There's more and more developers releasing for Linux than ever dude. Also, nVidia and AMD are rapidly rolling out fixes for gaming issues on Linux. I've seen issues for nVidia drivers for gaming fixed the same week they were identified!

Steam isn't really competition to Windows for PC gaming. Steam is an enormous asset for Windows and without Windows Steam is less than nothing. Obviously Valve was trying to create a strong Windows independent Linux based platform so that Steam wouldn't be so dependent on Windows but that didn't really take off. So now Plan B and Windows game compatibility tech in the box for Linux which is totally necessary given the lack of native Linux game development to date.

If you're Microsoft this is a better outcome for now than had Linux caught on as its own platform. There's a long way to go with this so who knows. Could create a new spark and interest in Linux PC gaming, could lead to not much and actually hurt native Linux game development.
 
People have to spend more effort to get certain games going on Windows like that too. New and old games! Old games moreso. The example shows you can get setup with Overwatch in barely any time and it plays fabulously.

Even still, Windows breaks all the time. How often do you hear "wipe and reinstall" as the solution for Windows problems? Because I encounter it all the time! (For Windows systems)

Thats the big problem.

If linux needs to get a strong foothold, it needs to stop accepting anything more complex than "install game and click play".

Linux has a (well deserved) reputation for being needlessly complex and extremely alienating to new users. The trend for popularity of an OS is "How easy is it to get shit done?", and right now, for new users, having to do anything more than click 'play game' is just toxic.
 
My home laptop, which I do other work on, is Linux. I'm actually currently working with my day job company to roll out more Linux there, including on work laptops.

There are certain pain points, but it's achievable!

Keeping guys like you from killing windows on your laptop. Hey look you can terminal warrior it from windows. lol ;)

The Linux subsystem is a sad attempt to stem the bleeding of Developers and System admin types.

I have no doubt in time MS ends development of their own micro kernel / dll using silly registry setup mish mash of pain.

To be honest I will gladly welcome MS as a first class DE developer.
 
The thing is installing software does not mean the software is running. I'm on xfce4 + compiz on Ubuntu and I bet my frames would be the same on Arch. I would argue that the whole "bloat" thing in Ubuntu is bunk.

Arch really isn't a lot of work to set up if you already know what you're doing, and it's much lighter and faster than ubuntu if you don't install a bunch of cruft, even with KDE/Gnome.
 
Other Blizzard titles are actually easier to get going. Probably going to cover them at some point. Already have all the Blizzard games running smooth in Linux, including BfA! :D

Looks good, glad to know there is a way to play blizzard titles on steam as that was one of my few remaining holdouts. Hopefully this continues to get smoother so when MS finally makes using Win 7 untenable the transition will be smooth.
 
I recommend you install from a usb drive and try to use an SSD if you have one spare. It's so much faster! But if not, it'll still be plenty fast ;D

Glad this was helpful! Yay!

Very interesting stuff BloodyIron, I just built a gaming rig with spare parts I had laying around. I may have to give Ubuntu a shot, I don’t mind experimenting!
 
The thing is installing software does not mean the software is running. I'm on xfce4 + compiz on Ubuntu and I bet my frames would be the same on Arch. I would argue that the whole "bloat" thing in Ubuntu is bunk.
Generally yeah, but there are a few packages which pull in a lot of other (what I'd consider) unnecessary packages that do run in the background, which doesn't often happen on Arch (it does happen, but not as often in my experience). Of course, they may have fixed the dependencies on Ubuntu since I've last used it, and if you aren't running gnome or kde it's generally not an issue anyway.
 
The thing is installing software does not mean the software is running. I'm on xfce4 + compiz on Ubuntu and I bet my frames would be the same on Arch. I would argue that the whole "bloat" thing in Ubuntu is bunk.

