SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Linux gamers have found yet again that their ubiquitous operating system remains unwelcome in the context of mainstream entertainment.
The latest insult comes from Electronic Arts, which appears to have issued a few permanent bans to online Battlefield V players attempting to play the game on Linux systems.
Mind you, Battlefield V isn't intended for Linux; the EA game specifies that a 64-bit version of Windows 7, 8.1, or 10 is required. But those committed to Linux can get around that by using Lutris, a Linux gaming client.
Last month, a Battlefield V player claimed that attempting to play the game online using Lutris resulted in getting banned. It would seem to be the fault of EA's server-side anti-cheating system FairFight. A few others participating in the discussion thread said they too had been banned. That's not exactly a mass market catastrophe.
EA apparently considers using Linux to be cheating.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 08 2020, @10:40AM (4 children)
No, cheating is a small issue compared to freedom in computing. To mandate that people use an operating system as abusive and malware-ridden as Windows is foolish. It would be much better to ban cheaters when they are found than use shoddy anti-cheating software.
Of course, the fact that the game software itself is proprietary and abusive presents its own issues.
There are plenty of other online games that work on multiple operating systems, so I have a hard time believing a company as large as EA can't figure out how to fix their defective software.
I don't, and yet the problem is not solved. The mere existence of proprietary software threatens people's freedoms, and that alone makes it an issue. The more people that buy into proprietary software, the harder it becomes to avoid it in general.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 08 2020, @06:53PM
Perhaps it is more important to you. Is it important to those who actually play the games and want to win?
They are under no compulsion to change or release their software under a free license. You are under no compulsion to purchase it. So who exactly has the problem?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 08 2020, @11:45PM (1 child)
Does your Constitution give you the right to free games somehow? Or free computing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09 2020, @12:01AM
If I legally obtained the hammer, I consider I have right to use it any way I please, except hitting my mother-in-law with it. That would leave a bad impression on her mind.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 10 2020, @02:03AM
No, cheating is a small issue compared to freedom in computing.
For you, sure. For other players, no. 99% of them are using Windows/Mac, and really don't care about Linux unfortunately, and they're tired of cheaters.
To mandate that people use an operating system as abusive and malware-ridden as Windows is foolish.
There's nothing foolish about pissing off 1% of your customer base to keep the other 99% from leaving. They don't care about MS being abusive or having malware; it's what they use already.
It would be much better to ban cheaters when they are found than use shoddy anti-cheating software.
That probably takes much more work in their view, and they don't think the software is shoddy. Of course, they may be proven wrong, but this isn't being accounted for by the executives making this decision.
Of course, the fact that the game software itself is proprietary and abusive presents its own issues.
Not for the customers or the company. Free Software has come up with a lot of great stuff, but it has never been shown to be successful in making games competitive with start-of-the-art AAA games. There's a lot more to a game than programming, and artists and all those other people don't work for free usually.
The mere existence of proprietary software threatens people's freedoms, and that alone makes it an issue
You're free to not use it.
The more people that buy into proprietary software, the harder it becomes to avoid it in general.
This is valid for operating systems, but not games. No one needs to play any particular game. If you don't like the game, don't buy it; it's really that simple. I don't like AAA games either, so I don't buy them, and I suggest you do the same. But I'm not going to run around telling people they can't buy some game, because *that* is infringing their freedom of choice. Crappy proprietary games' existence doesn't keep anyone from making Free games, or anyone from playing those Free games. In fact, there's lots of Free games out there if you care to look, though they're generally not at all competitive with the latest AAA games.