Discuss Games, Hardware and News on PC Gaming **Discord** https://discord.gg/4bxJgkY **Mastodon** https://cupoftea.social **Donate** https://ko-fi.com/cupofteasocial **Wiki** https://www.pcgamingwiki.com
It's the main reason I've held off on it, it works for now but they seem pretty gung-ho on implementing anti cheat that will break proton support. Don't really want to get into a game that will stop working on my devices down the line
I know people are gung-ho on Proton as the future, but I can't trust anything that's not officially supported. I recognize it's bridging a gap here, but we cannot put all our eggs in this basket. The end goal should be getting developers to officially support Linux instead of just hoping Proton never breaks.
Support developers that support us.
Proton is useful for improving support for games so that more people may consider Linux, once Linux's market share grows then more official support will come. But Linux has bigger issues than games to solve before masses could adopt it outside of specific implementations e.g. SteamOS/ChromeOS.
Microsoft will never let go the gaming market. And certainly not by nicely allowing devs to mimic their API. If linux is every taking off as a gaming platform then Microsoft will simply release their own anti-cheat just like they released their own antivirus. With tpm2 etc...etc... and gamers will clap.
If your comparison is TPM and Defender then I'm sorry to tell you but absolutely nobody is clapping at this. People despise pretty much every Microsoft decision and will actively try to work around them
Microsoft don't really get to dictate it beyond their own games. Vulkan already exists, it's on developers to use it and through use it will be improved. Nvidia is a problem, right now you really want an AMD card for Linux and Nvidia are not rushing to support it. Linux is forever maturing, which is why it will struggle to ever see wide-spread use, unless major players suddenly start support for it, but why would they, when the market share isn't worth it... and on and on it goes.
Totally besides the point of the article, but…
„Clearly people were after a Battlefield-like that isn't from EA“.
Clear sign that the author hasn’t played the game yet. It’s not even close to Battlefield. It plays and feels totally different. The only thing that is similar is that there are classes and there is „Battle“ in the name.
To be fair: „large scale multiplayer FPS combat with vehicles“ DOES kinda describe Battlefield. Are there differences? Obviously yes. Are the also comparable? Also obviously yes. It’s not like they are comparing Battlefield to Hearts of Iron or something…
Also when you throw in squads, classes and destruction, it starts to look more and more like Battlefield -- not that that's a bad thing.
It has similarities, but it's very clearly a child of Squad imo; The focus on team cohesion, squad based tactics and the low ttk all say so. The level designer was a Squad fan themself. The fact it's working on a mil-sim mode is funny to me, because it's already pretty squad like so I am interested in how much more they cna do with it.
It feels like a mix of Squad with Call of Duty tbh. at least based on how it’s played on public servers. It’s noticeable that it’s squad inspired, but at the same time it’s more played like a fast round of call of duty. Which is a super weird mix.
I like the game for its price point and being able to hop in with my guys but I find the mix of ‘difficulty’ elements very jarring.
We’re hopping through windows, killing people with smgs, the next we’re slow reloading, combining mags and bandaging.
I’m sure they’ll change course via feedback but I feel like the game is in a weird place.
Still…..fucker is made by 3 people and is cheap as chips. I let the others do the killing while I smoke and heal the house down 🫡