In general... in terms of just speed. (and yes speed isn't everything).
Clear Linux is hands down the fastest distro you can use if your running Intel hardware... Intel builds its kernels and tunes everything for extreme Intel performance.
Arch tends to follow just behind arch... as its rolling packages tend to be the least doctored and it doesn't install anything YOUR system doesn't need.
Ubutnu / Suse / Red Hat tend to come in behind... although yes pure speed isn't everything. Clearly Suse and Red hat are mostly aimed at a different market. Ubuntu tries to be a bit of everything to everyone, and mostly does that alright. Its not the most secure, but its secure. Its not the fastest but its not dog slow... its not the most optimized but no doubt it tends to just work on most hardware.

Here is some testing... Clear Linux (Intels distro) vs Arch vs Antergos (a arch distro) and Ubuntu server.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arch-antergos-clear&num=1
You will see some workloads are for sure faster on arch with its clearner newer packages. Intels Clear linux is built for speed and is always impressive.

Keep in mind Micheal tends to test distros like that at default install settings. Of course Linux systems tend to be Linux systems. You could strip almost anything down to the boards and do things to speed every distro up... and go the extra mile with custom kernel compiles ect. I guess I'm saying every distro can be fast... but out of the box some are faster, and some (like arch) imo make it far easier to easily tweak performance.

Even if you want to just do a quick and dirty "fast" Linux arch makes it really easy to simply switch to their Zen kernel builds instead of mainline. You want more secure, 1 terminal command and your running the arch hardened kernel line instead. I'm not saying you can't run your systemd-analyze blame commands and slim Ubuntu down getting rid of default installed things like modemmanager.service if you aren't using cellular internet ect. Ubuntu just tends to have a lot of things pre-installed to cover a ton of use cases... that is great don't get me wrong. Just with arch if you need that you install it >.< No need to clean things up.
 
I recommend you install from a usb drive and try to use an SSD if you have one spare. It's so much faster! But if not, it'll still be plenty fast ;D

Glad this was helpful! Yay!
Yes the system has an ssd and I will definitely install from a usb drive.
 
Dang dude! Thanks. That's really awesome for you to say man. :) <3

I really didn't give you enough credit with your knowledge of Linux and Linux gaming.
Needless to say, you have my full respect and admiration - may not sound like much coming from me, but I've been into Linux gaming long before Steam was a native application to it, and I have to say your guide was very professional and second to none.

You are definitely a benefit to both the Linux and Microsoft gaming and OS communities.
Excellent work, I can't wait to see more! (y)
 
1. I almost never find something I want to use that isn't in a repo, or doesn't have a deb. I find deb/ubuntu packaging way more frequently for open source stuff than Arch. Also, for me, compiling source is so 1990's. If that's your bag, no worries, but I'd rather just download and install it. ;D PPA's take seconds to add, and it increases the amount of software updated by the package manager. Not sure how that's an issue.
2. Mmmmm I haven't tried much UPlay stuff myself, namely because Ubisoft games are drab to me lately. Although I've seen Farcry 5 be working, not sure if that's through UPlay or not. I've seen a bunch of Origin stuff be playable though, so DRM isn't a guaranteed, hard "NO" for gaming on Linux btw. But it does happen as a problem.
3. I don't like VMs to do it either. And at this point the only game that's really not yet feasible is PUBG/Fortnite, and those are going to be solved any day now. At this point, I can effectively play whatever I want, when I want. Without a VM.


1. Arch has huge customization potential & I love having the ability to compile apps right-quick from PKGBUILD git/svn clones & AUR (ArchLinux User Repository). I actually hate dealing with PPAs & trying to create my own deb packages. Arch is so much easier for this.
2. Largely Uplay games & ones heavy with DRM/ATP
3. I'd prefer to run everything via WINE/DXVK/Proton but that's not always possible. VMs one way or another might help me get past that.
 
