That's not what I said - my point is that companies with a relaxed security baseline (ie. not having a dedicated team of people tasked with investigating cheats and improving their anti-cheat system) tend to invite an increased number of cheaters into their games, and I back this up with real events.
- These companies will send cease-and-desist letters to cheat makers instead of working to detect their cheats (Joduska.me ceased operations due to a Riot C&D, and Bossland GmbH was actually sued and lost). If these cheats were instead detected and users banned on a continuous basis, no lawsuits would be needed.
- CS:GO implemented (as in, almost a decade ago) an "Overwatch" review system to allow players to review potential cheaters and have a consensus on whether or not cheating is likely. Valve is knows to be very relaxed on VAC - and knowing the company culture @ Valve being what it is, these ban waves probably only happen when one of the seniors @ Valve gets killed by a cheater in-game themselves and tasks someone with implementing some detection mechanism into VAC. Only recently (~4 years ago) has valve supposedly started to incorporate more advanced automatic detection and punishment systems[0], but at the time it wasn't doing anything about wallhacks and at auto-headshot cheats tend to be pretty good at adding enough noise to make it look very close to what professionals can do and thus these cases still end up in the overwatch queue (and note that this system probably hasn't been iterated on much; Valve doesn't do dedicated teams that own specific products).
Of course, there is no hard evidence for the actual number of cheaters in all of these games. But my point isn't that Linux is the vehicle or platform cheats are used on, just that a video game without a rigorous cheat detection system is more likely to open up their attack surface to other platforms. Valorant still has firepower behind it, so while there are cheats, Riot is invested in keeping it Windows-only to ensure they don't incidentally have to split their resources between detecting cheats and hardening their executables on Linux and Windows at the same time.
- These companies will send cease-and-desist letters to cheat makers instead of working to detect their cheats (Joduska.me ceased operations due to a Riot C&D, and Bossland GmbH was actually sued and lost). If these cheats were instead detected and users banned on a continuous basis, no lawsuits would be needed.
- CS:GO implemented (as in, almost a decade ago) an "Overwatch" review system to allow players to review potential cheaters and have a consensus on whether or not cheating is likely. Valve is knows to be very relaxed on VAC - and knowing the company culture @ Valve being what it is, these ban waves probably only happen when one of the seniors @ Valve gets killed by a cheater in-game themselves and tasks someone with implementing some detection mechanism into VAC. Only recently (~4 years ago) has valve supposedly started to incorporate more advanced automatic detection and punishment systems[0], but at the time it wasn't doing anything about wallhacks and at auto-headshot cheats tend to be pretty good at adding enough noise to make it look very close to what professionals can do and thus these cases still end up in the overwatch queue (and note that this system probably hasn't been iterated on much; Valve doesn't do dedicated teams that own specific products).
Of course, there is no hard evidence for the actual number of cheaters in all of these games. But my point isn't that Linux is the vehicle or platform cheats are used on, just that a video game without a rigorous cheat detection system is more likely to open up their attack surface to other platforms. Valorant still has firepower behind it, so while there are cheats, Riot is invested in keeping it Windows-only to ensure they don't incidentally have to split their resources between detecting cheats and hardening their executables on Linux and Windows at the same time.
0: https://youtu.be/SnRgW54EWwA?t=299