Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Highly-Anticipated XCOM 2 Game For Linux Will Be NVIDIA-Only

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael
    replied
    Here Is What Happens When Trying To Use Non-NVIDIA Drivers To Play XCOM 2 On Linux - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=22785

    Leave a comment:


  • Herem
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    And by the time Mesa reaches OpenGL 4.5, OpenGL reaches 4.6+ and we start all over again...
    Just because a new standard might come along at some point in the future doesn't mean Mesa developers should give up on trying to reach the current standard.

    I don't think you have to worry about 4.6 coming out any time soon anyway, Khronos Group are probably going to be busy with Vulkan for the foreseeable future.

    Leave a comment:


  • directhex
    replied
    Originally posted by SyXbiT View Post
    I understand the reasons why, but it's a real pity that a game released in 2016 is running on an ancient version of the Unreal Engine.
    UE4 would have made porting much easier.

    That's now how game development works. AAA games typically have a 3 year cycle, and tech decisions are locked in at the start, not the end, of that. Even switching between minor versions of an engine can require months of re-programming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Several Linux ports work with unupported drivers. Bioshock Infinite or DiRT Showdown just need an override and then you can play em with Mesa on Intel. I think Mesa devs will just add the needed features, so you can expect it will run soon. But even if you have got correct rendering you can compare the speed, Nvidia binary supports a simple environment var to enable multithreaded rendering. AMD could use that, but instead they prefer per app profiles - very stupid if you can not override those, well you can rename the binary... An example for this you can see with Saints Row IV - or did somebody find out an optimized name for fglrx?

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by klapeto View Post

    Yes the same they say about Borderlands 2 for Linux, but it played fine on my Radeons.
    No, they don't because Feral didn't make the Borderlands port, Aspyr did. Unlike Alien Isolation (another port by the lame asses at Feral), I never ever got an "Boo, your GPU sucks!" window when starting Borderlands 2 (or Pre-Sequel).
    Xcom 2 has been developed on Unreal Engine and that engine has no problems even with Mesa drivers.

    It's not news that both AMD and NVidia pay the developers of certain games to "optimize" the games for their hardware. IIRC AMD did that for the Tomb Raider reboot for some hair effects.
    I wouldn't be surprised if that is a result of the same kind of deal by NVidia to basically ensure that Steam Machines all ship with NVidia GPUs.

    I rather reboot into Windows than depending on proprietary GPU drivers ever again on Linux (too much trouble with kernel upgrades). I'm happy with my Intel–Radeon combo here.
    My bottom line: I won't buy Feral ports. AFAIK the porters are paid by how much the customer spent within the first few weeks playing the port. When I play a game ported by Feral under Windows rather than Linux, Feral won't get paid and maybe decide to get their act together.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    All you doing i arguing for the wore development of AMD driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by Herem View Post
    That's true but the order in which performance and OpenGL features are implemented is still relevant.

    Spending time on profiles would lead to some games running faster, but others wouldn't work at all.

    Developing OpenGL feature support will lead to more games working, but with unoptimised (but potentially still write playable) frame rates.

    I'm quite happy that AMD are prioritising OpenGL features over individual game enhancements at this point in time. The quicker Mesa reaches OpenGL 4.5 compatibility the better.
    And by the time Mesa reaches OpenGL 4.5, OpenGL reaches 4.6+ and we start all over again...

    Leave a comment:


  • Herem
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    You could have profiles for games targeting OpenGL 4.0 or lower before you finish working on OpenGL 4.1+ support.
    That's true but the order in which performance and OpenGL features are implemented is still relevant.

    Spending time on profiles would lead to some games running faster, but others wouldn't work at all.

    Developing OpenGL feature support will lead to more games working, but with unoptimised (but potentially still write playable) frame rates.

    I'm quite happy that AMD are prioritising OpenGL features over individual game enhancements at this point in time. The quicker Mesa reaches OpenGL 4.5 compatibility the better.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post

    Of course. Being funny doesn't come across well on forums, I'm afraid :/
    Fwiw, I don't have a problem with being funny. Or sarcastic.

    Originally posted by Herem View Post
    I don't understand your logic that the order is irrelevant. How could anyone possibly tune something which hadn't been implemented yet?

    In all the development I've ever been involved in the initial target is always delivering functionality, tuning then comes later in the development cycle.
    You could have profiles for games targeting OpenGL 4.0 or lower before you finish working on OpenGL 4.1+ support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herem
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Since you can't play properly until you have both "OpenGL features" and game profiles, the order in which they are added is pretty much irrelevant.
    I don't understand your logic that the order is irrelevant. How could anyone possibly tune something which hadn't been implemented yet?

    In all the development I've ever been involved in the initial target is always delivering functionality, tuning then comes later in the development cycle.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X