Here's a very amazing game that's mostly made by one person named Seith using Unity. It's only on Windows and Xbox One because it's using Unity's DirectX export option.

YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0mO7g_JoU [External Link]

Homepage's FAQ:
http://www.ghostofatale.com/faq/ [External Link]

Wasteland 2 under Wine is also using DirectX if you take a look at the Steam system requirements. So your test is comparing Apples with Oranges.

It is very possible to say that the Linux builds of Unity games need some optimizations, I'm sure this is the case. However even the "AAA" engines have some substantial performance hits with native Linux ports mostly due to OpenGL vs DirectX issues. For instance, Borderlands 2 runs better for me under Wine than it does natively. As a side note, it's a great port, after a few days of playing it under Linux I nuked the Wine install off my machine. :)

I've been involved with about 15+ shipped games and apps in Unity now and have been in Game Development professionally for 10 years. I'm convinced that given the right team, time and budget you can make a AAA game in Unity. Look, one person (for the most part) is making "Ghost of a Tale" (in the link above) and it looks amazing. Deus Ex The Fall (Unity) is a mobile game and looks almost up to par with Human Revolution for PC (Crystal Engine). The two games are about a year and a half apart.

If you ask me if I think Unity is 100% up to par with CryEngine or UE4 I would say no, probably not. But, I would also say the reason why most Unity games give the impression that it's not a AAA engine is because of time, budget, and/or experienced developers (most Unity developers just want to make their game, not knock out the competition like AAA studios do). I'm convinced based on the two projects I mentioned and several others that I've seen that the smallest hindering factor is the engine itself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have to disagree with Unity being the most unoptimized engine out there. The real problem lies in the developers. Most games made in Unity are Indie games made by small teams on a small budget sometimes with little experience. Compare this to most games made in Unreal that are made by large teams with a lot of time and a big budget and developers who are either experienced or are surrounded by other experienced developers.

I'm saying this because I've used Unity since it was 1.0 and have noticed a lot of people think the engines magically should do everything for you. They don't. The development teams do most of the critical optimizations, not the engine. I promise you I can make a super underperforming game in Unreal very easily :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Mine is enabled by default, it may be a checking for the card and setting initial settings for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As far as the port goes, I've been playing BL2 on Linux. There are a few hickups such as the game locking up for about a second or two, it happens rarely enough to not be too annoying. Overall, I'm very happy with the port and it was the only game I had been using Windows for (and was actually playing it in Wine). So, I don't expect to be using Windows for gaming at all anymore. :)

I have XCOM and Civ 5 also. I've played both quite a bit and they've been flawless for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yes, you pretty much nailed it on the head. PhysX is a commonly used middleware that handles physics simulations :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Xpanderno its not cpu bound. you will get pretty much same result with any cpu (unless its atom or something super low) its higly GPU bound benchmark.
i have tested with phenom 2 955, intel E8500, FX 8320 and i3 with the same card and the results are pretty much same.. with 0,5FPS difference as max.

its your 860M that is not powerful enough for this. your 30 is pretty good result for that card:

http://blog.mbah.net/wpnew/2014/07/25/alienware17unengine/ [External Link]

You're right... what threw me is that no matter what settings I put it in it would max out exactly 1 thread worth of CPU (13%). It does this with lowest quality at 640x480 and at highest quality 1920x1080. My GPU is actually pretty high end despite being in a laptop. It has 1152 cores at 915 GHz. The bottleneck compared to your 660Ti seems to be the memory clock speed. Mine is 2.5 GHz vs your 6 GHz. It plays all of the Unreal Linux demos (https://wiki.unrealengine.com/Linux_Demos [External Link]) butter smooth except in maybe the last 4 shots in the Elemental demo where it drops to about 20fps.

Thanks,
Nathan

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is really great news! Thanks for sharing your benchmarks.

I just downloaded The Valley and ran it on my system that has a GTX 860M with 4GB VRAM. I only get an average of 30 FPS. I opened up the system monitor and it was maxing out a single core which means The Valley is CPU bound (probably in draw calls). While it's a beautiful scene, it's probably not a good benchmark for GPUs, at least not anymore. Since it's CPU bound you could throw a GPU that's 10x better in here and The Valley would still only get about 30 FPS if you had my same CPU.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm pretty sure this is an admission by Microsoft of the failure of Project Sparc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CreakCame to around the same results here and I was also surprised of what they had to say about their Linux figures considering it's only 1% of the gaming landscape (and they should know it). Moreover this $12K seems to be from Steam only? That would mean that just with Steam, us (Linux gamers), made the double of what they should expect for the entire lifetimes of their games. Not bad... not bad at all, I say.

Exactly my thoughts and yes, they admit in the Tweet replies that the $12k is only from Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

From the blog post that EKRboi linked to (http://www.puppygames.net/blog/?p=1369 [External Link]) they had made about $620k total as of Mid-2013 and I suspect it hasn't gone up too much from that. A projection of Linux's 1% market should get them about $6,200, yet they got $12,000. The $12k figure is from Steam sales only and the $620k figure includes all sales.

That means that the Linux user base has supported them by double of what they should expect. So the Tweet comes across as showing either a) a lack of research of their own data and/or b) an unrealistic expectation.

Soon, we'll be able to get Borderlands 2 on Linux (2012 AAA) for $20. Is Revenge of the Titans (2011 Indie) really worth half of Borderlands 2? So, their prices are unrealistic as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments