this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
197 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

12065 readers
693 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] BussyGyatt@feddit.org -1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

it was the guy i was responding to directly who said it and it doesnt matter who said it, its true or not. the general thrust tho is something like, whats the privacy concern at all if im running a dedicated gaming partition? suppose i do trust ea well enough to give them blanket lermission on my win10 partition. what could they do with it if my linux partition is separated? what am i actually risking? they could run a botnet ig? i feel like anything they could try to do would automatically be under prohibitively intense scrutiny. not that i trust ea, im just ignorant and u seem like u wanna actually correct me instead of telling me im stupid with a downvote. i may be stupid but i try to get better.

[โ€“] ganryuu@lemmy.ca 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So yeah, as you said if you dual boot your non gaming OS will stay untouched, outside of the anti-cheat's influence, so you don't risk much this way. I'd imagine that you would still use your credit card on your gaming OS to buy games, so that particular information stays at risk.

Yes, of course they will be under some scrutiny, but I'd prefer if they just didn't do it. Your use case is very far from applying to the majority of users who simply run Windows for everything they do.

And there's still the danger of vulnerabilities in the anti-cheat. For exemple, last year, this happened. It's not exactly the same as the anti-cheat but the tech is close enough. The TL;DR is that CrowdStrike has a platform that runs at kernel level, and an update to the tool had a bug which prevented Windows from booting, instead crashing to a BSOD. Now, CrowdStrike is a security company, and a generally well regarded one at that. It doesn't prevent them from making mistakes. So how can you trust that anti-cheat to be without vulnerability? You simply cannot.