5 ms·

My point is, that Linux is already well usable for gaming, including for very demanding games. "Serious gamer" is too much of a generalization, to assume what p

by shmerl 8y ago

My point is, that Linux is already well usable for gaming, including for very demanding games. "Serious gamer" is too much of a generalization, to assume what people are willing or not willing to do to configure their systems. Many gamers are actually very much into tweaking things as you say, from custom PC builds to game mods and other customizations. They see configurability as a benefit, not as a downside. So Linux is a natural fit. Besides, Linux gaming is quite accessible today without any extensive manual tweaking (while you can always do that if you want to, a lot more than on Windows).

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Let me put it this way. What's the best damn GPU on the market right now? I'm actually not sure, but I'd bet good money the top 3 slots are nVidia. Even if you use the nVidia proprietary drivers, the data says you're suffering a performance hit for it. God help if you're using nouveau, because you just wasted hundreds of dollars. The kinds of people I think of when you say "serious gamers" are not going to be very happy with the idea that they're locked out of the best kit. These are people for whom their computer's primary purpose is probably playing games. Why would they sacrifice needlessly? > So Linux is a natural fit. If it were a natural fit, they'd be interested in using it. Data suggests they aren't.
- shmerl 8y ago
  > The kinds of people I think of when you say "serious gamers" are not going to be very happy with the idea that they're locked out of the best kit Again, generalizations like "serious gamer always does that" are not helpful. Lot's of people are not satisfied with Windows for many reasons. Would they switch to Linux if they could play their games? Many would and already do, and I wouldn't call them not serious. Performance variations are not uniform. I.e. it's not a given that Linux always reduces performance. Proper made games actually perform better on Linux. Of course if you are using translation layers like Wine, some performance hit is expected to compensate. That's not necessarily a bad trade-off for those who want to switch, as long as result is well playable. > If it were a natural fit, they'd be interested in using it. They are, increasingly.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > Again, generalizations like "serious gamer always does that" are not helpful. Then why did you make a generalization in the first place and keep making it? I didn't introduce the term to the conversation you know. Let's ask a simple question: would your conception of a "serious gamer" include literally anyone who plays PC games at all? You have to have some line you're drawing somewhere right? Well, I can't read your mind so I'm using my own line, which is drawn where someone considers gaming to be a very high priority to them, and it seems unlikely to me that that kind of person is willing to make that trade off for some nebulous concept of "privacy".
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > Then why did you make a generalization in the first place and keep making it I didn't introduce it either, I simply referenced what the article used, to disagree with the point that Linux is not suitable for "serious gamer", as to say that there are gamers today who switch to Linux and who aren't any less serious than others. > Let's ask a simple question: would your conception of a "serious gamer" include literally anyone who plays PC games at all? I'd say someone who prefers to have good hardware to be able to play more demanding games is serious enough about it. Many Linux gamers do that as well. What's the reason to claim they aren't serious?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Ok, if that's the line we're using, then that includes anyone who isn't satisfied with the on-die GPU. That's a sufficiently broad definition of "serious" to include quite a lot of people who would sacrifice performance and compatibility for privacy, so I agree your statement is applicable to that group. That's just not the group I think of when someone uses the term "serious" in this manner. Sure, they're on the spectrum of seriousness, but if I were to tell you that someone was a "serious cigar smoker", do you honestly imagine a guy who smokes machine rolled every few months?
        shmerl 8y ago

by shmerl 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Let me put it this way. What's the best damn GPU on the market right now? I'm actually not sure, but I'd bet good money the top 3 slots are nVidia. Even if you use the nVidia proprietary drivers, the data says you're suffering a performance hit for it. God help if you're using nouveau, because you just wasted hundreds of dollars. The kinds of people I think of when you say "serious gamers" are not going to be very happy with the idea that they're locked out of the best kit. These are people for whom their computer's primary purpose is probably playing games. Why would they sacrifice needlessly? > So Linux is a natural fit. If it were a natural fit, they'd be interested in using it. Data suggests they aren't.

shmerl 8y ago
> The kinds of people I think of when you say "serious gamers" are not going to be very happy with the idea that they're locked out of the best kit Again, generalizations like "serious gamer always does that" are not helpful. Lot's of people are not satisfied with Windows for many reasons. Would they switch to Linux if they could play their games? Many would and already do, and I wouldn't call them not serious. Performance variations are not uniform. I.e. it's not a given that Linux always reduces performance. Proper made games actually perform better on Linux. Of course if you are using translation layers like Wine, some performance hit is expected to compensate. That's not necessarily a bad trade-off for those who want to switch, as long as result is well playable. > If it were a natural fit, they'd be interested in using it. They are, increasingly.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Again, generalizations like "serious gamer always does that" are not helpful. Then why did you make a generalization in the first place and keep making it? I didn't introduce the term to the conversation you know. Let's ask a simple question: would your conception of a "serious gamer" include literally anyone who plays PC games at all? You have to have some line you're drawing somewhere right? Well, I can't read your mind so I'm using my own line, which is drawn where someone considers gaming to be a very high priority to them, and it seems unlikely to me that that kind of person is willing to make that trade off for some nebulous concept of "privacy".
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > Then why did you make a generalization in the first place and keep making it I didn't introduce it either, I simply referenced what the article used, to disagree with the point that Linux is not suitable for "serious gamer", as to say that there are gamers today who switch to Linux and who aren't any less serious than others. > Let's ask a simple question: would your conception of a "serious gamer" include literally anyone who plays PC games at all? I'd say someone who prefers to have good hardware to be able to play more demanding games is serious enough about it. Many Linux gamers do that as well. What's the reason to claim they aren't serious?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Ok, if that's the line we're using, then that includes anyone who isn't satisfied with the on-die GPU. That's a sufficiently broad definition of "serious" to include quite a lot of people who would sacrifice performance and compatibility for privacy, so I agree your statement is applicable to that group. That's just not the group I think of when someone uses the term "serious" in this manner. Sure, they're on the spectrum of seriousness, but if I were to tell you that someone was a "serious cigar smoker", do you honestly imagine a guy who smokes machine rolled every few months?
      - shmerl 8y ago