Ashes of Creation on Linux/Proton Compatibility Layer support

Hello Glorious Ashes Dev Team and Ashes Community,

I recognize that Linux support as been spoken on a few times in the past, but if I and other's like me don't push for it, I fear it may be lost to time and the black hole of statistics I don't believe accurately reflect the number of individuals that would utilize it.

With the adoption of Unreal Engine 5 I wonder if now is the time to ask for a definitive answer from Steven on the topic of Linux support. Either directly via Native Support (Please for the Love of God Steven I can't keep playing Ancient MMO's like WURM.) or via the use of Proton Compatibility Layer. Now I know there are some out there who will say "But Roman, don't you need to install Steam in order to use Proton?"

Well, as for Proton, you do not need Steam to utilize it, it is open source and stand-alone.

With all of that said, I wonder if those more knowledgeable than I could elaborate if due to the transition to UE5 it may actually be the time to look heavily into supporting Linux Natively.

If any Devs read this, could the challenges of developing for Linux as well be elaborated on?

And for those in the community reading, if you are a Linux user that needs a new MMO to play and doesn't want to go back to Windows to play one, or a Windows user trying desperately to escape Windows and MAC hegemony, respond to this post to show support!

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

N3dnarb

Just wanted to throw in my two cents:

I would LOVE if Ashes were playable on Linux, even if only through Proton/Wine/etc. Ensuring that I can play AOC is pretty much the only reason I even still have the option to boot Windows on my computer.

Noaani

N3dnarb wrote: »

Just wanted to throw in my two cents:

I would LOVE if Ashes were playable on Linux, even if only through Proton/Wine/etc. Ensuring that I can play AOC is pretty much the only reason I even still have the option to boot Windows on my computer.

Cool, go talk to the developers and contributors for Linux and ask them to provide what a competitive game needs in order to make game developers want to use Linux.

Because it is the fact that Linus isn't offering a secure platform from the perspective of the game developer that is the primary reason a game like Ashes won't support it. Linux offers the user of the OS many tools, and it is these very tools that make it so the game developer can't trust that platform.

RevengeRoman

Noaani wrote: »

N3dnarb wrote: »

Just wanted to throw in my two cents:

I would LOVE if Ashes were playable on Linux, even if only through Proton/Wine/etc. Ensuring that I can play AOC is pretty much the only reason I even still have the option to boot Windows on my computer.

Cool, go talk to the developers and contributors for Linux and ask them to provide what a competitive game needs in order to make game developers want to use Linux.

Because it is the fact that Linus isn't offering a secure platform from the perspective of the game developer that is the primary reason a game like Ashes won't support it. Linux offers the user of the OS many tools, and it is these very tools that make it so the game developer can't trust that platform.

Please don't take this as rage bait or something, it isn't intended that way. But I am curious as to what makes you believe Linux isn't a secure environment.

Some of the most successful competitive games of all time are functional in Linux. Valve for example, has native versions of all of their games, Counter Strike 2, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, etc.

Not to mention World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 2 function on Linux, both of which I have played on my Linux machine.

Seems to me that trust in the Platform is not likely the problem here. Even as a Linux enjoyer myself, and I play my entire Steam library minus 1 game on Linux, for which I have a dual boot of Windows, even I am prepared to admit that the Linux community may just be too small of a market for their intentions right now.

With that said, trust in the platform isn't the reason this may be a problem for now.

Noaani

RevengeRoman wrote: »

Please don't take this as rage bait or something, it isn't intended that way. But I am curious as to what makes you believe Linux isn't a secure environment.

Some of the most successful competitive games of all time are functional in Linux. Valve for example, has native versions of all of their games, Counter Strike 2, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, etc.

Not to mention World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 2 function on Linux, both of which I have played on my Linux machine.

None of those games are overly well known for being particularly good at keeping cheating out of the game.

In the case of Valve, the decision to run on Linux is purely for Steamdeck compatibility (the idea of the Steamdeck has been with Valve for almost a decade).

