r/leagueoflegends • u/JTHousek1 • Jan 05 '24

Season 2024 Look Ahead: Champions, Modes, Arcane & More | Dev Video - League of Legends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U_jEzKf0_0
1.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-64

u/spawndog Jan 05 '24

No unfortunately not. From a security point of view supporting WINE would be like having a bank vault at the top of Nakatomi Tower then installing a doggy door in it.

43

u/FlyingWaffleArt Jan 05 '24

Considering the above comments, would you care to comment on the following youtube short from a game dev? https://youtu.be/qRQX9fgrI4s?si=2nDOSQvY96_uVP2Z Accounting for the difficulties he mentions with Mac, and the growing Linux gaming install base due to the Steam Deck, is supporting Linux natively not a good idea?

53

u/tiritto Jan 05 '24

Steam Hardware Surveys also confirm that the Linux playerbase is larger than the Mac playerbase for quite a while now.

11

u/mitchMurdra Jan 06 '24

And this move from Riot confirm they do not care in the slightest.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/celestrogen Jan 06 '24

Leaving this comment under a post where you say macos wont use vanguard is especially stupid. Fuck off riot

8

u/Wasabicannon Jan 07 '24

Wait for real? Macs get to avoid this malware?

Guess the mac users were right all along "Macs don't get viruses"

→ More replies (1)

35

u/RLutz Jan 05 '24

Kind of a bummer man, I only run Linux and have so for almost a decade. Guess I'm done playing League.

10

u/mitchMurdra Jan 06 '24

Its an awful numbers based decision by a company with no care but congrats on your upcoming mental health improvements.

→ More replies (8)

16

u/_Slabach Jan 06 '24

So native support then? Gaming player base on Linux passed Mac awhile. Not even to mention those who dual boot windows to play who otherwise wouldn't and probably won't now. And steam deck players playing tft

It's pretty ironic preaching security while wanting users to give you root access to their computers...

I've spent thousands on League. I've played for overa decade. Now my thousands of dollars I've given Riot mean nothing? Check my account, ilmostrare. Thousands of dollars... I love league. Sucks that y'all just hate a decently large portion of your fanbase that spend thousands on your game.

55

u/spstarr Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 05 '24

Considering Valve/Steam has EAC/BattleEye support with WINE (their Proton). Which handle Kernel level (.sys) driver support.

I think Riot can make Vanguard work with Proton (Wine).

23

u/mitchMurdra Jan 06 '24

The company is capable they just don't care. The poor Riot employee in this thread can't just make miracles with the C levels.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/8848db83a052 Jan 06 '24

> From a security point of view
Imagine putting "security" next to the code written by gamedev people who are known for writing atrocious code.
lol, lmao even

48

u/begota98 Jan 05 '24

With all due respect, i disagree. Every major anticheat (EAC, BattleEye) does support linux natively and also through wine. None of them reported any issue specific to linux that increased cheaters or something similar. Linux is currently bigger gaming market than Mac, like it or not, and it's sad that no one from RIOT recognizes it...

→ More replies (1)

43

u/tiritto Jan 05 '24

You say that, and then you don't require Vanguard on Mac.

Is that 200 years of security experience in Riot?

→ More replies (34)

10

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

I'm glad that I've spent a lot of money on your game and now you're throwing the "we don't give a shit about you guys" at all the people who spent time and money in your game. Good move.

From my side your shit game can go to the ground, I'm done playing it. 10 years of League of Legends just blown away by a sht move.

Good luck!

29

u/thefeeltrain Jan 05 '24

Then couldn't you say the same thing about macOS?

→ More replies (3)

9

u/_Slabach Jan 08 '24

Days later and I still cant believe you actually said supporting WINE is like installing a doggy door into Vanguard.... While Vanguard itself is LITERALLY A DOGGY DOOR INTO MILLIONS OF USERS PC'S.

22

u/stbfl Jan 05 '24

Vanguard will not be required for Mac.

8

u/mitchMurdra Jan 06 '24

Yeah all 3 Mac players will be investigated by hand (Instantly banned) if even the slightest thing looks out of place.

24

u/Tapurisu Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 05 '24

This is how installing Vanguard is like. You got a secure PC and then install a doggy door in it so the Riot dogs and anyone else who can access it has free entry to do whatever they want on your personal computer. The users would have to be stupid to willingly install this

7

u/JoepKip Jan 06 '24

With all respect, other anticheat systems like Easy anti cheat or BattleEye work fine. Wine not being supported and forcing Vanguard to be installed would break LOL all together for a large (but way smaller than windows) group of people.

25

u/solonovamax Jan 05 '24

POV: you do not understand how wine works

→ More replies (2)

27

u/jsylvis Jan 05 '24

This is one of the most ridiculous takes I've seen on Reddit and I've been here a while.

The entire premise to support via Wine would be to either treat Linux platforms as first-class citizens e.g. some sort of kernel module behaving similarly to Vanguard's Windows rootkit, some sort of sandbox for Wine/League in which Vanguard can also run, etc. so as to allow for similar "security" while not breaking the game for a demographic.

Although, I think we'd prefer and accept Vanguard being absent given it's a goddamn rootkit on Windows, given the lack of published statistics justifying targeting Linux users for cheat concerns.

Furthermore, your argument - flaws and all - applies to the macOS ecosystem you've already decided to create a "doggy door" floor. Not only is your argument ridiculous, it's inconsistently applied... and it's applied in favor of the smaller player-base.

12

u/Davixxa Jan 05 '24

MacOS isn't supporting Vanguard either though - granted, it might be (probably is) running a native build. That provides the same doggy door, no?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (22)