EA Appears To Be Permanently Banning Linux Players On Battlefield V 130
Many users have taken to the Lutris Forums to report that EA is permanently banning Linux players on Battlefield V. "Good friends, finally after some time without being able to play Battlefield V for Linux, this week I was using lutris-4.21, I was having fun when my anti-cheat, FairFight, blew me out of the game, so I was banned," writes one user. "As I was not using any cheating, I think the anti-cheat considered dxvk or the table layer that used at the time as cheating..." Another user said the "same problem" happened to them, and they "got banned on tuesday for cheating."
While some users await a response from EA, others have received an email confirming the action that was taken on their account. "... After thoroughly investigating your account and concern, we found that your account was actioned correctly and will not remove this sanction from your account," the email states.
We've seen this happen on multiple occasions with Blizzard, but they eventually fixed the problem the first time. In a comment on Hacker News, user jchw writes: "Anti-cheat software is an absolute shit show of cat-and-mouse tactics. It's often difficult to distinguish anti-cheat software from rootkits or spyware. They're invasive and user hostile, and they frequently cause collateral damage that is swept under the rug and that support tacitly refuses to acknowledge..."
While some users await a response from EA, others have received an email confirming the action that was taken on their account. "... After thoroughly investigating your account and concern, we found that your account was actioned correctly and will not remove this sanction from your account," the email states.
We've seen this happen on multiple occasions with Blizzard, but they eventually fixed the problem the first time. In a comment on Hacker News, user jchw writes: "Anti-cheat software is an absolute shit show of cat-and-mouse tactics. It's often difficult to distinguish anti-cheat software from rootkits or spyware. They're invasive and user hostile, and they frequently cause collateral damage that is swept under the rug and that support tacitly refuses to acknowledge..."
Well then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Well then. (Score:3)
EA is merging together with SCO, Oracle, Comcast, and the New England Patriots.
Re: (Score:2)
There are too many games in the world to play them all anyways, it is worth choosing what best suits your lifestyle instead of just buying every game that is on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
A broader problem that people are missing is that, for the most part, we're not allowed to run our own servers anymore. If game companies would run their official ones with their anti-cheat shit and everything else, but still offer us the ability to run our own servers, all would be well. We could turn off the anti-cheat stuff or set up our own, and the average player could just use the official servers and not join any custom ones.
People running an unsupported OS or mods would be free to join the unofficia
Re: (Score:2)
Agree completely. EA has demonstrated so many times that it is willing to screw you any way it can to make a buck. Why support that? As has been said, there's so many other games out there worth playing, so play them instead. And if you can't find one that suits you, build it yourself!
Re:Well then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but...people want to play EA games. It's not an either/or choice, it's a "I want to have my cake and eat it too" non-choice.
It most certainly is a choice, no one is required to play a game to live. People want to play EA games, and you said it right in the second sentence. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is a desire -- a choice -- not a requirement, or non-choice, as you put it.
You have to understand that choosing to withdraw yourself isn't a realistic option. I wish it was, but we're dealing with humans here.
How is choosing to withdraw not a realistic option? It's a game, for gods sake, no one is required, no one is forced, and no one will die if they don't play. If it's that much of a deal to play this particular game, they the choice is simple -- give up Linux and run Windows. Or, you know, seek some professional help if a game has that much of a control on your life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can play my shooters on a console with mouse+keyboard? If so, we can talk. But if I have to play with these ridiculous controllers and accept the existence of aimbots (sorry, "aim assist") to have any kind of remote chance to hit something, sorry, no sale.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that playing games is a choice. However, it just so happens to be my hobby, and I am disinclined to go and change my hobby when all in all, gaming works.
One of my hobbies is woodworking. I don't complain that my lathe won't help me mold a piece of lumber into the bookshelf I'm trying to build, I use the proper tool(s) to do that or I change the item I'm making and make a vase. Simple choice there, and your choice is just as simple. If you want to play EA games, you have to use Windows or a console to do so with any continuity. EA has demonstrated time and time again that they don't give a fuck about Linux users, so play other games to satisfy your hobby
Re: (Score:2)
Using Linux is playing Russian Roulette with your games, using Windows is playing Russian Roulette with your privacy... pick your poison.
