I feel like this is a question that might have been asked around and maybe there are guides around, but that’s a discussion that I’d like to have with the lot of you.

The context

Using Linux on both my work laptop and the Steam Deck has made me quite interested in a full switch to Linux - my other computer is a gaming desktop, which I use a lot for many things, but mostly for gaming. Getting used to Linux has made me quite more intolerant to all the BS Microsoft is pushing than I used to be, the latest one being forcing the users to switch from the older email client to the new Outlook, which has a big, nice ad banner that looks like an unread email. So I’ve began wondering: after all, why not? Why shouldn’t I embrace the penguin? Well, the answer is that I should not if there are too many hinders and drawbacks in using Linux, which would make me need a dual boot instead of a single OS install.

We all know gaming has long been one of the main limiting factors in switching, but the Deck has changed the whole landscape on that front. We’ve basically switched from “Windows is the only OS suitable for gaming” to “Linux is also viable”, and the Deck has been made that available to the general audience. Therefore, nowadays, how viable is Linux for a gaming computer? What are the limitations users will encounter? Would I be able to play all the games from my Steam, Epic and GOG library with a bit of tinkering, including the new releases?

The drawbacks of using Linux (or those that I can think of)

  1. Other gaming launchers support on Linux suck: GOG and Epic will work through Heroic Games but Activision/Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA and Rockstar games will all be a pain, or even not work at all. Is is true? Is there any way around that?
  2. No Microsoft GamePass. Or none that actually matters, as the only solution is to pay for the higher tier and stream the games - so no game actually runs on the desktop. No, thanks.
  3. Some DRM will prevent games from working, and this is especially true for games with heavy online content.
  4. NVIDIA support for Linux is far from being on-par with that on Windows, especially the open-source drivers. Is this still true?
  5. Many devices, especially those for gaming, might not have good (or even working) compatibility drivers for Linux. I know my UWQHD monitor works flawlessly on Windows, but requires quite a bit of tinkering on Ubuntu
  6. Newer games might not be optimized for Linux in the first place
  7. Tinkering is inevitable (as with any Linux computer, really)

What can we add?

The advantages (I can think of)

  1. It’s free
  2. It’s ad free
  3. Customization on Linux is awesome, and I might end up spending more time ricing, breaking it all and reinstalling than gaming (see also, previous section’s 7.)
  4. I will no longer be sending data to Microsoft

What else am I not thinking about?

What distro?

And finally, let’s say I make the switch. What Linux distro should I use? I’ve read a bit about Drauger, Ubuntu GamePack, or even Pop! OS with some manual setup. What do you guys think, and advise?

  • lea@mlem.lea.moe
    3·
    1 year ago

    More drawbacks I can think of

    • VR gaming is a much worse experience due to neglected linux drivers and SteamVR linux version
    • Discord screen sharing is in a bad state still
    • Variable refresh rate realistically requires wayland on a multi-monitor setup which comes with its own caveats

    Despite these I think if you get a setup that works for you the experience will be better on Linux.

    For distros I’ve always been of the opinion that Arch-based is the best choice for people switching due to the vastness of the AUR; for that I can recommend EndeavourOS.

    • Hydroel@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Your first two points don’t impact me that much, but that third one hurts - I have been unable to make my monitor work in the correct resolution / refresh rate with Wayland and have had to use Xorg instead.

      Isn’t Arch a bit much? I’ve only used Ubuntu so far so I could consider easily using an Ubuntu-based distro, and although I tinker a bit with it I feel like Arch is really for more experienced users. Although Endeavour seems to accompany users a little bit already.

      • azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t say Arch is any more difficult to maintain and in some areas even much smoother once properly configured and in the long run. That’s because of its simplicity (the OS internals are simple, clean and easy to understand) and great documentation. I find anything Debian-based to be pretty painful experience on desktop in comparison with Arch.

        All in all it depends on you. Arch isn’t that big of a deal if you can read and are willing to put a bit of an effort to it and its strenghts justify that for the vast crowd using it.

        Btw, ArchISO now comes with guided installer that does most of what you need automatically and provides fairly bare bones, but usable system out of the box.

        • Hydroel@lemmy.worldOP
          0·
          1 year ago

          All in all it depends on you. Arch isn’t that big of a deal if you can read and are willing to put a bit of an effort to it and its strenghts justify that for the vast crowd using it.

          I can read doc an put that bit of effort if necessary - the eternal question is, do I really want to project myself to do that on a daily basis?