Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Games Linux Technology

EA Appears To Be Permanently Banning Linux Players On Battlefield V 130

Posted by BeauHD from the cat-and-mouse dept.
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..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Appears To Be Permanently Banning Linux Players On Battlefield V More

EA Appears To Be Permanently Banning Linux Players On Battlefield V

Comments Filter:

  • Well then. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @07:25PM (#59583992)
    Just fuck EA. Don't play their games, and ask for a refund since they've made your game unplayable to you. Linux users have a choice in situations like this -- which do you prefer, using Linux or playing games? We can't always have it our way, so unless you're willing to duel boot Windows, you're SOL in this situation.

    • EA is merging together with SCO, Oracle, Comcast, and the New England Patriots.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • 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!

  • 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

  • Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Artem S. Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @07:35PM (#59584016) Homepage

    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)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      Yeah, I really can not blame EA for this one. I can understand wanting to run in unsupported environments, but the running it in some kind of abstraction layer is close enough to techniques for cheating, EA has a use case for prohibiting it.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:39PM (#59584190) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Can they really prove it though? At best all they can demonstrate is that what they are doing is dual use, with a legitimate use that is not supported or even really permitted.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Tom ( 822 )

            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)

      by Wrath0fb0b ( 302444 )

      The software already put Windows as the list of requirements [ea.com]

      BATTLEFIELD V MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

      OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10

      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)

        by Invidious ( 106932 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @09:07PM (#59584286)

        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)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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)

            by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

            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)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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.

      • That's the minimum requirement. People are generally allowed to use superior specs than what the minimum requires.

    • Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:23PM (#59584162) Journal

      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)

        by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @09:44PM (#59584372)

        If Linux isn't a supported OS for EA, then fuck EA.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

        • 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.

          • 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)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:53PM (#59584250) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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)

      by runningduck ( 810975 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:05PM (#59584646)

      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)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      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.

    • Most anti-cheat software won't work at all under Linux. It's surprising it would work via Lutris.

  • I like DOS games

  • 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!"

    • You cannot own software. It was always about right to copy. If you own a book then you can sell or give it to whoever. If you own a cd you can do likewise. If it's internet only distribution then ownership will never make any sense. EULAs are so complex because they're an enormous patch on old laws that are absolutely unworkable now by themselves.

    • 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.

      • 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)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:35PM (#59584184) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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.

    • Problem is, weren't they banned for cheating, not for using an unsupoported O/S? IF SO, that's ⦠not cheating. IT could be used to cheat, but isn't cheating in of itself. didn't ban for that reason, they were banned for cheating - using

      • 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

        • Translation: We're no longer calling you a scumbag while we're flogging you. But the flogging will continue.

          • 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)

      by nyet ( 19118 )

      They didn't deny a warranty. They stole back the product. Your analogy is dogshit.

    • It might be legal, but it's not right.

  • 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

    • Maybe these people were also actually cheating, in addition to running Linux.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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]

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • 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.

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • I was hoping to find some Funny comment about being banned for superior computer skills required to use Linux...

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't panic.

Close