In general... in terms of just speed. (and yes speed isn't everything).
Clear Linux is hands down the fastest distro you can use if your running Intel hardware... Intel builds its kernels and tunes everything for extreme Intel performance.
Arch tends to follow just behind arch... as its rolling packages tend to be the least doctored and it doesn't install anything YOUR system doesn't need.
Ubutnu / Suse / Red Hat tend to come in behind... although yes pure speed isn't everything. Clearly Suse and Red hat are mostly aimed at a different market. Ubuntu tries to be a bit of everything to everyone, and mostly does that alright. Its not the most secure, but its secure. Its not the fastest but its not dog slow... its not the most optimized but no doubt it tends to just work on most hardware.

Here is some testing... Clear Linux (Intels distro) vs Arch vs Antergos (a arch distro) and Ubuntu server.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arch-antergos-clear&num=1
You will see some workloads are for sure faster on arch with its clearner newer packages. Intels Clear linux is built for speed and is always impressive.

Keep in mind Micheal tends to test distros like that at default install settings. Of course Linux systems tend to be Linux systems. You could strip almost anything down to the boards and do things to speed every distro up... and go the extra mile with custom kernel compiles ect. I guess I'm saying every distro can be fast... but out of the box some are faster, and some (like arch) imo make it far easier to easily tweak performance.

Even if you want to just do a quick and dirty "fast" Linux arch makes it really easy to simply switch to their Zen kernel builds instead of mainline. You want more secure, 1 terminal command and your running the arch hardened kernel line instead. I'm not saying you can't run your systemd-analyze blame commands and slim Ubuntu down getting rid of default installed things like modemmanager.service if you aren't using cellular internet ect. Ubuntu just tends to have a lot of things pre-installed to cover a ton of use cases... that is great don't get me wrong. Just with arch if you need that you install it >.< No need to clean things up.

When compiling kernels & packages with makepkg, you can optimize to native architecture on Arch. This will give a much closer speed advantage to Clear Linux than say a kernel built for "generic x86_64".

1. I almost never find something I want to use that isn't in a repo, or doesn't have a deb. I find deb/ubuntu packaging way more frequently for open source stuff than Arch. Also, for me, compiling source is so 1990's. If that's your bag, no worries, but I'd rather just download and install it. ;D PPA's take seconds to add, and it increases the amount of software updated by the package manager. Not sure how that's an issue.
2. Mmmmm I haven't tried much UPlay stuff myself, namely because Ubisoft games are drab to me lately. Although I've seen Farcry 5 be working, not sure if that's through UPlay or not. I've seen a bunch of Origin stuff be playable though, so DRM isn't a guaranteed, hard "NO" for gaming on Linux btw. But it does happen as a problem.
3. I don't like VMs to do it either. And at this point the only game that's really not yet feasible is PUBG/Fortnite, and those are going to be solved any day now. At this point, I can effectively play whatever I want, when I want. Without a VM.

1. I'd rather compile to native architecture than go with the generic unoptimized version when possible. Plus I don't like having to deal with approved software from Canonical & partners. PPAs work fine but even then I don't always find what I want. Compiling code can be messy but I'm choosing source code that has already been fixed up to work on Arch Linux when possible (PKGBUILD).
2. I get where you're coming from but don't think that I haven't tried many options myself. DRM & anti-tamper mechanisms can cause major issues with gaming unless you utilize a modified executable or DLL for the purpose of running in WINE.
3. I suggest you look up Looking Glass & understand it's capabilities. It's a newer project with much better results at running VMs for VFIO than other implementations.
 
Last edited:
Such as?

Things won't run in the background unless they're a daemon. Typically programs you install don't run as daemons. I mean, you can install daemon versions of stuff, but day to day desktop applications don't work like that.

And while there are times some things need a laundry list of libraries, what exactly is the problem with that? They're typically very small by today's standards, and we really aren't in a shortage of storage tech.

Generally yeah, but there are a few packages which pull in a lot of other (what I'd consider) unnecessary packages that do run in the background, which doesn't often happen on Arch (it does happen, but not as often in my experience). Of course, they may have fixed the dependencies on Ubuntu since I've last used it, and if you aren't running gnome or kde it's generally not an issue anyway.
 