Just go play Fortnite, they don't ban cheaters (Score:1)
unless someone cheats publicly, Epic won't ban them, it would be bad business banning customers who spend v-bucks, so wh really cares when people cheat when playing Fortnite, not that it matters, Epic's matchmaking sucks too, doesn't matter how skilled you are, Epic makes sure that there's a bunch of lamers for you to frag, that's until they get smart and by cheats from one of Epic's underground cheat vendors
Re: (Score:3)
Fortnite sucks though.
Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a conflicted POV on this issue.
On the one hand EA sells games and it's up to the user how and where to run to them.
On the other hand EA sells games which are guaranteed to work only on operating systems the said games were designed, developed for and tested on.
The anticheating solution EA uses probably can only work properly under Windows which means they must refund the gamers who didn't actually cheat and played under Linux. Of course the game should be removed from their libraries. Also, EA's TOS have to be updated and include this clause: "The game X is intended to run under Windows and we reserve the right to ban your profile in case you run it under unsupported operating systems". Yes, this is harsh. Yes, it may sound unfair. However when you're running the game under Linux, the anticheating solution may not work at all and that will make the gaming experience worse for honest players in case bad players decide to use Linux for cheating.
To be honest I see no drama whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So, a game console?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So a PlayStation with a Linux install?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the proposal resembles what Sony tried with Other OS for PlayStation 3, just without the severe GPU restriction while out of game mode and without the looming threat of 3.21.
Re: Conundrum (Score:2)
So an AtariBox? Which will actually be shipping soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Really the only way is to stream gameplay AV from central servers, and input from clients.
That way a users client can't read or write any data they shouldn't.
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
but the running it in some kind of abstraction layer is close enough to techniques for cheating,
It may look like it, but it still isn't. You can't run around accusing people of cheating when they aren't and then even stand your ground when they prove to you that they aren't.
Banning them for running the game on an unsupported environment - that would at least be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can prove that the software complained about is not cheating software nore does it have cheating functionality. From there, the preponderance of evidence tilts strongly in their favour and EA would have to show up at least some hints towards cheating to maintain their position.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The software already put Windows as the list of requirements [ea.com]
I don't see any reason they should owe a refund to people that read and ignored the specified requirements. That's like me buying brake calipers for a Ford F150 and being upset they don't fit on my Toyota Camry and demanding a refund. It says right there that the game is only suitable for that specific operating system.
EA is shitty for a million other reasons,
Re:Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)
Except in this case, it's more like you buy those brake calibers, and they fit, and they even work, but then the company comes by and takes them off and tells you you can't have 'em 'cause you're using them wrong, even though you're just using 'em for braking.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-cheating tech is vital to keep the game fun for other players. It's not some arbitrary decision they made, it's them trying to give players a good experience.
I used to pay Medal of Honour back in the day and for a while it was ruined by cheating. Eventually they got on top of it but for a while it wasn't fun at all being killed by invisible players hiding under the ground or in a normally inevitable sniping position.
Re: (Score:3)
A perfectly built emulator is indistinguishable from a real machine. Alternatively, one can pipe the displayport or HDMI output to another computer, which then plays the game and produces USB mouse and keyboard inputs. Or go a step further and use a camera and a set of robotic arms.
The correct answer to cheaters is to create matches from similarly-skilled players. Go ahead and cheat all you want, but then you just end up playing all the other robots.
Or make games that are not so mechanical that a very simpl
Re: (Score:2)
A certain amount of "cheating" is tolerated, the most common example being on screen reticules. Some monitors have read feature and sometimes people just mark them on the screen with a pen.
But that's different from things like aimbots.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were just an issue of something the developers had done breaking emulation, it wouldn't be much of an issue. Just par for the course 'oh goddammit' stuff.
