Gears 5 and Halo won't support Steam Deck due to anti-cheat

[Daniel Sims]

In brief: It appears anti-cheat is keeping some popular games from being playable on Valve's Steam Deck. First, it was Fortnite, and now Microsoft has confirmed some of its online games face the same obstacle, though it did note compatibility for many other games.

This week, Microsoft laid out a selection of a little over a dozen of its recent games it confirmed are at least playable on the Steam Deck. However, the company says Gears 5, Halo: Master Chief Collection, Halo Infinite, and Microsoft Flight Simulator X aren't compatible. It simply states "due to anti-cheat," with no other details.

However, last month Epic Games explained why anti-cheat kept the Steam Deck from supporting Fortnite. Epic boss Tim Sweeney expressed doubts about fighting cheating across the wide variety of Linux kernel configurations, particularly the one the Steam Deck uses. Sweeney said Epic is working on making Easy Anti-Cheat more compatible with Steam Deck. Some Microsoft games may be facing similar issues.

The games Microsoft confirmed are fully verified for the Steam Deck are Deathloop, Psychonauts 2, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, The Evil Within, Fallout Shelter, Prey (the 2017 release), Battletoads, and Max: The Curse of Brotherhood. Titles it lists as "playable" are Sea of Thieves, Fallout 4, Forza Horizon 5, Forza Horizon 4, Quantum Break, and State of Decay: YOSE. The latter list of games may require users to tweak some settings to play.

Microsoft has many other games on Steam that it didn't mention this week. The Steam page for Ori and the Blind Forest says the game is verified, but its sequel is unsupported. Fallout 3 is unavailable for Steam Deck, but the first two Fallout games are playable. More games like the 2016 Doom and the newer Wolfenstein games remain untested.

The nuclear option for running all these games would be to install Windows on a Steam Deck, which Valve just made more manageable by releasing Windows drivers for the device.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/93748-gears-5-halo-wont-support-steam-deck-due.html

 

[m4a4]

**Won't officially support Steam OS.

 

[Sausagemeat]

I think it might be more prudent to write articles about games that do work on steam OS than to write one every time a big publisher looks at steam OS and it’s extremely small user base and go “nope, we won’t spend time and money for a user base that small, it doesn’t make sense”.

I believe there is a fan made website somewhere which lists the games that are currently working as they should, whether it be from bugs or lack of support. No idea why Valve haven’t published a similar thing themselves.

 

[Dimitriid]

If Sea of Thieves, an online game, is on the list then it means the DRM is even more of just good old malware at that point: I honestly don't see this games as problems and more as a dire warning for gamers to just stop supporting what's basically malware: if other games can do without that same "anti-cheat" then all games can do without it. In fact, all games should just have the option for player run servers and let us worry about who "cheats" on our own servers.

 

[psycros]

If Sea of Thieves, an online game, is on the list then it means the DRM is even more of just good old malware at that point: I honestly don't see this games as problems and more as a dire warning for gamers to just stop supporting what's basically malware: if other games can do without that same "anti-cheat" then all games can do without it. In fact, all games should just have the option for player run servers and let us worry about who "cheats" on our own servers.

Most private servers do exactly that.

Also, what's with that "wide variety of Linux kernals" stuff? The kernal is the one thing you typically *don't* have a huge variety of. Kernal updates are typically one of the safest and most important upgrades - only those dying to get hacked neglect them.

 

[shark975]

If Sea of Thieves, an online game, is on the list then it means the DRM is even more of just good old malware at that point: I honestly don't see this games as problems and more as a dire warning for gamers to just stop supporting what's basically malware: if other games can do without that same "anti-cheat" then all games can do without it. In fact, all games should just have the option for player run servers and let us worry about who "cheats" on our own servers.

cheating is rampant on pc, I play destiny on console zero cheaters (cronus max does not cheat, only pc gamers mention it), on pc cheating was everywhere until bungie switched their anti-cheat service to battleye, now I guess cheating is less common on destiny pc.

so basically you have no idea what you are talking about unsurprisingly. cheating is huge and rampant on pc without a effective anti cheat service.

 

[Kotters]

I think it might be more prudent to write articles about games that do work on steam OS than to write one every time a big publisher looks at steam OS and it’s extremely small user base and go “nope, we won’t spend time and money for a user base that small, it doesn’t make sense”.

I believe there is a fan made website somewhere which lists the games that are currently working as they should, whether it be from bugs or lack of support. No idea why Valve haven’t published a similar thing themselves.

