The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Is Coming To SteamOS, Linux

[iniudan]

Witcher 2 is DX9.

Misread the original post, REDengine 3 used in Witcher 3 is indeed suppose to be DX11, at least for the main rendering pipeline (hopefully there is indeed something like toGL for the openGL pipeline), it 64-bit only this time also (not that anyone who regularly play PC game should still be on a 32-bit system).

[iniudan]

I think he is talking about Witcher 3.

I don't care if a game uses some kind of wrapper as long as the performance is the same as on Windows on the same settings +/- 5% and your not missing out on functionality like coop multiplayer.

I noticed that I misread after my edit period was pass, there is no multiplayer btw. I also indeed hope the same thing.

[Britoid]

It's suppose to be DX11 game, so unless someone has DX11 compatible Wine somewhere in their basement, W3 has to be a native port (opengl renderer or something like Valve's toGL)

Since it's going on PS4, I'd expect the engine to have more than just a DX11 backend.

[stqn]

I was thinking of picking this game up, and am running a gtx660. If you are running an nv board, can you share with me what makes you revert to windows?

The witcher 2 is jerky on my GTX 660 (+Core i3 550), even on low settings. I seems to be playable, but it?s not great.

[blackout23]

I noticed that I misread after my edit period was pass, there is no multiplayer btw. I also indeed hope the same thing.

I was refering to System Shock 2 which doesn't have coop multiplayer as Wine port.

For me on my GTX 580 OC, Core i7 system on Arch Linux Witcher 2 is playable on Max (without Ubersampling) @ 2560x1440 about 30-40 FPS (bit jerky). On Windows it's capped at 60 FPS for VSync.

[smitty3268]

For me on my GTX 580 OC, Core i7 system on Arch Linux Witcher 2 is playable on Max

Seems like a lot of people complaining have i3 or i5 CPUs, which don't seem to be fast enough.

[deppman]

thanks to everyone about w2 on linux + nv

Seems like a lot of people complaining have i3 or i5 CPUs, which don't seem to be fast enough.

I have an ASUS OC Gtx660, and a Pheonom II 965 OC'd to 4Ghz. My guess is that I should see the 30-40 fps as also have a 2560x1440 display.

So now, imagine you haven't purchased an MS software license for 14 years (w2k, iirc) and aren't going to break the winning streak just to play a game. Is my expected experience good enough to justify purchase?

[scionicspectre]

With my current video card, I can run most current games at slightly over 30 FPS with High or 'Ultra' settings and 2x FXAA, so I hope this game will run decent. Worst case, it'll run well at a lower resolution or slightly lower settings, but I'm really hoping it's at least comparable to the console versions.

[carewolf]

Seems like a lot of people complaining have i3 or i5 CPUs, which don't seem to be fast enough.

That reads like complete nonsense. The generation is more important than the abstract target number, and often i5 is as fast as i7, actually they are much faster for gaming at any given price point.

[Scoup]

I have an ASUS OC Gtx660, and a Pheonom II 965 OC'd to 4Ghz. My guess is that I should see the 30-40 fps as also have a 2560x1440 display.

So now, imagine you haven't purchased an MS software license for 14 years (w2k, iirc) and aren't going to break the winning streak just to play a game. Is my expected experience good enough to justify purchase?

I have a GTX660 and a Phenon II 995 and the game runs with max settings. The performance on windows is better (there is some benchmarks on github). But my experience playing on Linux was good (I guess the problems on linux is about cpu and amd cards). There is a problem if you have a lot of saves (so aways delete the old ones). Don't play in desktop with effects like compiz, unity (runs worse, the fullscreen is fake). I guess your experience will be good with your machine.