3 ms·
> 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 disa
by 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 agoOk, 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 agoNot 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.