Slashdot Mirror
PCGamingWiki Looks Into Linux Gaming With 'Port Reports'
AberBeta writes: PCGamingWiki contributor Soeb has been looking into the recent larger budget game releases to appear on Linux, including XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Borderlands: The Pre–Sequel produced by Mac porting houses Feral and Aspyr. Soeb reports that while feature parity is high, performance could be a bit better. Performance differences aside, the games are finally arriving on Linux — now the userbase needs to expand to make a virtuous cycle.
... not complaining, as I am a Linux user, but Steam OS is going to be the game changer, and the back catalog working on Steam is arguably more important than two AAA titles.
The Seismic Event would be Newell confirming Half-Life 3... and saying it's coming to Steam OS (Linux) first.
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
Indie games were already being made for Linux before Steam came along. Legacy games were also available. They're a non-moving target, so they are relatively easy address with wine or dosbox.
It's the AAA titles where the real gap was.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Seismic Event would be Newell confirming Half-Life 3... and saying it's coming to Steam OS (Linux) first.
I know that is a popular idea, that if we just had some good games on Linux, people would start to embrace it.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't going to happen.
I don't use Windows because I'm "forced to", I use it because it works well, everything runs on it, it supports just about everything in the PC business, and its cost is so low, it might as well be free.
I have no compelling reason to move to Linux. I have no compelling reason to move anyone else to Linux. It doesn't offer me anything worth the trouble of moving.
------------
Note: I first installed Linux on a 486 back in the 90s, I've tried it a few more times since then. I'm not debating the technical benefits of Linux, they are indeed there. But they don't matter to the average user. Windows is "good enough" and it is missing some of Linux's rough edges.
> If lowering the price to $0 doesn't work, you can only point fingers at yourself.
Yeah. It's not like there are no other factors involved like a 30 year entrenched monopoly or zero companies that are doing any real marketing for the product or the fact that the company that "does everything right" can't manage to get past 10% market share.
Although none of that really matters. I just care about the AAA titles that play as well (or better) on Linux as they do on Windows. I don't have to put up with an inferior monopoly product just to play a cool game.
If Gabe feeling threatened by Microsoft can cause the 20+ year association between WinDOS and games to shatter then that's a win for all of us.
I know gamers that would dump Windows tomorrow if they could.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Honestly, I'd have switched to Linux 10 years before I did if the games had been there.
You pick an apple, I pick an orange... there really is little difference...
So if we weren't using Windows, we'd be using OS/2, or GeOS, or OS X, or something else...
Same difference...
Linux has had 20 years to prove itself, clearly it is not the right solution, or it would have made some traction at this point...
You assume that we must all leave Windows at some point... Why? I don't see anything to push people off their desktops and laptops any time soon. Google has tried with Chrome OS, and that is a nice idea, but it hasn't sold enough to make a dent.
Tablets? Nice toys, great media consumption devices, but they aren't replacing computers, just adding to them.
Yes . . . and it has.
Linux has about 1% of the overall desktop market...
It has held that number for a long time now...
It isn't growing...
Perhaps you just have a different viewpoint, or perhaps you view success differently, or... well I'm not sure what...
Linux is a success in the server market, but an abject failure in the desktop market. That is simply not likely to change.
Why don't you go bitch at Nintendo and Sony for never forcing the companies that make games for their platforms to make Linux ones. Why is it always Microsoft's fault. Microsoft makes an OS, they spend a lot of time (like Nintendo and Sony) making SDK's that other "game development companies" use to "create games" that people want to play. Go scream at Rockstar Games, see where that gets you.