Blizzard has long been well aware that they can't prevent cheating in WoW. They only attempt to punish the most egregious/obvious examples now (ie, banning thousands of accounts using the same commercially available cheat).

I don't know enough about GW2 to be able to state what I see happening there with the same certianty as I can with the above, but I would suspect it is the same.

Fact is, Linus puts the user first, Windows puts the application first. That is why I want to use Linux, but know I won't be able to for a lot of what I do.

RevengeRoman

To be fair, Valve has been very pro-linux for a very long time, for example since 2013 they have had Counter Strike Natively in Linux (more than 10 years before the Steam Deck would release). With that said, I think there is a certain level of bias towards Linux as it's user's are typically among the Tech savvy, just due to the fact that the over arching general consensus in the market is that Windows is the only "gaming" OS.

That has been changing steadily however, and most of my 400 game library on steam and including non-steam games (about 40 games) are Linux compatible. Ashes of Creation and Gray Zone were the only two pieces of software that made me keep Windows in ANY capacity. And now that Gray Zone Warfare is functional via Proton, only Ashes of Creation keeps my Windows partition installed.

Let's look at games that are exclusively developed for Windows, take Call of Duty: Warzone as an example. I don't believe anyone in the gaming community would argue that CoD: Warzone is a paragon of the cheating free community. If anything it's one of the worst offenders.

It seems to me the most reasonable conclusion here is that cheating software is developed for both platforms. Just due to the dominance of Windows, it is likely there are more cheating softwares available for Windows than for Linux. Though it would not be a simple task to prove that with data, it is likely a safe assumption to make just due to popularity.

Noaani

RevengeRoman wrote: »

It seems to me the most reasonable conclusion here is that cheating software is developed for both platforms. Just due to the dominance of Windows, it is likely there are more cheating softwares available for Windows than for Linux. Though it would not be a simple task to prove that with data, it is likely a safe assumption to make just due to popularity.

This part is true - it is just easier to hide them on Linux.

As to Linux being mostly for the more tech savvy, I agree - though I am of the opinion that a large part of the reason for this is that in the time I could install windows, set up the system, install a game and then play that game to completion, I would still be researching Linux distro options.

ariatras

There shouldn't be a problem to solve—only a problem to prevent. I’m slated to gain access to the alpha two sometime in October, so I’m not yet aware if an anti-cheat system is implemented. However, based on what we know, without an anti-cheat running, Linux users can easily play the Windows version of this game by leveraging tools like Wine or Proton. These tools translate the necessary Windows dependencies, allowing the game to run seamlessly on Linux. We've done this successfully with many other games, so there’s a strong precedent.

The key point is to ensure that, if the developers do decide to implement an anti-cheat system, it is designed with cross-platform compatibility in mind. Anti-cheat systems should recognize that Linux users are not inherently more likely to cheat, and that using Wine or Proton does not equate to malicious behavior. Many anti-cheat systems, unfortunately, flag legitimate Linux users as false positives simply because they’re not running a standard Windows environment.

A proactive approach would be for the developers to either work with established, Linux-friendly anti-cheat solutions or to design their own with a focus on avoiding these false positives.

Now, to address the concern some might have about the complexity of this task:
While it’s true that anti-cheat systems are complex, adding Linux support isn't necessarily as daunting as it might seem. Several popular anti-cheat systems, like Easy Anti-Cheat and BattlEye, have already made strides in supporting Linux environments via Wine/Proton. By collaborating with these vendors or learning from their approaches, developers can implement a system that recognizes the nuances of a Linux environment without starting from scratch.

Moreover, the open-source nature of many Linux tools and the active Linux gaming community mean that there are plenty of resources and knowledgeable contributors who are more than willing to help address potential challenges. This community support can significantly reduce the burden on developers and lead to more robust, well-tested solutions.

