John McDonald (Key engineer behind VACnet) has offered to extend the service to other game developers, to the point of even publicly requesting partnerships at a GDC conference.
Valve is intentionally vague about its anticheats, yes, but that is because each implementation is somewhat unique. TF2’s, for example, was almost cracked completely open through analysis of the source code leak alongside pattern detection of bots and previously banned players until recent events.
It’s believed that Dota and CS both have their own unique spin on how they do things, with I believe CS being the primary arm for VACnet to be tested on, and I would imagine it’s not a drop-in solution for any game developed outside of Valve. They are open to partnerships though, so who knows?
I imagine they’re vague about how their anti cheat works in an attempt to obscure the methods of detection so people can’t use that information to get around it.
Absolutely. I wasn’t trying to imply Valve wouldn’t offer VACnet to others. I’m sure they’d be happy to partner up with other devs. My point was more that other devs probably aren’t interesting because of how hard it would be the implement. Like you said Dota and CS have different implementations and I imagine deadlock does too. I imagine most games would end up with either a custom implementation or a custom model, both require a significant work on the developers side. It’s probably easier to add something like EAC than VACnet so devs most likely go that route.
One solution to maintain Linux compatibility with good protections could be similar to what Embark Studios is doing with their games (The Finals, and Arc Raiders): Windows version gets Kernel-level anti-cheat and additional layers, Proton branch gets a user-level version of the anticheat instead.
Personally, I would argue that the majority of individual cheaters (who are seeking to undermine their opponents and win with minimal effort) are likely to be on Windows platforms where kernel-level protections would be most effective in detection. With an Embark-style dual solution - you can both catch the most cheaters and score W’s with the Linux community.
John McDonald (Key engineer behind VACnet) has offered to extend the service to other game developers, to the point of even publicly requesting partnerships at a GDC conference.
Valve is intentionally vague about its anticheats, yes, but that is because each implementation is somewhat unique. TF2’s, for example, was almost cracked completely open through analysis of the source code leak alongside pattern detection of bots and previously banned players until recent events.
It’s believed that Dota and CS both have their own unique spin on how they do things, with I believe CS being the primary arm for VACnet to be tested on, and I would imagine it’s not a drop-in solution for any game developed outside of Valve. They are open to partnerships though, so who knows?
I imagine they’re vague about how their anti cheat works in an attempt to obscure the methods of detection so people can’t use that information to get around it.
Absolutely. I wasn’t trying to imply Valve wouldn’t offer VACnet to others. I’m sure they’d be happy to partner up with other devs. My point was more that other devs probably aren’t interesting because of how hard it would be the implement. Like you said Dota and CS have different implementations and I imagine deadlock does too. I imagine most games would end up with either a custom implementation or a custom model, both require a significant work on the developers side. It’s probably easier to add something like EAC than VACnet so devs most likely go that route.
One solution to maintain Linux compatibility with good protections could be similar to what Embark Studios is doing with their games (The Finals, and Arc Raiders): Windows version gets Kernel-level anti-cheat and additional layers, Proton branch gets a user-level version of the anticheat instead.
Personally, I would argue that the majority of individual cheaters (who are seeking to undermine their opponents and win with minimal effort) are likely to be on Windows platforms where kernel-level protections would be most effective in detection. With an Embark-style dual solution - you can both catch the most cheaters and score W’s with the Linux community.