Valve does have a list, and there's an entire category for tested games in the steam storefront.

 

[Dimitriid]

cheating is rampant on pc, I play destiny on console zero cheaters (cronus max does not cheat, only pc gamers mention it), on pc cheating was everywhere until bungie switched their anti-cheat service to battleye, now I guess cheating is less common on destiny pc.

so basically you have no idea what you are talking about unsurprisingly. cheating is huge and rampant on pc without a effective anti cheat service.

You're presupposing the conclusion: "There is a lot of cheating, so we must need anti-cheat software"

I clearly said that games should allow people to run THEIR OWN SERVERS.

The problem is that most of these games rely on peer-2-peer gaming instead with centrally controlled servers to manage and match players. This is bad for several reasons but one of them is that it is far easier to cheat on a game that relies on peer-2-peer multiplayer system

It's also more slow and because it's centrally controlled it means that if game publishers decide "We don't want people to play this older title because we want to sell a new game" they can, and routinely do take popular games offline completely.

Back 15 years ago or so, the norm for most multiplayer games that were not specifically an mmo, to have just a free server software that players themselves would run and admin as they see fit: players can set admins to manage it, cooperate to pay for the bandwidth, set moderators to get rid of cheaters much more efficiently than any gaming company can, etc.

But go ahead, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a memory that goes back long enough to remember when multiplayer gaming was actually a good experience and not the corporate crap it is today.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Most private servers do exactly that.

Also, what's with that "wide variety of Linux kernals" stuff? The kernal is the one thing you typically *don't* have a huge variety of. Kernal updates are typically one of the safest and most important upgrades - only those dying to get hacked neglect them.

It's just another BS excuse from MS to cover up the incompetence of their own developers. 343 couldnt add gametypes to a live service FPS game because "muh UI" (no seriously, that was their excuse). Epic's anit cheat has supported linux for several months, microsoft is refusing to enable this functionality. Other developers have done it, there is no technical reason MS couldnt do it.

Indie devs can support linux without issue, but a comapny with a multi trillion dollar valuation that has been int he PC business for 50 years cant figure out how to make their multiplayer game run on linux.

 

[Shadowboxer]

You're presupposing the conclusion: "There is a lot of cheating, so we must need anti-cheat software"

I clearly said that games should allow people to run THEIR OWN SERVERS.

The problem is that most of these games rely on peer-2-peer gaming instead with centrally controlled servers to manage and match players. This is bad for several reasons but one of them is that it is far easier to cheat on a game that relies on peer-2-peer multiplayer system

It's also more slow and because it's centrally controlled it means that if game publishers decide "We don't want people to play this older title because we want to sell a new game" they can, and routinely do take popular games offline completely.

Back 15 years ago or so, the norm for most multiplayer games that were not specifically an mmo, to have just a free server software that players themselves would run and admin as they see fit: players can set admins to manage it, cooperate to pay for the bandwidth, set moderators to get rid of cheaters much more efficiently than any gaming company can, etc.

But go ahead, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a memory that goes back long enough to remember when multiplayer gaming was actually a good experience and not the corporate crap it is today.

Well this is awkward. Hosting your own servers would lead to far more cheating. Centralised servers are there as an anti-cheat mechanism. Just ask any systems engineer at these companies if they would entertain private servers connecting to the matchmaking clients and they will laugh you out of the room.

But I do think on some games you can get your own private server but it must be from a provider thats been approved by the games developer.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

P2P networking is garbage and used by devs to cut costs.

 

[godrilla]

Would a Windows os install bypass this?

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Well this is awkward. Hosting your own servers would lead to far more cheating. Centralised servers are there as an anti-cheat mechanism. Just ask any systems engineer at these companies if they would entertain private servers connecting to the matchmaking clients and they will laugh you out of the room.

But I do think on some games you can get your own private server but it must be from a provider thats been approved by the games developer.

Well the matchmaking is also something that needs to be removed. I remember the fun in frequenting the same privately run servers every night, seeing the same groups of people each time.

 

[Ravey]

If Sea of Thieves, an online game, is on the list then it means the DRM is even more of just good old malware at that point: I honestly don't see this games as problems and more as a dire warning for gamers to just stop supporting what's basically malware: if other games can do without that same "anti-cheat" then all games can do without it. In fact, all games should just have the option for player run servers and let us worry about who "cheats" on our own servers.

+1 on a vote to have more multiplayer games open up to private run servers. Especially free to play games with tight running costs.