Nice! Also, look if you have a USB 3.0 port on the mobo. That'll help too! (if yours is fast enough).

If you get stuck or whatever, let me know what happened and I'll help where I can. But it'll probably be just fine ;D

If it's a newer mobo, I recommend you turn off UEFI and go to Legacy BIOS. Easier user experience IMO.

Yes the system has an ssd and I will definitely install from a usb drive.
 
Such as?

Things won't run in the background unless they're a daemon. Typically programs you install don't run as daemons. I mean, you can install daemon versions of stuff, but day to day desktop applications don't work like that.

And while there are times some things need a laundry list of libraries, what exactly is the problem with that? They're typically very small by today's standards, and we really aren't in a shortage of storage tech.
Gnome and (particularly) KDE use daemons (at least one) for a number of things. Search/directory indexing, thumbnails, bookmarks, settings, to name a few. Packages which are pulled in when you install kde or gnome on ubuntu tie into these daemons, and can cause churn in the background. I think the major one I had issues with was the one which indexes the home directory constantly (a bug, I think), not sure if that one ever got fixed. The ubuntu packages hard depend on that daemon, so I don't use Ubuntu (at least not gnome/kde).
As far as libraries, I have no issue with them. Same story as far as that goes on Arch.
 
Well, the link is talking about stuff that is more server centric. Most of those facets won't be things that would be noticed by the user experience. One of the things worth noting is that a significant amount of driver development for nVidia and AMD is done against Ubuntu. VALVe tests against Ubuntu regularly and fixes problems it identifies. So there's a lot of gaming-centric stuff developed there.

The x264 encoding and a few other parts are pretty neat, might have to look into that for my video workflow, HAH! But otherwise, for me, Ubuntu gets me up and running faster, without much compromise in terms of bleeding-edge-tuning required.

Trust me, my first install was Gentoo Stage 1, I know what the tasty custom is like. But at the end of the day, I never really noticed the advantages of performance compared to the advantages of convenience and polish I saw in Ubuntu.

Ubuntu has improved at a rate that dwarfs almost all other distros out there. And not just from Canonical. The amount of Linux open source stuff out there that, by "default", has instructions for Ubuntu is so high, I rarely see Arch even on the list at all, and Ubuntu is on 95% of the time or more.

Compiling is just time I'd rather be spending playing games, or editing videos, or hell just watching videos, instead of code compiling.

Or spinning up a new VM to do something neat with.

I pay very close attention to the emerging threats space of IT, and I so very rarely have to deal with a real infection on Ubuntu. Not saying that Arch is insecure. More saying that it gives me all the things, actually very well.


In general... in terms of just speed. (and yes speed isn't everything).
Clear Linux is hands down the fastest distro you can use if your running Intel hardware... Intel builds its kernels and tunes everything for extreme Intel performance.
Arch tends to follow just behind arch... as its rolling packages tend to be the least doctored and it doesn't install anything YOUR system doesn't need.
Ubutnu / Suse / Red Hat tend to come in behind... although yes pure speed isn't everything. Clearly Suse and Red hat are mostly aimed at a different market. Ubuntu tries to be a bit of everything to everyone, and mostly does that alright. Its not the most secure, but its secure. Its not the fastest but its not dog slow... its not the most optimized but no doubt it tends to just work on most hardware.

Here is some testing... Clear Linux (Intels distro) vs Arch vs Antergos (a arch distro) and Ubuntu server.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arch-antergos-clear&num=1
You will see some workloads are for sure faster on arch with its clearner newer packages. Intels Clear linux is built for speed and is always impressive.

Keep in mind Micheal tends to test distros like that at default install settings. Of course Linux systems tend to be Linux systems. You could strip almost anything down to the boards and do things to speed every distro up... and go the extra mile with custom kernel compiles ect. I guess I'm saying every distro can be fast... but out of the box some are faster, and some (like arch) imo make it far easier to easily tweak performance.

