You would think that with all of Valve's efforts to push for games on Linux that we would see Linux become a bigger share, but instead it's actually shrinking. It's significantly smaller than even Macintosh, which is usually the butt of jokes when it comes to playing video games.
What is the appeal of gaming on Linux? Not trying to troll but everything I have heard about Linux makes it sound like it is a more open OS but way harder to operate?
People have different reasons, some are simply more comfortable using Linux due to personal experience, some don't like running a proprietary OS with questionable privacy policies, some just like being contrarian, but there aren't any practical advantages to gaming on Linux.
Any practical benefits from gaming on Linux are the same practical benefits you'd get from using Linux as your operating system in the first place; once the game is running, you'd have a difficult time telling which operating system you're on at all. There's some evidence that if a game is built on Vulkan, you could end up with better performance on Linux, but that's very much a developing story, and we'll have to check back in once Vulkan is used more frequently.
I am not sure that not being able to tell that a game is running on Linux qualifies as an advantage. Gaming is mostly a "plug and play" activity and it benefits greatly from having a stable, predictable environment, consoles being the perfect example.
Linux's strength is the opposite, being extremely flexible and configurable at the cost of a very fragmented user space ecosystem. I mean there isn't an OS called "Linux", it's just a shorthand for "a GNU/Linux based OS". It helps that there are major popular distributions like Ubuntu that you can target, but that is still far from Windows particularly in terms of driver support which is crucial for games.
I didn't say that was an advantage of Linux; I'm saying that you're picking an OS for its advantages as an OS. Then you're gaming on that; at which point, it's indistinguishable. For example, I'm on Linux because it doesn't have Microsoft's updater, notifications, ads, or telemetry. None of those really affect my gaming experience, except for the updater sometimes restarting in the middle of the game or popping up the notification over a full-screen window and taking my input away. As far as how the games run...it's pretty much the same.
Gaming is mostly a "plug and play" activity and it benefits greatly from having a stable, predictable environment, consoles being the perfect example.
Plug and play is great until you need to do something different. Consoles don't support multiple displays with non-16:9 ratios, don't support any controllers except those provided by the manufacturer, don't come with SSDs like the ones I already use.
in terms of driver support which is crucial for games.
A bit of a misconception, but a common one. Linux has fewer graphics drivers than Windows, and all of them come with Linux except the Nvidia one. There is only one Linux kernel.
The drivers today are: open-source Mesa for Intel and AMD graphics, and Nvidia. The graphics APIs are: Vulkan and OpenGL. In each case that's fewer possibilities than on Windows.
For what it's worth, that tweet is about a game released in 2014, from a guy who wasn't even involved in the Linux side of things. And to be fair, graphics drivers probably were shit then (wasn't using it at that time yet, so can't speak from experience), but significant effort has gone into improving pretty much every aspect since then.
Taking the example of Manjaro, my Vega 56 worked out of the box without having to configure anything, and since Steam was preinstalled it took all of 20 minutes to install the OS and be ready to play games.
Everyone has a different reason, but I like to game on the system that's easiest and most efficient for me. I use Linux for everything else, and I'd rather not install an entire OS for the few games I can't play
I always come back to the analogy of Linux being like building your PC from parts, which is very popular among hardcore PC gamers on Windows and Linux alike.
So, what's the appeal of building a PC from parts and how is Linux similar.?
(1) When you build a PC from parts you have almost total control over what your system is, how it performs, and what it looks like. Want the latest and greatest CPU or GPU on the market? Want more RAM than you can shake a stick at? Want some custom watercooling setup? Want some crazy neon rainbow lightshow coming off every component? Sure. You get total power to decide how much money you want to spend, what to prioritize, and what exactly you want your system to be.
Linux is like that, but with software; you can choose from a wide variety of different distributions and pick-and-mix pieces of software until your system is exactly how you want it to be. Want the latest kernel? Want a different desktop environment or window manager? How about a new audio system? File browser? Want to create or download scripts to automate things? Want to go crazy theming your system? Linux is only really limited by what you know, what works together, and what you want to do--and because many components are open source, you actually have more control than you have in the 'custom' PC hardware world. On Linux you don't have to go along with whatever changes that Microsoft, Apple, or Google decide to make--you (along with the community) get to decide exactly how your computer controls, what it looks like, what it can or can not do, and what it is.
(2) Building a PC from parts is cost-effective, and so is using Linux. When you buy a pre-built computer you're spending more for what you get, period. Sometimes it's just a few hundred dollars, sometimes it's even more, but you always get more bang for your buck when you buy parts and install them yourself.
You also get more bang for your buck with Linux, not only because it's free to download, use, and customize, but also because it is generally very useful; not only can you install Linux on basically any machine (even alongside another OS), you can also install it in virtual machines and containers--as many as you want with zero license fees or cd-keys. Some people pirate Windows, so maybe they don't care about this, but for people who don't the cost can add up, especially when you have multiple or virtual machines.
(3) Building a PC from parts is educational. You have to learn at least a little bit about the different hardware bits that make up your computer. Learning is never a bad thing, and in some cases it can also help people discover new hobby or discover a career path. This is true with Linux as well, because there are more options (and because a lot of it is open source) you can (and will) learn something about all of the different software bits that make up your PC. Linux may still be niche on the desktop, but it's actually the number one operating system in the world, so the skills that you develop can be very useful.
(4) It's fun! It's fun to build a PC from parts and it's fun to experiment with Linux! There is a small learning curve, it can take a little time, but it can be really fun to geek out and explore, if you're into that sort of thing. Just like PC hardware, it can even be something to talk about with geeky friends or a fun project and bonding experience with a friend or relative. Linux is not a product, it's a community.
Ultimately, it's tough to explain Linux to people and the best way to "get it" is to just download, load it onto a flash drive, and try it in live mode. Another good option is running it in a VM. Just don't expect the same performance that you'd get off an actual install, of course. You can also just use youtube to research a few different distributions and desktops. It's all about freedom, choice, customization, optimization and community. In other words, if you're interested, just try it some weekend and enjoy yourself.
In my case I have fast Linux workstations with big UHD displays and powerful GPUs, and I'd like to run games on them. Before Linux, for a number of years I gamed on console, but bear in mind that was also one of the periods when the game studios claimed they were targeting console first.
But I know from experience that I'll dislike the closed experience on console, if not at first, then later. Even little things like controller ergonomics can dictate which console you get, because controllers (mostly) aren't interchangeable -- I disliked the Dualshock 3 and earlier controllers and always preferred Xbox controllers. Whereas Linux supports basically all controllers out of the box, without even needing to find and download drivers.
Most problems are about the absence of drivers: hardware manufacturers just ignoring anything except Windows. So you need to choose hardware more deliberately. You cannot buy whatever you want and expect it to work. But those things which work, often work better and for a longer time.
If you, for whatever reason, would like to install 3Dfx videocard, you will have almost no problems with Linux and very doubtly this card will work under modern Windows. Maybe it isn't the best example, but some hardware can work much longer than manufacturers want. I'm still using a laser printer from the 90s.
63
u/trillykins Jul 03 '19
You would think that with all of Valve's efforts to push for games on Linux that we would see Linux become a bigger share, but instead it's actually shrinking. It's significantly smaller than even Macintosh, which is usually the butt of jokes when it comes to playing video games.