Three options is too many? If one is already selected, you can just click through without thinking. Windows already does that stupid “setting up your PC” crap, and this would be far faster.
My point is they built functionality specifically for a Linux-based system. In THPS, that meant offline mode, but for other games it could be anti-cheat, where to store game saves, or default settings (I think Cyberpunk some?).
My point is that Linux is getting on the radar of game devs, and that’ll increase a lot at some level of adoption. I think that level is 5% on desktop Linux.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a unicorn in a lot of ways, so that’s not exactly what I’m talking about, but it’s related. I’m not going to expect BG3-level of support from devs, THPS 1&2 would be so much more than we’re currently getting.
If you like Windows, that’s 100% fine, keep using it.
But I’m genuinely curious, what didn’t you like? Which distro(s) did you try? What problems did you run into?
I ask because you obviously cared enough to try it out but had a bad experience, so that’s something we could maybe look into as Linux enthusiasts.
I’m never going to berate anyone for their choice of OS, use whatever works for you. For me, that’s Linux, mostly because I found a workflow that works really well for me and it’s a pain to replicate on Windows. My SO still uses Windows because that’s what they like, and it’s totally fine, I’ll even help them fix stuff when it breaks. I honestly don’t care what people end up using, but I will mention my preference if I think others might be interested.
I wish there was a graphic that showed English users with SteamOS separated from non-SteamOS users, because I think if we get 5% of non-SteamOS users, we should start to see devs pay a lot more attention. We’re starting to see devs make SteamOS-specific versions (e.g. THPS 1&2 offline mode), so the next step is getting Linux-specific adjustments for more games.
That tracks since I left Arch about 5 years ago, maybe a little longer, and I used it for at least 5 years.
I used it through the /usr merge which broke nearly everything, and for a few years of stability afterward. But even when it was super stable, there were still random issues a couple times each year. It wasn’t anything big (I’ve been a Linux user for 15 years or so), but it did require knowing what to do to fix it (usually documented clearly on the Arch homepage). This was especially true for Nvidia updates. After switching to openSUSE Tumbleweed, most of those went away, and even the Nvidia breakage seemed less frequent, and if something broke, I could easily snapper rollback and wait for a fix, whereas on Arch I had to fix things because going back wasn’t an option (I guess you could configure rollbacks if you had that foresight).
I just took a look, and it looks like manual intervention is still a thing. For example, the June 21 Linux firmware change required manual intervention. There were others over the last year, depending on the packages you use or your configuration.
That’s totally fine for Linux vets, but new users will have issues eventually. In don’t even recommend my distro, which solves most of those issues, because new user support isn’t there. The main reason I left was because I wanted to switch to btrfs (for snapshot rollbacks), and Tumbleweed had that OOTB so I gave it a shot.
I don’t recommend Arch forks as a rule, unless it has fantastic support from the maintainers (e.g. SteamOS curates updates). It’s going to by break eventually, and it’s going to require manual intervention (probably minimal), and users will get mad. Maybe it’ll be fine for 6 months or a year, but it will break eventually.
That’s much less likely with something built on Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, or OpenSUSE. Those all have solid testing and upgrade rules, unlike Arch, which is basically “works on my machine.” I used Arch for years until I got tired of the random breakage, and now I’m on Tumbleweed which has far less breakage and stays reasonably close to Arch package versions.
My first recommendation is either Linux Mint (I prefer Debian edition) or Fedora, because those have good new user experiences and aren’t super opinionated like Ubuntu.
Yeah, that is nice. I won’t recommend EndeavorOS or any other Arch installer/derivative for other reasons (IMO, every Arch user should do the official install process once or twice to have a better shot at fixing stuff later), but I do like that UX.
I wish more distros did it. My distro (openSUSE) does something similar, but I also don’t recommend it because the community isn’t all that good for new users IMO.
That’s really too bad. I’ve heard great things about Bazzite, and it’s what I recommend when someone wants SteamOS.
That said, that’s a bit different from what I’m talking about. I’m suggesting OEMs ship a pre-installed Linux desktop, and users are presented an option on setup about which DE to use. So all that would change is enabling one and not the others, but they’d always be present. After install, you could switch between them if desired without messing with the package manager.
I personally use openSUSE (leap on server, tumbleweed on desktop, Aeon Desktop on laptop), and their installer is solid, but I haven’t tried it on a 4k monitor (worked fine on 1440p). Unfortunately, I don’t recommend my distro of choice because it’s not popular enough to have a good newb support network, whereas that’s basically Bazzite’s core demographic.
They don’t need to, just give them 3 screenshots and ask which they want. Show KDE, GNOME, and whatever the distro wants as the third. Maybe include some bullet points below each explaining what they are (pick one from the last two):
KDE - familiar, extensible
GNOME - modern, minimalist
Cinnamon/Budgie/MATE - something in the middle
XFCE/LXQT - super lightweight for older systems
Maybe select one by default that the OEM likes, but showing the option helps nudge them toward the idea that this is a flexible system.
I’m guessing that once we get to 5% excluding console-like systems like Steam Deck, we’ll see it start to explode. That didn’t happen for macOS, probably because of the cost of the hardware, whereas Linux can be installed on whatever you have.
If you’ve played one, you want to play another. There’s not a ton of gameplay differences between them, but that’s not what I play them for, I like the silly take on the story, the puzzles can be fun and satisfying, and the collectibles are fun to find.
LEGO games are the comfort food of games IMO, you know exactly what you’re getting and it’s satisfying.
If you’ve played one, you want to play another. There’s not a ton of gameplay differences between them, but that’s not what I play them for, I like the silly take on the story, the puzzles can be fun and satisfying, and the collectibles are fun to find.