hardware/external cheats (FPGA boards, AI via cameras or signal taps) that bypass client anti-cheat entirely.

Economic and policy dimensions

  • Several argue kernel anti-cheat protects not just fairness but monetization models (microtransactions, cosmetic scarcity, esports).
  • Others frame this as part of the broader trend: every online pastime (games, videos, forums) being aggressively monetized, reducing “fun.”
  • Some call for legal action against cheat sellers; one link is shared to a lawsuit used as a positive example.

Alternative competitive models

  • Fighting game community is cited as a partial template: online is for practice; serious, high-stakes competition remains offline with controlled hardware/software.
  • A few speculate longer-term about server-side rendering/game streaming as a way to eliminate client-side cheating—at the cost of ownership and control.