Even if you want to just do a quick and dirty "fast" Linux arch makes it really easy to simply switch to their Zen kernel builds instead of mainline. You want more secure, 1 terminal command and your running the arch hardened kernel line instead. I'm not saying you can't run your systemd-analyze blame commands and slim Ubuntu down getting rid of default installed things like modemmanager.service if you aren't using cellular internet ect. Ubuntu just tends to have a lot of things pre-installed to cover a ton of use cases... that is great don't get me wrong. Just with arch if you need that you install it >.< No need to clean things up.
 
Or.. you could play at max settings and without any of that spectating stuff in windows. I'd like to see gaming in linux move beyond where it's at, but I'd rather have Blizzard explain what's keeping them from releasing linux versions and if any of the reasons are technical then have the community work on addressing those.
Pretty sure the state of gaming on Linux is the death knell for Windows. How many people are upset with how many facets of Windows exactly? I hear far more people complaining about Windows than praising it.

I rarely hear someone get excited about some new feature that came out for Windows. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard such a thing. Can you?

Yeah windows has lots of issues. But it's not like Ubuntu or Red Hat don't either... And how many linux audio subsystems have we gone through? Desktop environments? Packaging systems? You end up trading one set of problems for another....
 
Great video BloodyIron! It's so awesome to see someone else around here who is excited about getting native Windows games running on Linux. I just tossed an extra HDD into my secondary rig to install Ubuntu (Arch user here) to give this a try. The spectator method for caching is a great idea. I wish I had thought of that back when I had Overwatch running on Arch. Keep it up man and I'll be watching the videos.

My mouse still wants to force aim up though for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Or.. you could play at max settings and without any of that spectating stuff in windows. I'd like to see gaming in linux move beyond where it's at, but I'd rather have Blizzard explain what's keeping them from releasing linux versions and if any of the reasons are technical then have the community work on addressing those.


Yeah windows has lots of issues. But it's not like Ubuntu or Red Hat don't either... And how many linux audio subsystems have we gone through? Desktop environments? Packaging systems? You end up trading one set of problems for another....
Audio...maybe 5? Depends on what you mean by subsystem. Only two drivers, and three or four software mixers (including the two from the drivers). A couple audio libraries, but those are modular and only devs need care about them, generally.

DEs? Two major ones (with a few major releases each), three if you count enlightenment or windowmaker, all the smaller ones were never really adopted by major distros.

Packaging systems? Two, deb and rpm. There are others, but almost no major distro (enterprise/server) uses them. Each has their (dis)advantages. Windows' system works pretty well too, just as long as you don't break it (same with anything).
 
For the most part Linux is Linux.

Ubuntu Arch Gentoo Redhat... it doesn't matter.

The point I think about power users in general not having a Ubuntu preference. Comes down to base install options.

Ubuntu is great for being a cover all base install that will cover 99% of peoples basics. The issue for most advance users is there will always be things being installed by default in Ubuntu that are just not needed by THEM. I gave you one very specific example. modemmanager.service If you run systemd-analyze blame. I have almost no doubt it will be eating 4-9s of your boot time... now if you are using a Cellular modem, or have a USB wireless dongle you want that. If you don't... why would you. Its easy enough to remove, don't get me wrong. Its just a distro like Arch is going to install without stuff like that... if someone needs it they can install it in 2s.

So yes Ubuntu is a great all around for everyone distro. Arch (not manjaro or antergos or the other arch spins that attempt to make arch more user friendly) installs the bare min of what is required by default.

Another reason advance users like Arch is kernel manegment. (Manjaro is great for newer users, as they add a easy to use GUI Kernel installation selector if you want to install 2+ kernels) https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernels Arch officially supports a bunch of precompiled kernels... and a bunch of kernel patchsets.

