I think Linux needs a few things before it will be ready for mass consumer adoption.
1. An equivalent of kernel level anti-cheats. Cheating really sucks. It ruins online games. Kernel level anti-cheats aren't perfect, but they're much better than user-space or server-side anti-cheats. Maybe in the future AI solves this, but inherence-based anti-cheats are likely going to be a cat-and-mouse game. Valve have stated they are working on this problem and I think if anyone is going to solve it, it's them.
2. Immutability. Right now distributing games on Linux isn't distributing games "on Linux." It's distributing games to 12 different distros with a hundreds different configurations and a thousand customisations. This is impossible to support. When SteamOS gains traction, developers will be able to target exactly one distro with fixed configurations and limited customisations. Valve will set the standard for other distros.
3. An enforced equivalent of .exe. One of the most wonderful parts of Windows is the near universal acceptance and use of the executable installation method. You just double click the file and install it. Linux is an absolute clusterfuck of installation manuals and scripts and competing app stores with their own repos and permissions and packaging methods. If Valve were to mandate the use of, for example, flatpaks in SteamOS, that will become the universal standard. I think this is one of the most frustrating parts of using Linux for regular people.
4. Better hardware support. My Fanatec peripherals don't work well in Linux. Fanatec doesn't offer drivers and open source options are limited in functionality (and stability). There are many products for which drivers support sucks in Linux. I think AI will solve many of these issues over the next few years. Unless the manufacturer has gone out of their way to encrypt of obfuscate the communication layer with the product, you can basically point Codex at the peripheral and tell it to build an interface driver. Within a few years, I imagine operating systems will have this kind of functionality built in. If the OS encounters a peripheral it doesn't recognise, it will just build its own driver on the fly.
I am more optimistic about all of these than ever before. Linus Torvalds famously said it will take Valve to fix this fragmentation problem for us, and that looks like where we are heading. No doubt there will be Linux fans who lament the loss of diversity and competition, but I think we end up with a true competition to Windows for gaming. That's when I will make the jump.
the minute linux solves kernel level anti-cheat is the minute it wins the OS war, tons of friends have only windows on their PCs because of valorant or other multiplayer online game that uses anticheat.
"Linux" doesn't need to do anything here. What's missing is for anticheat vendors to develop kernel modules for Linux in addition to their Windows drivers.
I personally hope they never do, because present day anticheat systems are literally closed-source rootkits. You should not let that software onto any computer you own.
But then I don't really have a horse in the race, because I don't find competitive gaming with strangers enjoyable at all.
> "Linux" doesn't need to do anything here. What's missing is for anticheat vendors to develop kernel modules for Linux in addition to their Windows drivers.
With what stable module ABI like Windows has? There isn't one.
You can build a module that targets the current kernel Ubuntu 24.04 is using, but that module won't load on 26.04, let alone a completely different distro like Fedora.
eBPF /might/ help, but one could make a module that lies to eBPF.
You let the people run their own servers and kick cheaters. That's one solution which has actively been taken away over the years.
People just want to click Play and get dropped in a game, not have to mess with servers.
Modern games should have:
- Quickplay
- Server / Game / Match finder
- LFG - for a more detailed search
Each of these has a different use case, and a single user may make use of all of them (I include myself here). Not everyone wants to just click "play", it's very dependent on the type of game.
Helldivers 2, for example, implements the first two. Destiny/Destiny 2 has mostly the first one. Destiny on Xbox has a XBL-provided LFG functionality (but prior to that external sites were used). You really needed LFG for finding a raid group.
Vehemently disagree with this. One of the reasons I loved BF4 so much were the community servers, with admins that could kick cheaters / griefers, and you enjoyed playing with the same group of folks. It was also one of the (many) reasons I was not remotely tempted to buy BF6. No servers? Not interested.
You can just click play on a server without having to run one yourself, the enthusiasts do that. Eg: Halo CE, Armagetron, countless others.
"Solving" is one thing, adaption is another.
> 2. Immutability. Right now distributing games on Linux isn't distributing games "on Linux." It's distributing games to 12 different distros with a hundreds different configurations and a thousand customisations. This is impossible to support. When SteamOS gains traction, developers will be able to target exactly one distro with fixed configurations and limited customisations. Valve will set the standard for other distros.
Steam has already solved that problem. You target steam (not steamOS) and all other distros will do the work for you.
SteamOS doesn't even ship with secure boot on, it has a long way to go before it's a platform game developers will consider tamper proof.
Did you not read what you quoted?
You didn’t. Steam already provides a runtime to target. SteamOS is largely independent from the actual game runtime. You already don’t need to target “12 versions” or whatever nonsense op posted.
>> When SteamOS gains traction, developers will be able to target exactly one distro with fixed configurations and limited customisations. Valve will set the standard for other distros.
Your quoted quote.
> 1. An equivalent of kernel level anti-cheats.
Ultimately, you can’t trust the user computer unless you go for the secure boot things backed by a hardware key. I’m sure there are multiple ways to bypass anti-cheats on Windows.
> 2. Immutability[…] It's distributing games to 12 different distros with a hundreds different configurations and a thousand customisations
Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games. There’s only one kernel that is greatly back compatible.
> 3. An enforced equivalent of .exe.
I think ELF is the official standard for executable binary. The competition is illusory. There’s nothing preventing anyone from distributing a self extracting archive that installs on /opt. Packaging on Linux is about your system consistency, not software availability.
> 4. Better hardware support
That’s not a linux issue. If the manufacturer is not keen on getting it in the kernel or making it open source, they can always create a binary blob and distribute some shim that loads it.
I've been intrigued by the possibility of statically compiled games for Linux but I don't think they're the more compatible option. Unless you are willing to demand that the player dedicates their computer entirely to running your game, the game needs to cooperate and interact with the window system. Even setting aside the X11 vs. Wayland issue, neither have ever promised forward compatibility for static binaries.
2. Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games. There’s only one kernel that is greatly back compatible.
There's more to it than dependencies. It's a valid point.
> I think ELF is the official standard for executable binary. The competition is illusory. There’s nothing preventing anyone from distributing a self extracting archive that installs on /opt. Packaging on Linux is about your system consistency, not software availability.
I think he meant .MSI and not .exe, but the point remains and is still valid. Why are there multiple ways to skin the same cat?
> I’m sure there are multiple ways to bypass anti-cheats on Windows.
Of course, you can use DMA over Thunderbolt, but the bar is so high (cost, specialised hardware) that most people who cheat won't do it.
> Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games
This isn't completely viable, you can't statically link the graphics driver.