FishFace

Infrequently (when I remember)

That’s the orthodoxy but noone ever bothers to actually back it up. If I write an encyclopedia and refer extensively to external sources it’s not a derivative work, and that seems to be the closest obvious example.

2 minutes every few years? What? Where are those numbers coming from? You’re going to plug the controller in for <1 minute/year!?

Why do you need to replace the battery after only a few minutes of use? Did you miss that you recharge it in the controller?

You only need to replace it when it no longer holds enough charge to be useful, which is going to be at least a couple of years. You’re not replacing the battery in your phone every couple of days, are you? Why would this battery be different?

Your edit:

I’m not answering the same questions yet again.

I did not ask any questions in my last comment that I had asked before. You have never said why you think you need to replace the battery in the controller often enough for a screwed-down battery cover to be a problem. You have never said why the battery not being AA-sized makes it take longer to replace, when there are many quickly-swappable battery designs out there.

You have tried to say that the Steam Controller won’t be like that - but without evidence and without acknowledging that you said something wrong. That’s not very good.

Yeah I’ve only seen the pouch type.

Why is 5 seconds every few days better than 2 minutes every few years? You just keep talking up how easy it is to replace AAs as if that’s somehow the only important thing? For it to be worse, it has to be worse than the alternative which you just don’t seem to understand is going to take up less time?

That is obviously not the case with the Steam controller.

How do you know? Do you have a preview?

But you’ve again completely ignored the point, which is that the non-AA alternative is quicker to swap, so the time to swap was never about the battery type, was it?

Once you’ve understood this we can talk about the point you never initially mentioned, but I’m not opening a new discussion when you’re being so willfully ignorant on the first one.

The problem as you’ve stated it compares replacing an AA battery (necessary very often) to replacing a rechargeable battery (only necessary when it’s health depletes after years), so your characterisation of it so far is unreasonable, which is why I asked again.

If it’s both you’ve failed to explain any inherent problem with non-AA batteries when it comes to the time taken to change them. I can change a the custom battery in my camera as quickly as any AA. Faster, even, than the typical AA sprung enclosure because of the housing.

Ok, and you’ll only have to swap this battery out after a couple of years, so what’s the problem?

Glad we’re agreed it’s about the access, not the battery itself.

I’m talking about the actual physical object and its characteristics. The part that affects time taken is the access to the battery, not the battery form factor.

It’ll take all of two minutes to swap the battery, chill out.

In your imagined world where the steam controller has AA batteries, the difference you’re taking about is the battery door, not the battery firm factor.

Swappability is not a matter of the exact size and shape, but how many screws are needed to access it etc.

I think laptop batteries are usually thinner than 18650s? All the ones I’ve seen are, anyway

I don’t think it’s cognitive dissonance driving them, I think it’s hatred of rootkit anti-cheat that bleeds into other client-side anti-cheat.

People aren’t very good at separating different but related things, it seems.

Right but a Rust player is probably playing these other shooters.

Because they historically didn’t work on Linux. Looking at shooters from 2018:

• CoD BLOPS 4 - didn’t work on Linux; it started working in 2022
• Battlefield V - doesn’t work on Linux
• Far Cry 5 - unreliable according to ProtonDB

But taking it further, they’re the gamer-iest games, so if you’re playing one of these titles there’s a high chance you’re playing a lot of games, probably with friends, and each one your friend group picks up is another chance for Linux support to be poor, meaning that you’re going to miss out. Obviously that doesn’t apply to everyone, but it’s absolutely going to reduce the number of people using Linux to play. With the Steam Deck now, this trend won’t be as prevalent, especially for stuff played with controllers, but I bet you’ll still see the phenomenon with AAA, multiplayer titles design for KB+M.

CS has VAC which can issue VAC bans - unless something’s changed. They may also get volunteers to assess stuff idk.

Yes, there is no way to prevent all cheats. However, to prevent as many as possible, you need to use all available methods. It’s quite reasonable that kernel-level anti-cheat should not be available, as it it’s an overreach and a security risk. However, client-side anti-cheat is not that.

Visibility check of what?

• The player and their shadow and all visible effects on the game world -> congratulations, now the server needs a GPU per player.
• The player’s geometry? -> shadows pop into existence when the player’s arm appears around the corner, and the server is still way more expensive than it would be
• A volume around the player? -> Still allows a significant advantage, still requires significantly more horsepower, and the client still can’t do spatial audio

This amounts to making players use thin clients and putting all visual and audio rendering on the server if you want it to work and not suck. Will you be happy to save £1000 on your PC at the cost of having games cost £150 a pop? Thought not. Or did you think the “extra CPU cycles” were just free?

If your objection to client-side anti-cheat is that it “doesn’t work” what till you see what server-side anti-cheat fails to accomplish!

There’s no way with a pure server-side implementation to even try to work out whether the client is using an aimbot or wallhack. No solution is perfect, which is why the best solutions try to combine methods.

Is it? Major FPS game sounds like the least likely game Linux users would be playing on Linux.

And this naïve understanding of infosec somehow makes people forget that this is not infosec, and there is more to anti-cheats than ignoring a client which says its travelling at warp speed.