In the grand scheme, ensuring Linux compatibility for anti-cheat is an investment in accessibility and inclusivity. The time and effort spent now to prevent issues will save developers from dealing with a frustrated segment of their player base down the line. And let’s not forget, a growing number of gamers are migrating to Linux, especially as support from platforms like Steam increases. Ensuring compatibility now is a forward-thinking strategy that positions the game well for the future.

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

RevengeRoman wrote: »

It seems to me the most reasonable conclusion here is that cheating software is developed for both platforms. Just due to the dominance of Windows, it is likely there are more cheating softwares available for Windows than for Linux. Though it would not be a simple task to prove that with data, it is likely a safe assumption to make just due to popularity.

This part is true - it is just easier to hide them on Linux.

As to Linux being mostly for the more tech savvy, I agree - though I am of the opinion that a large part of the reason for this is that in the time I could install windows, set up the system, install a game and then play that game to completion, I would still be researching Linux distro options.

I respectfully disagree with the notion that cheats are easier to hide on Linux. This is a common misconception, but it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

First, let's consider the landscape of anti-cheat systems: Most major anti-cheat solutions are designed with Windows in mind, given the platform's dominance in the gaming market. Because of this, the development of cheat detection tools has historically been more robust and focused on Windows. While this means that there may be more cheats developed for Windows, it doesn't necessarily follow that cheats are easier to hide on Linux.

On Linux, the situation is a bit different: Linux’s open-source nature is a double-edged sword. While it provides users with great flexibility and control over their system, this same transparency can work against cheaters. Linux’s open nature allows for a high level of scrutiny and the ability for anti-cheat developers to inspect and analyze how cheats might operate within the system. Additionally, because the Linux community is generally smaller and more tight-knit, cheating often attracts more attention and can be addressed more quickly by knowledgeable users.

Moreover, the idea that cheats are easier to hide on Linux overlooks some key technical challenges: Linux, with its wide variety of distributions and configurations, doesn't offer a one-size-fits-all environment for cheat developers. This diversity means that cheats must be adapted for different setups, which is no small feat. In contrast, the more uniform environment of Windows actually makes it easier to develop cheats that work across a broad user base.

Lastly, it’s important to remember that hiding cheats effectively is challenging on any platform: Whether on Linux or Windows, effective anti-cheat systems employ a variety of methods to detect abnormal behavior, whether that’s through monitoring memory, checking for unauthorized processes, or analyzing game data for inconsistencies. These methods apply just as effectively on Linux as they do on Windows.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

Linux’s open nature allows for a high level of scrutiny and the ability for anti-cheat developers to inspect and analyze how cheats might operate within the system.

Linux's open nature allows the user to set what any application can see running.

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

ariatras wrote: »

Linux’s open nature allows for a high level of scrutiny and the ability for anti-cheat developers to inspect and analyze how cheats might operate within the system.

Linux's open nature allows the user to set what any application can see running.

You're being deliberately malicious it feels like.

The statement that "Linux's open nature allows the user to set what any application can see running" is partially true but can be misleading without proper context. Let me break it down:
Process Visibility:
On Linux, processes running on the system are typically visible to all users by default. This visibility is controlled by the /proc filesystem, where each process has a directory with information about it.However, with certain permissions and configurations, users can limit what other users or applications can see. For example, by mounting /proc with the hidepid option, users can restrict visibility of processes to only those owned by the same user or to root.This does mean that with enough knowledge, a user can configure their system to limit what certain applications (including anti-cheat software) can see. But this isn't a Linux-exclusive capability—Windows has similar features for restricting access to certain processes or resources.
Application Control:
Linux's open nature provides a high degree of control over how applications run and what resources they can access. For instance, a user can use tools like AppArmor or SELinux to set strict security policies that govern what applications can see or do.However, this level of control requires considerable knowledge and effort to configure correctly. It's not something that the average user would typically modify unless they are specifically trying to create a highly secure or restricted environment.Implications for Anti-Cheat:
While it is possible for a knowledgeable user to restrict what an anti-cheat application can see on Linux, doing so could raise red flags with well-designed anti-cheat systems. If an anti-cheat system detects that it is being restricted or isolated in a way that prevents it from functioning correctly, it might flag this behavior as suspicious.It's also worth noting that similar techniques can be employed on Windows using various tools and configurations, so this isn't a Linux-specific issue.

nanfoodle

I see the Linux police are still in full force lol. Good news is Valve is opening Steam OS to other devices. Ashes will most likely will run on that OS with little adjustments. ESO is also fully playable on Steam OS.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

It's not something that the average user would typically modify unless they are specifically trying to create a highly secure or restricted environment.

