Arma 3 Compared On SteamOS & Windows

Quoting: maodzedunI am mocking because there are a lot of hypocrites who give VP crap but close their eyes for native ports. VP were basically torn for the initial Witcher 2 release but when Dying Light came out everybody were like: "Give the devs more time". There is a widely spread bias in the community against VP and eON. Everybody is talking how much worse their ports compare in performance to Windows but nobody is talking about the fact that Shadow of Mordor runs with about 60% the efficiency of the Windows version. But hey - it's native.

Ouch :)

Quoting: maodzedunSorry, not going to happen. Good luck convincing a big Japanese company to port for Linux. They had a hard time getting convinced to port for Windows. That is why the first one is such a crappy port - they literally had never worked on a Windows game before. That is why they thought 720p was ok, 30fps was ok, low res-textures were ok etc. and that is why they really botched the keyboard/mouse controls and failed to add a remapping option.
Even if they managed to convince Namco and port the game, they'd still have to figure out how to make DSfix work in Linux. And I'm pretty sure Namco would not agree for them to implement a mod in their game. Japanese gaming companies are both stubborn and very mod unfriendly. It's that console mentality, I guess.

isn't the whole point of VP the idea that the team responsible for the original game doesn't have anything to do with the porting/wrapping effort? the only bit of convincing would be in asking the question 'guys could WE port it to linux, you get some money and we take all the risk (and maybe some money too)?' additionally if I remember correctly there are games ported to linux which do support mods, but of course this might be very case-specific.


Last edited by manus76 on 8 September 2015 at 10:14 pm UTC

Quoting: maodzedun

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: maodzedunWaaaaah, but it's not native, waaaaah. I want a native port even if it runs like my PC is a potato, waaaaaaah. I wonder how the purist fanboys would react if VP convince Bethesda to port Skyrim. Once again - great job VP.

Why do you mock? Up until now, it has generally been true that native ports out-perform wrappers like eON even in cases where a native port performs worse than the Windows version.

I am mocking because there are a lot of hypocrites who give VP crap but close their eyes for native ports. VP were basically torn for the initial Witcher 2 release but when Dying Light came out everybody were like: "Give the devs more time". There is a widely spread bias in the community against VP and eON. Everybody is talking how much worse their ports compare in performance to Windows but nobody is talking about the fact that Shadow of Mordor runs with about 60% the efficiency of the Windows version. But hey - it's native.

It's not 60%. More like 20% worse, but you make an interesting point. The other thing to consider is that Feral's native ports have been rock solid stable even if the performance isn't anyways up to par while wrappers have traditionally been pretty crash-happy.

What puzzles me is why so much fuss about this particularly benchmark ?
There are other benchmarks (big titles) there as well that went unnoticed.

Quoting: manus76

Quoting: maodzedunSorry, not going to happen. Good luck convincing a big Japanese company to port for Linux. They had a hard time getting convinced to port for Windows. That is why the first one is such a crappy port - they literally had never worked on a Windows game before. That is why they thought 720p was ok, 30fps was ok, low res-textures were ok etc. and that is why they really botched the keyboard/mouse controls and failed to add a remapping option.
Even if they managed to convince Namco and port the game, they'd still have to figure out how to make DSfix work in Linux. And I'm pretty sure Namco would not agree for them to implement a mod in their game. Japanese gaming companies are both stubborn and very mod unfriendly. It's that console mentality, I guess.

isn't the whole point of VP the idea that the team responsible for the original game doesn't have anything to do with the porting/wrapping effort? the only bit of convincing would be in asking the question 'guys could WE port it to linux, you get some money and we take all the risk (and maybe some money too)?' additionally if I remember correctly there are games ported to linux which do support mods, but of course this might be very case-specific.

Of course - that would be the logical thing to do. But Japanese companies are very conservative. Like I said - they have this console mentality. They're used to a user base that doesn't care about fps, resolution or modding. From their perspective that is a working model and making them change that model just for PC is gamble they don't really need. Plus, like I said - even if they agreed for a port, they'd never agree to implementation of DXfix. 99% of primarily console developers still associate modding with cracking or obstruction of their intellectual property. Did I mention they have a console mentality?

Quoting: dubigrasuWhat puzzles me is why so much fuss about this particularly benchmark ?
There are other benchmarks (big titles) there as well that went unnoticed.

Because it's one done with a wrapper and it shows the best results compared to the original Windows version of the game among all AAA Linux ports. And not just any game, but one that is legendary for its heavy graphics and horrible optimization.


Last edited by mao_dze_dun on 9 September 2015 at 8:57 am UTC

Quoting: maodzedun

Quoting: dubigrasuWhat puzzles me is why so much fuss about this particularly benchmark ?
There are other benchmarks (big titles) there as well that went unnoticed.

Because it's one done with a wrapper and it shows the best results compared to the original Windows version of the game among all AAA Linux ports. And not just any game, but one that is legendary for its heavy graphics and horrible optimization.

I don't know...Bioshock is also with a wrapper, Dirt (wrapper too) shows also much better results while the Witcher was the most controversial of all.
Anyway, I didn't expected this reaction.

Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: maodzedun

Quoting: dubigrasuWhat puzzles me is why so much fuss about this particularly benchmark ?
There are other benchmarks (big titles) there as well that went unnoticed.

Because it's one done with a wrapper and it shows the best results compared to the original Windows version of the game among all AAA Linux ports. And not just any game, but one that is legendary for its heavy graphics and horrible optimization.

I don't know...Bioshock is also with a wrapper, Dirt (wrapper too) shows also much better results while the Witcher was the most controversial of all.
Anyway, I didn't expected this reaction.

Yes.

The Witcher 2: eON Wrapper
BioShock Infinite: eON Wrapper
DiRT Showdown: eON Wrapper
SpecOps The Line: eON Wrapper
Arma 3: eON Wrapper

I count 5 eON wrapped games, not one.

^^


Last edited by LinuxGamesTV on 9 September 2015 at 3:16 pm UTC

Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: maodzedun

Quoting: dubigrasuWhat puzzles me is why so much fuss about this particularly benchmark ?
There are other benchmarks (big titles) there as well that went unnoticed.

Because it's one done with a wrapper and it shows the best results compared to the original Windows version of the game among all AAA Linux ports. And not just any game, but one that is legendary for its heavy graphics and horrible optimization.

I don't know...Bioshock is also with a wrapper, Dirt (wrapper too) shows also much better results while the Witcher was the most controversial of all.
Anyway, I didn't expected this reaction.

Indeed but their performance while good (that includes the Witcher after all the patching) is still notably worse than Windows. Arma III on the other hand is exactly the same and maybe even a smidge better.