I have nothing against Ubuntu... and valve using as a base has more to do with dependency testing. There is nothing specific about Ubuntu really other then they are building against dependency versions that ship with Ubuntu. So lib32-libgl, gdk-pixbuf and the like. Arch and many other distros provide much never versions of those Depends then Ubuntu does. What many distros such as arch does to handle that issue... is provide 2 versions of Steam one that runs with the same depend versions that Ubuntu does, and one that runs on the newest versions. For some games performance is improved with the newer depends, and in some cases it causes issues... which is why Arch offers a way to run the older depends. (ps in the case of Arch it ins't installing 2 versions of steam just adding a simple .desktop launcher that launches steam using the LTS version depends instead of the default newest Arch repo versions)

Day one 4 years back ya Ubuntu was the best distro choice for steam for sure. Now to be honest it doesn't much matter. All the major distros have figured out how to properly handle the issue of supporting Steam aimed at Ubuntu LTS. Not knocking valves choice either choosing to aim at Ubuntu LTS for support was very logical.

Lots of interesting experimentation going on within the Arch community all the time... easy to get Proton up and running without steam which is interesting as well.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/proton/
 
There's more and more developers releasing for Linux than ever dude.

And WAY more developers than that releasing for Windows. The whole point of Steam Play is to make it easier to get content on Linux that otherwise would have never come natively.
 
And WAY more developers than that releasing for Windows. The whole point of Steam Play is to make it easier to get content on Linux that otherwise would have never come natively.

Steam is still 20% NATIVE Linux right now Heatle. No spin changes that. Linux as a platform went from ZERO to 20% in 4 years. The majority of that 20% is in the top 20% of steams top selling games. With steam play that is now 95% or so as their are still a few titles that have launch issues. Its beta for now... but hey their DXVK developer is honestly pumping out a new version a few times a week right now.

Bottom line with in a few months that number is going to be very close to 100% with very good performance numbers. No it won't perhaps be 100% = performance to windows on every title. However for most people that is going to be more then good enough.

OEMS will come around and start shipping Linux... which is a much better option then shipping steamos if we are all being honest. Even gamers want to open a normal web browser now and then.

Now granted the Linux oem revolution may well not happen... and you know it doesn't have to. People are starting to talk about OEMs seeing demand for higher end chromebooks... and the OEMS are starting to ship them. Its only a matter of time before either 1) googles Linux software install solves the GPU pass through issues and flatpak or .deb installed steam just works. or 2) far worse for MS Valve decides to cut google in for a taste who then full on packages Steam for chromeos.
There is no technical reason why a chromeos device can't load steam right now today... OEMS can easily ship higher end devices and Valve and Google could knock out a native version of chromeos steam in a few min. I am sure Google has their eye on steam play with much interest. If Google does officially welcome steam to chromeos... I would give developers less then a year before they would all be jumping up and down about their ChromeOS versions of pretty much everything.

When that happens and Valve/Google announce steam is coming to chromeos and higher end chromebooks. That is when we will know... that google is going in for the kill.
 
Last edited:
And WAY more developers than that releasing for Windows. The whole point of Steam Play is to make it easier to get content on Linux that otherwise would have never come natively.
The point is your claim about Linux supporting more Windows games hurting native Linux support is nonsense. There's ALREADY negligible reason to develop games for Linux financially, developers are either doing it because it's completely trivial or else they want to. There's nowhere to go but up. Your point is essentially saying "oh no, this could make native Linux gaming support as weak as it already is!"
 
Bottom line with in a few months that number is going to be very close to 100% with very good performance numbers.

Near 100% Windows game capability in a few months? Not happening. This is going to take a while and there's really no way to know what level of compatibility truly is without testing. I'm guessing 70% to 80% is possible.
 
The point is your claim about Linux supporting more Windows games hurting native Linux support is nonsense. There's ALREADY negligible reason to develop games for Linux financially, developers are either doing it because it's completely trivial or else they want to. There's nowhere to go but up. Your point is essentially saying "oh no, this could make native Linux gaming support as weak as it already is!"