So, what you are saying here is that Linux is only able to be used for cheating if you actually try to do that.

Well, I'm glad we don't need to worry about people accidently cheating on it.

The problem with what you are saying - which can kind of be broken down to "it isn't easy to hide your cheating on Linux", is that you think it is ok for people to cheat if they know what they are doing.

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

ariatras wrote: »

It's not something that the average user would typically modify unless they are specifically trying to create a highly secure or restricted environment.

So, what you are saying here is that Linux is only able to be used for cheating if you actually try to do that.

Well, I'm glad we don't need to worry about people accidently cheating on it.

The problem with what you are saying - which can kind of be broken down to "it isn't easy to hide your cheating on Linux", is that you think it is ok for people to cheat if they know what they are doing.

Let’s get something straight: I never said, nor implied, that it’s ‘okay for people to cheat if they know what they’re doing.’ That’s a ridiculous misinterpretation of my point. Cheating is unacceptable, no matter what platform you’re on or how technically savvy you are. My argument was focused on debunking the false notion that Linux somehow makes it easier to hide cheats, which it doesn’t.

To clarify, Linux’s flexibility and openness do not equate to an invitation for cheating. If anything, the transparency of Linux makes it easier for both users and developers to detect and root out malicious behavior. Saying that Linux is only good for cheating ‘if you actually try’ is like saying the same about any operating system—including Windows. Anyone who deliberately attempts to cheat and knows what they’re doing can potentially cause problems on any platform, but that’s a universal truth, not something unique to Linux.

The reality is that on Linux, just like on Windows, cheating requires deliberate action and intent. The difference lies in how cheats are developed, deployed, and detected. The gaming industry’s focus on Windows has led to more cheat tools being available there, but that doesn’t make Linux a cheater’s paradise. In fact, the diversity and configurability of Linux distributions add layers of complexity that make it harder, not easier, to develop universal cheat tools.

So let’s drop the strawman argument. Cheating is never acceptable, and Linux is not some magical loophole that makes it easier. The focus should be on developing robust anti-cheat systems that work across all platforms, including Linux, to ensure a fair gaming environment for everyone.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

My argument was focused on debunking the false notion that Linux somehow makes it easier to hide cheats, which it doesn’t.

ariatras wrote: »

This does mean that with enough knowledge, a user can configure their system to limit what certain applications (including anti-cheat software) can see.

Which is it?

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

ariatras wrote: »

My argument was focused on debunking the false notion that Linux somehow makes it easier to hide cheats, which it doesn’t.

ariatras wrote: »

This does mean that with enough knowledge, a user can configure their system to limit what certain applications (including anti-cheat software) can see.

Which is it?

Let’s clear this up once and for all. There’s no contradiction here if you actually understand what’s being discussed. Saying that Linux doesn’t make it easier to hide cheats is about the general landscape—how cheats operate, how they’re detected, and how they’re countered. It’s about the baseline difficulty of developing and deploying cheats across different systems.

The point about configuring a Linux system to limit what applications, including anti-cheat software, can see is a separate issue. This is true for any operating system, not just Linux. On any platform—Windows, Linux, or macOS—a user with enough knowledge and malicious intent can tweak their environment to try and hide what they’re doing. But that’s not a problem unique to Linux. If anything, Linux's openness means it’s easier to detect and scrutinize these configurations, especially by those who know what they’re doing.

