Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Perhaps I’m being dense but how do you see this helping Linux Gaming?
Even assuming that VBS-E allows Game Devs to shift their current kernel based anti-cheat over to it there’s no guarantee that Linux will get a compatible VBS-E module nor that Game Devs would allow its use.
I guess I see it as: If a Game Dev does this (use VBS-E) AND Linux gets a compatible module AND Game Devs allow its use THEN newer games may not have the same problem with anti-cheat as older ones.
The way I understand it is that every anticheat needs to be overhauled as they can no longer tap into the kernel/get kernel access. So the anticheat has to run in userspace. This can also be done under GNU/Linux which is why anticheat should work on both platforms.
They want to prevent spooky programs running in the kernel (like crowdstrike) which may break the whole system. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/26/24206719/microsoft-windows-changes-crowdstrike-kernel-driver
please.
It seems quite likely actually. The only problem might be them noticing the benefit for GNU/Linux.
Perhaps I’m being dense but how do you see this helping Linux Gaming?
Even assuming that VBS-E allows Game Devs to shift their current kernel based anti-cheat over to it there’s no guarantee that Linux will get a compatible VBS-E module nor that Game Devs would allow its use.
I guess I see it as: If a Game Dev does this (use VBS-E) AND Linux gets a compatible module AND Game Devs allow its use THEN newer games may not have the same problem with anti-cheat as older ones.
The way I understand it is that every anticheat needs to be overhauled as they can no longer tap into the kernel/get kernel access. So the anticheat has to run in userspace. This can also be done under GNU/Linux which is why anticheat should work on both platforms.