The fact that they're actually banning accounts for it -- taking affirmative, punitive action against these players -- makes it something different.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think It was specific action. Here's how I see it:
1. The anti-cheat was tested on all supported configurations to make sure it doesn't not trigger against people that are not cheating.
2. It is not guaranteed that the anti-cheat does not malfunction in any other case except those for which it is tested (the iron law of software testing -- if you didn't test, you can't promise shit).
3. The anti-cheat malfunctioned when run on an unsupported configuration and triggered against people who were not cheat
Re: (Score:2)
That's the minimum requirement. People are generally allowed to use superior specs than what the minimum requires.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
In situations like this, EA should not ban such a user permanently. Instead, they should reinstate the user if s/he switches to a supported OS. The problem is that EA makes no distinction between actual cheaters, and people who trigger false-positives in their anti-cheat detector.
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
If Linux isn't a supported OS for EA, then fuck EA.
Re: (Score:2)
Perma-bans are a huge problem right now. For example you can lose your entire Steam library to a false positive, potentially thousands of Euros of games.
You can have your Xbox bricked the same way, along with your digital purchases and data.
No appeals, no recourse to these companies. The best you can hope for is to force the retailer to take your hardware back under consumer rights laws.
Re: (Score:2)
For example you can lose your entire Steam library to a false positive, potentially thousands of Euros of games.
My understanding was that you lose the ability to "multiplay" through the Steam environment, which is not quite the same as losing the ability to single-play your games, although effectively the same for exclusively multiplayer titles.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been playing much lately, have you?
More and more titles are either multiplayer exclusively or require you to be online for some ridiculous reason that essentially results in the game even being unavailable due to being "banned" if you have no inclination to even interact with anyone.
Re:Conundrum (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally don't think EA has any kind of moral obligation to support Linux, and also most game purchases come with "no refunds" disclaimers. Anyone using Linux that buys Windows games should go out of their way to determine what kind of Linux support they can expect.
That's what I do, in fact. I play plenty of games through steam that are intended to run on Linux. I also play some windows games so long as the developer is Linux-friendly (as in, no bans for playing it) and others state that the game plays well under Linux. I accept the fact that many games won't run on Linux and the game publisher accepts the fact that they won't get my money. And this is ok with both of us.
I don't like these bans, and I don't like EA, but I don't think they are in the wrong. The players are using the product well outside of its intended and clearly-stated operating environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that different for software than it is for anything else? If I buy a dining table and then use it as a workbench, I highly doubt that IKEA will bash down my door and reclaim the table for misuse.
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Linux user I am conflicted as well. In the professional work running Linux provides me with so many advantages over my peers that it often feels like I am cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
However when you're running the game under Linux
I'm certain their backend use of Linux goes unchallenged. I wonder how EA would react if Linux no longer hosted their backend.
To be honest I see no drama whatsoever.
Are you saying is that chrome and mac users should also be excluded? Functionally they are also *ix boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most anti-cheat software won't work at all under Linux. It's surprising it would work via Lutris.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-cheat was never meant to stop all cheating. It's there to force anti-cheat authors to keep updating their software. That reduces the percentage of people that could cheat to a manageable level; then they use in-game screenshots/vids/other data metrics to hunt down cheaters to take down a small slice of the remainder. The ones with paid, custom cheats will (as you say) never be caught. Such cheats are often used in the highest level of professional play:
https://www.criticalhit.net/ga... [criticalhit.net]
So what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like DOS games
Sólo DOS? Eso no es mucho!
EA for you (Score:2)
Much as I dislike EA, technically like most software you never own it, you simply buy a license to run the software. No one ever reads the EULA, but you can bet that given the huge financial resources at EA's disposal that thing is pretty watertight and it more or less says, "It's our software and despite what you think, we can do whatever we damn well please with it. Don't like it? Tough!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
EULAs are not laws. They can't say "we won't refund your money" for instance. Most shrink wrap licenses are essentially threats, since the consumer realizes they can't afford to to defend themselves if the product manufacturers threaten to sue. It's hard to point to one clause as enforceable and a different clause as not enforceable, because the whole concept of a shrink wrap license is yet to be shown as legally enforceable under contract law.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, I suspect EULAs can be challenged by a class action suit, so the publishers shouldn't get too smug about limiting their legal liabilities.