I am far from the only one that's mentioned this hurting native Linux gaming development. At this point I agree it hardly mattered given the state of if it. Whatever happens however it happens we're at the beginning of all this, it's going to take years to sort it all out, especially the big question. Sure, Linux fans and anti-Windows folks see something like Steam Play as the second coming. For overwhelming majority of PC gamers already on Windows will it matter? Steam Play is going to have to attract new gamers outside Linux fans if it's going to be more than niche.
 
  1. You give the R9 280x too much credit, which is the GPU used in the demo rig. Hence why I also marked it "low-spec". If one used a newer graphics card, like a 1060 or 1070, then one could turn the details WAYYYY up. Just like in Windows. If you have a lower end card, you turn things down. These are simply the parts I had on-hand.
  2. I don't like Windows, and I don't want to use it I'm demonstrating that gaming in Linux is plenty awesome for those who want to do the same.
  3. Ubuntu hasn't switched audio subsystems in I think over 7 years now. Pulse is the core.
  4. Desktop environment options are irrelevant because you can just switch. Just because Ubuntu switched ONCE in the last 5 years, does not mean the situation is dire. Just install what you want and use it. Your hand isn't forced.
  5. So far as I am aware Ubuntu and Debian has not changed package managers in the last 10+ years. Not sure what you're on about here. Yes, RedHat/CentOS use YUM/rpm, Debian/Ubuntu use APT/deb, so what? Would you prefer to use Windows Update? Which, by the way, breaks WAYYY more than any package manager I've ever used, and is slower to download content, and slower to install updates, and requires reboots typically EVERY time.
  6. Try Ubuntu. I think you'll find the number of problems you'll have is far less than that in any version of Windows. Including 95.

Or.. you could play at max settings and without any of that spectating stuff in windows. I'd like to see gaming in linux move beyond where it's at, but I'd rather have Blizzard explain what's keeping them from releasing linux versions and if any of the reasons are technical then have the community work on addressing those.


Yeah windows has lots of issues. But it's not like Ubuntu or Red Hat don't either... And how many linux audio subsystems have we gone through? Desktop environments? Packaging systems? You end up trading one set of problems for another....
 
While that may be the case, I haven't observed their existence to be problematic. I have quite a few Desktop Environments installed right now, and I really don't notice them being a tax on my CPU. And trust me, my CPU is a real noisy bugger, so when things use it, I notice. (CPU HSF)

Gnome and (particularly) KDE use daemons (at least one) for a number of things. Search/directory indexing, thumbnails, bookmarks, settings, to name a few. Packages which are pulled in when you install kde or gnome on ubuntu tie into these daemons, and can cause churn in the background. I think the major one I had issues with was the one which indexes the home directory constantly (a bug, I think), not sure if that one ever got fixed. The ubuntu packages hard depend on that daemon, so I don't use Ubuntu (at least not gnome/kde).
As far as libraries, I have no issue with them. Same story as far as that goes on Arch.
 
What do you mean 20%? Did you see the system specs exactly?

And this is just a pilot episode. Keep watching, other games play plenty fine too. Hoping to cover more of that ;)

Wake me up when Linux is on par with Windows for gaming….20%...*yawn*
 
Cool thanks! I appreciate the praise, yay! :DD

Actually, a friend recently identified the situation I think you're in. I can't recall the full nature, but I think it's about the aspect ratio you may be using. A bug has been filed with wine. So, try to go for a 16:9 resolution, and if you're still seeing it, let me know and I can dig up the info again.

But yeah, pretty sure it's not your hardware, just something about the resolution. My buddy runs a tiling window manager with a wider aspect monitor, so we think that's the case, as he just switched to a more "normal" res and it stopped doing the mouse moving up thing,

Also, if you could leave feedback in the youtube comments, that'd be swell.

