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

Your core premise is broken. Relying on trusting anything from a remote client cannot possibly result in a fair game.

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data?

Any game that works like that is fundamentally flawed and AC is nothing but an attempt at a cheap bandaid at best.

The client should be doing nothing but rendering and sending player actions to the server and the server should be managing the game state as well as running its checks on those actions. And when one client sends actuons that are weird and doesn't line up with it's internal game state it should kick the client immediately always deferring to what ITS game state is telling it, not the client.

Genuinely curious, because this isn't my area of expertise, but how do you design a server to be "better" if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Check the data on the server ("oh no, incredibly expensive"). Don't give any data to the client it doesn't need, like enemies around the corner ("oh no, now my game is so very laggy because caching and future position assumption just became impossible")

Example, if the client is compromised - because as they've said, they have no way to "attest" that the kernel is not compromised - how would the server know any better?

Now the server doesn't need to care. There's input? Validate and use it.

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data? Is there a real answer to this problem or are we just wishing they come up with an impossible solution?

Now the client can go pound sand. Server decides if it's a headshot. Client only sends coordinates of origin and target. Lag? Sucks to be you, with or without cheat.

My general understanding is that EA is 100% correct. Now, on the other hand, maybe the should just limit plays between Linux <-> Linux so people can at least still enjoy the game

That would only create more work for the developers, all for the defacto expulsion of Linux users (Way less players at all times). The best course of action here would be the actual expulsion of Linux users. Also, EA is at most 25% correct. (Not a rational argument, I just very much dislike them)

(I'm moving to Linux soon so I'll basically no longer be able to play the game, which is, as my primary gaming addiction, a huge loss I'm willing to take).

Damn, sorry to hear that. It's always bad to leave something one knows because something's become unbearable. I wish you best of luck on your journey! (I'm assuming a lot, but why else would you switch despite your choice of use of free time?)

There's compromises EA could take, but I think the Linux market share is just too small for them to care to spend any resources - even though they're raking in billions (~$3.4 Billion) and could spare a few resources to find a good middle ground. Capitalism at it's finest.

On the other hand: I quite like it. It forces them to keep their grubby little hands from my kernel.

I do not like anything anti cheat. But I also don't really like cheaters, especially in online games, so anti cheat could be tolerated. The only thing is: nothing trumps my systems integrity. Definitely not online player satisfaction.

The fact that this thoughtful comment was downvoted, while the computer illiterate reply was upvoted, speaks to the hive mind on this subreddit. We all detest EA, but this guy has a legitimate point.

Because the actual calculations aren’t done by the client but the server, or they should be

how do you design a server to be “better” if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Because it doesn’t have to.

Keeping untrusted clients in their own ecosystem is an interesting idea, and would let people access the game without affecting anyone in the "trusted" chain, but you will all be lumped in with the obvious cheaters with blatant speed/flying/aiming bots.

If you were playing without cheats on Linux, I'd imagine you'd stop soon after.

The best idea would be to let people run their own servers and then allow or IP ban cheaters themselves, but I guess with everything needing to make money from skins and paints or whatever the fuck Apex sells, that's out of the question and has been since about the Xbox 360 era.

I see you all over this thread and I want to share something you might find interesting.

You keep mentioning the server can't handle the anti cheat because it needs to trust client data. Here's an interesting thought: how is client anti cheat supposed to work when it needs to trust input data?

Look up direct memory access cheats. TL;DR Two computers are hooked up such that PC 1 runs the game, PC 2 reads memory from PC 1, and can then output keyboard/mouse inputs, as well as wallhacks/esp. How is the client side anti cheat supposed to know that the keyboard and mouse inputs are legitimate? How is the client side anti cheat to know wallhacks are being used when they are being rendered on an entirely different machine?

They should just use the same approach big minecraft servers use, the game itself has no anticheat, but the server makes sure the data it's getting from the client makes sense and kicks clients sending weird data. Doing any checks client side will always be insecure and a nuisance to players

how do you design a server to be "better" if it has to trust data from a remote client?

By minimising the trusted data exchanged and checking it against server side data.

Added a video I found showing where to do it.

Xonotic is a thing

fr, Apex is one of their nicer products that felt a bit like new battle royal version of abandoned Unreal Tournament

It's not P2W though, right? I thought they only sell cosmetics w/o competitive advantage (outside a mistake here and there), everything that actually impacts competitiveness is provided equally to everyone.

If that's not the case, could you link something that indicates that?