EA (Score:4, Insightful)
After more than a decade of similar headlines, the only logical conclusion is: Anyone who still gives money to EA is a complete idiot.
They've been doing that kind of stuff constantly, on many games, for more than ten years now. Seriously, what does it take gamers to wake up?
Re: (Score:2)
They never will. They will bitch and moan and say they will never give EA another dime. Six months from now they can't get out the credit card fast enough to pre-order the latest EA turd.
Re: (Score:2)
More than a decade? I'm pretty sure the EA straw that broke my personal back happened in about 2002 or 2003. 15+ years have gone by since I've given them any money. I'm blown away that people still do.
I had one brief reminder sometime around 5-7 years ago when I bought a non-EA game on a Steam sale, and found the EA logo spinning up as I started it. Turns out that EA had done the US publishing of it. And, of course, it ran like crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, if you went to the trouble of running Windows under a VM with a full license from MS with proper hardware passthrough, the anti-cheat software would probably still bug out. Most, if not all, the major anti-cheats do. Granted, Lutris specifically uses wine for modern Windows games (I think?) so that's not the same as running under a VM, but the anti-cheat isn't going to care one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it really doesn't matter.
"The issue was caused by an unsupported software configuration on the customer's side, which resulted in false positives in our anticheat technology. We apologize if these customers suffered hurt feelings from the dialog box indicating that behavior consistent with cheating had occurred. The wording of the dialog box will be changed because our lawyers said it would show good faith on our part without admitting fault. We still emphasize that we cannot be held legally responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: We're no longer calling you a scumbag while we're flogging you. But the flogging will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, the flogging you agreed to when you purchased a limited license to use the software.
you have no case. software sometimes malfunctions when run in an unsupported emulated environment; this shouldn't be a surprise, especially on slashdot. if i get glitches running a NES cartridge dump on an emulator, do i complain to Konami about this, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't deny a warranty. They stole back the product. Your analogy is dogshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'll get hate but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'll get hate but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more like you buy a part for a BMW, but you don't actually have a BMW; you have a car that was cobbled together based on a combination of BMW documentation and reverse-engineering that looks like and, most of the time, behaves like a BMW (hell sometimes it even works better), but this part just isn't working because it relies on undocumented implementation details of an actual BMW that your car doesn't match.
"But you said your part worked on BMWs! My car is almost a BMW!"
"Almost?"
"Well, yes, I
Re: (Score:2)
You think they wouldn't if they could?
Permabans abnormal (Score:2)
Plenty of anti-cheat software kills your game session for false or sketchy positives; for example, EAC (Easy Anti-Cheat; used by games like Paladins, Rust, and the now-mostly-dead Dirty Bomb) picks up certain mouse software as cheats even if you aren't using the software to cheat. Sometimes you get perma-banned:
https://steamcommunity.com/app... [steamcommunity.com]
And sometimes you don't. It seems to vary from game to game. NORMALLY you want to kick people out of the game and just prevent them from running it without an acc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possible. Sadly, that information isn't included anywhere that I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I shot 5 people, in addition to buying bread.
What kind of reasoning is that?
Re: Permabans abnormal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. I said sometimes they permaban you and sometimes they don't. Point is they don't always wait to find out if you're hacking before they hit you for that piece of software. EAC even went ham on some Asus RGB software:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/sho... [asus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why Asus designed their software that way. But it's still benign as provided by the vendor, and you can't deny it. Which is why anti-cheat software is always going to be such a mess. Most of the Logitech software is benign as well until you use it to create something like an anti-recoil macro (or what have you). Some of the software is just there to let you bind key combinations to a button. People would do that in Dirty Bomb for the "long jump" key combination. Or they would use autohotkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Still not listening eh?