Great video BloodyIron! It's so awesome to see someone else around here who is excited about getting native Windows games running on Linux. I just tossed an extra HDD into my secondary rig to install Ubuntu (Arch user here) to give this a try. The spectator method for caching is a great idea. I wish I had thought of that back when I had Overwatch running on Arch. Keep it up man and I'll be watching the videos.

My mouse still wants to force aim up though for some reason.
 
While that may be the case, I haven't observed their existence to be problematic. I have quite a few Desktop Environments installed right now, and I really don't notice them being a tax on my CPU. And trust me, my CPU is a real noisy bugger, so when things use it, I notice. (CPU HSF)
It's not usually an issue with cpu load (maybe close to 90% utilization on one core, but I'm not sure it was even that bad), rather it's the io subsystem getting bogged down. Stuff constantly thrashing the disk causing foreground apps to wait. Anyway, it may have been fixed by now (it's been a long time since I used ubuntu), but every time I have installed those programs (on ubuntu or otherwise) it's been an issue. Yes, on a SSD even.
 
I am far from the only one that's mentioned this hurting native Linux gaming development.
Who else is mentioning it? Anyone in this forum? Any actual DEVELOPERS? Show me one game developer who says they're considering cancelling future Linux releases because of this and I'll retract everything I've said on the matter. Developers releasing on Linux today aren't going to stop doing it because of this. We're already at rock bottom, it's not going to get worse. It will either stay about the same or get better.

heatlesssun said:
At this point I agree it hardly mattered given the state of if it. Whatever happens however it happens we're at the beginning of all this, it's going to take years to sort it all out, especially the big question. Sure, Linux fans and anti-Windows folks see something like Steam Play as the second coming. For overwhelming majority of PC gamers already on Windows will it matter? Steam Play is going to have to attract new gamers outside Linux fans if it's going to be more than niche.
I agree if any change comes from this, it will take years. I can't predict whether this will lead to an increase of marketshare or if it will fizzle out. And I wouldn't call this the second coming so much as probably the most beneficial thing to happen to Linux gaming in its entire history.
 
Um developers that release on Linux have actually reported it being profitable to release for Linux. Not all, but most that have talked on the topic say this.

The point is your claim about Linux supporting more Windows games hurting native Linux support is nonsense. There's ALREADY negligible reason to develop games for Linux financially, developers are either doing it because it's completely trivial or else they want to. There's nowhere to go but up. Your point is essentially saying "oh no, this could make native Linux gaming support as weak as it already is!"
 
Who else is mentioning it? Anyone in this forum? Any actual DEVELOPERS? Show me one game developer who says they're considering cancelling future Linux releases because of this and I'll retract everything I've said on the matter.

This was mentioned even by Liam Dawe owner of GamingOnLinux. At this point its far too early to know where this is going. Never mind if this doesn't hurt native Linux development, we have no idea if this will even have a significant effect on Linux gaming market share.

Developers releasing on Linux today aren't going to stop doing it because of this. We're already at rock bottom, it's not going to get worse. It will either stay about the same or get better.
I agree if any change comes from this, it will take years. I can't predict whether this will lead to an increase of marketshare or if it will fizzle out. And I wouldn't call this the second coming so much as probably the most beneficial thing to happen to Linux gaming in its entire history.

Agreed.
 
WINE has been in development for a long time, and we're at the point where thousands of games are now native for Linux. I have seen zero evidence that WINE or similar things are "hurting" native linux game development. They are actually increasing native development by demonstrating demand.

I am far from the only one that's mentioned this hurting native Linux gaming development. At this point I agree it hardly mattered given the state of if it. Whatever happens however it happens we're at the beginning of all this, it's going to take years to sort it all out, especially the big question. Sure, Linux fans and anti-Windows folks see something like Steam Play as the second coming. For overwhelming majority of PC gamers already on Windows will it matter? Steam Play is going to have to attract new gamers outside Linux fans if it's going to be more than niche.
 
Back
Top