Linux market share has exceeded MacOS market share, however is still only 2.68% compared to Windows 95.4%. It's simply a matter of the game developers looking at the profitability of the activity. They must believe that using an anticheat that takes complete control of the system is more profitable than picking up another ~2-3% of the market dollars available.
So in a way, it's the cheaters who are responsible for the lack of Linux support.
But I wonder what the licensing agreement is between EA and the anticheat publisher. Is it per-sale based? A Linux compatible solution is likely cheaper.
Could a Linux compatible anti-cheat accomplish a good-enough level of cheat protection which prevents a reputational loss of sales?
What is the total dev cost of just making the game "playable" on Linux? Pretty much zero. All they need to do is remove the offending anti-cheat. The Linux community will do the rest. And this is the default and accepted current state of Linux gaming with zero reputational risk to the game due to lack of performance or stability. Sure, actual support is better, but Linux players will not blame the developer for compatibility issues.
So the final formula for justifying Linux playability (access to $1.07B more dollars) is: (Some % of $1.07B) + (delta in AC licensing costs) - (lost sales due to "more cheating" perception)
Does it make sense to investigate? Yes. But I also have experience in the corporate environment, and I can tell you that the competency debt that exists is overwhelming.