It can't.
It won't.
It has to try anyway.
Get it?
How can you explain to Asus users, "well you can't run your lovely RGB lightning software because we're overwhelmed by the prospect of something bypassing kernel hooks, too bad!". That's the anti-cheat's fault in the end.
Client-side anti-cheat can NEVER work! (Score:2)
But hey, we are talking about organized criminals, so stupid, the believe that Digital Restriction Management works!
Any sane person would put the constraints on the *server* and its interface though, so it would not matter what client you uses.
Sanity and coke-headed i.p. criminals are mutually exclusive though. And EA is the prime example of that
EA did you a favor (Score:2)
You don't know it but EA did you a favor. You are better off breaking your addiction to these games and finding something more productive to do with your time. These games are harmful to mental health and well being and are designed to be dangerously addictive and manipulative psychologically. You will be healthier and overall a better person without this in your life.
MIssing joke? (Score:2)
I was hoping to find some Funny comment about being banned for superior computer skills required to use Linux...
Re:simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Another simple solution: stop giving money to EA.
Re:simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I stopped playing their games when they locked up their titles behind Origin. I can see wanting to actually compete with Steam, but creating your own online storefront for only your games and pulling them off every other storefront is a dick move. I had wanted to play the rest of the Dragon Age series, but I can't get it outside of Origin, so . . . nope! At least Epic nominally caters to other publishers/developers (albeit with too many damn exclusives).
I've also gotten away from Blizzard. Battle.net used to make some sense, but now that you can easily sell stuff through other online storefronts and have them redirect to your own servers without using separate store frontend software (see: ESO on Steam), I see no reason to make their stuff Battle.net exclusive anymore. Put it up there for the users that want the extra Battle.net experience - such as it is - and leave it at that. Ditto for Bethesda if they keep insisting on people buying their titles through Bethesda.net.
Honestly, everyone should just sell their software on GoG and be done with it. They have the most consumer-friendly storefront (not counting the numerous occasions that publishers passively sabotage GoG by killing certain features for their titles there or not providing up-to-date patches for GoG versions of software).
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear this is not a new thing, Ubisoft's been doing it for years with UPlay titles on Steam. At least I think they were the first I noticed doing it with Assassin's Creed titles. I want to say 3 was the first one, not sure if they did UPlay wit
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'm not a huge fan of what Ubisoft has done with uPlay - you basically have to install uPlay alongside Steam to play the stuff they sell on Steam, which is kinda dumb but . . . at least the products are there on Steam and in your Steam library.
Re: (Score:2)
uPlay is essentially its own storefront with a software patcher similar to what you get with Steam. It also has a friends feature (which I never use) and some other crap.
If you buy an Ubisoft product on Steam, you have to install uPlay and make an account there. Then the product is (if I recall correctly) added to your new uPlay account, and you can launch the game directly from uPlay if you like. Or if you launch it from Steam, it starts up uPlay and launches it that way. For awhile there, a few "hacke
Re: (Score:2)
I had wanted to play the rest of the Dragon Age series
You haven't missed much. Dragon Age 2 is absolute crap. Dragon Age Inquisition would be pretty good, but is so full of pointless fetch quests that it rather drowns out the good bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you're not the only one to say that. It makes avoiding Origin a bit easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I stopped playing their games when they locked up their titles behind Origin.
Now now now, lets not be to hasty. No one said stop playing their games. Just stop giving them money. There are plenty of websites with strange TLDs that provide games outside of Origin.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's if you're lucky not to get banned from Origin for disputing a purchase of one of their other games
Re: (Score:2)
Another simple solution: stop giving money to EA.
I have implemented that one a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Or play a better game.
When I want to play games, I go to lichess.org
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a boomer and get with the times, that meme died about a month after "later homo".
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem: He is.
Re: simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What might be funny... (Score:3)