3 ms·

> 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, gene

by 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
      Not sure how smoking is relevant here, but I know many who play demanding games on Linux, using high end GPUs, CPUs, custom PC builds and etc. It's as serious as it gets. And "must use Windows" isn't something they care about, as Linux users.

by shmerl 8y ago

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
    Not sure how smoking is relevant here, but I know many who play demanding games on Linux, using high end GPUs, CPUs, custom PC builds and etc. It's as serious as it gets. And "must use Windows" isn't something they care about, as Linux users.