So, before jumping to conclusions, let’s be clear: The ability to configure a system in specific ways doesn’t mean that Linux inherently makes cheating easier or more hidden. It means that with enough knowledge, anyone on any platform can try to manipulate their environment, but that’s no special advantage of Linux. The real issue here is intent and capability, which apply universally, not just to Linux.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

So, before jumping to conclusions, let’s be clear: The ability to configure a system in specific ways doesn’t mean that Linux inherently makes cheating easier or more hidden. It means that with enough knowledge, anyone on any platform can try to manipulate their environment, but that’s no special advantage of Linux. The real issue here is intent and capability, which apply universally, not just to Linux.

This wording is borderline neferious.

"Anyone can try" on any OS. You can try and hack the game using a banana if you want, that doesn't mean you will be successful.

Fact is, is you are using Windows, you absolutely can set up a curtain to hide a portion of what is running on your system, just as you can on Linux. The thing is, on Linux, you can hide the curtain as well.

On Windows, you can't hide it.

Anti-cheat software looks for cheats, but also looks for that curtain. If it finds either, it stands in the way. It doesn't care what is behind that curtain, it just cares that it is there. This is why you can't do something as simple as running a game using EAC on a VM - even though there are many valid reasons for using one, RAC simply doesn't allow for it, because it can't see past it.

You are right that intent and capability are important, but so are tools - and Linux offers a better toolset for this than Windows.

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

ariatras wrote: »

So, before jumping to conclusions, let’s be clear: The ability to configure a system in specific ways doesn’t mean that Linux inherently makes cheating easier or more hidden. It means that with enough knowledge, anyone on any platform can try to manipulate their environment, but that’s no special advantage of Linux. The real issue here is intent and capability, which apply universally, not just to Linux.

This wording is borderline neferious.

"Anyone can try" on any OS. You can try and hack the game using a banana if you want, that doesn't mean you will be successful.

Fact is, is you are using Windows, you absolutely can set up a curtain to hide a portion of what is running on your system, just as you can on Linux. The thing is, on Linux, you can hide the curtain as well.

On Windows, you can't hide it.

Anti-cheat software looks for cheats, but also looks for that curtain. If it finds either, it stands in the way. It doesn't care what is behind that curtain, it just cares that it is there. This is why you can't do something as simple as running a game using EAC on a VM - even though there are many valid reasons for using one, RAC simply doesn't allow for it, because it can't see past it.

You are right that intent and capability are important, but so are tools - and Linux offers a better toolset for this than Windows.

Let’s break this down carefully. Your argument hinges on the idea that Linux somehow offers a better toolset for hiding cheats, but that’s an oversimplification and, frankly, not an accurate portrayal of how things work.

First off, let’s tackle the notion of ‘hiding the curtain.’ The idea that Linux allows users to hide the very mechanisms that might be used to conceal cheats isn’t entirely accurate. While Linux does offer greater control over system processes and permissions, this doesn’t translate into some magical ability to cloak cheats from detection. In fact, because of the open nature of Linux, anti-cheat developers can dig deeper into the system’s operations, if necessary, to identify suspicious behavior.

Yes, Linux provides more tools and flexibility—tools that are often used for legitimate purposes, like privacy, security, or system customization. But these tools aren’t exclusive to cheating, nor do they make cheating inherently easier or harder. The claim that Linux users can ‘hide the curtain’ implies a level of stealth that’s simply not there. Anti-cheat systems on Linux can be just as effective as those on Windows, especially when designed with cross-platform compatibility in mind.

Now, let’s address why Linux’s powerful tools do not make cheating easier. The fact that Linux offers more granular control over the system doesn’t inherently benefit cheaters. In many cases, this increased control and transparency actually works against those trying to cheat. For example, the open-source nature of Linux means that the entire system is subject to scrutiny—not just by users but also by developers and the broader community. This transparency can make it easier to detect abnormal behavior or configurations that could indicate cheating.

Furthermore, Linux’s flexibility means that it’s harder to create cheats that work universally across all Linux distributions. The wide variety of configurations and environments in Linux makes it challenging for cheat developers to design tools that are effective across the board. This diversity acts as a natural deterrent, increasing the complexity and reducing the success rate of cheats compared to the more standardized Windows environment.

The idea that Linux provides superior tools for hiding cheating is more myth than reality. It comes down to how those tools are used—and in what context. Let’s not confuse the availability of powerful tools with an inherent advantage in cheating. If anything, the visibility and control that Linux offers can work both ways, benefiting both users and developers in detecting and preventing cheating.

So, while it’s important to acknowledge that Linux offers different capabilities than Windows, it’s equally important to recognize that this doesn’t give cheaters an edge. The tools might differ, but the principles of detection and prevention remain consistent across platforms.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

In fact, because of the open nature of Linux, anti-cheat developers can dig deeper into the system’s operations, if necessary, to identify suspicious behavior.

While this may well be true - you are now esentially talking about bespoke detection on each client computer.

Again, this is as opposed to Windows just pointing to the curtain.

ariatras

Noaani wrote: »

ariatras wrote: »

In fact, because of the open nature of Linux, anti-cheat developers can dig deeper into the system’s operations, if necessary, to identify suspicious behavior.

While this may well be true - you are now esentially talking about bespoke detection on each client computer.

Again, this is as opposed to Windows just pointing to the curtain.

Let’s dive into the technical aspects of this. The idea that Linux requires ‘bespoke detection’ on each client system misunderstands how modern anti-cheat systems operate across different platforms.Anti-cheat mechanisms don't rely on needing to 'see behind a curtain' in a literal sense, whether on Windows or Linux. Instead, they function by monitoring specific behaviors, system calls, memory access patterns, and interactions that are indicative of cheating. These mechanisms are designed to detect anomalies in how software behaves rather than needing to probe every aspect of a system's configuration.On Linux, the open-source nature and the diversity of distributions do mean there’s more flexibility and control available to users. However, this does not translate into a fundamental advantage for cheaters. In fact, anti-cheat systems can leverage Linux's transparency to their advantage. Tools like strace, auditd, or SELinux provide a wealth of monitoring capabilities that can be integrated into anti-cheat solutions to detect unauthorized actions or irregularities at the system level.Moreover, modern anti-cheat systems, such as those integrated with Proton or those using kernel-level modules, can perform extensive checks on the integrity of game files, system libraries, and even the kernel itself. These checks are not fundamentally different from what is done on Windows, where similar techniques are used to monitor and verify the integrity of the environment.The 'curtain' metaphor you're using refers to sandboxing or virtualization detection techniques often employed on Windows. Anti-cheat systems look for processes running in isolated environments (like VMs) because these can sometimes be used to hide cheats. However, this is not a weakness in Linux but a general concern across all platforms. On Linux, similar isolation techniques (like containers or namespaces) can be detected and flagged by anti-cheat systems if they are being used to manipulate the game environment.Additionally, the argument that Linux tools make cheating easier overlooks the fact that the complexity and variety of Linux environments add significant challenges for cheat developers. While on Windows, a cheat might work broadly across millions of identical systems; on Linux, the variability in distributions, kernels, and configurations means that cheats have to be much more sophisticated and adaptable to be effective. This variability works as a natural deterrent.

Noaani

ariatras wrote: »

Additionally, the argument that Linux tools make cheating easier overlooks the fact that the complexity and variety of Linux environments add significant challenges for cheat developers.

I thought we already went over this.

You are once again saying that when I am saying that it is easier to hide cheating on Linux (again, Linux is designed to put the user first, not the application), your argument is that you need a higher level of technical knowledge to do this.

This is literally that same "cheating is ok if youre smart enough" thing.

If that isn't your position, you need to stop saying it.

I actually fully agree with you that Linux is harder to use (that is why it is still so unpopular). However, it is also easier for someone with the knowledge to hide neferious activity with Linux than with Windows.

Child Item