[Annelies]

Originally Posted by CrazyLinuxNerd Technically, GNU/Linux does not "suck" for gaming. GNU/Linux is not the issue here, it is the games them selves. Games are written/tested/released on the windows platform, as such they will work perfect for Windows.. (well, mostly, they usually have bugs still lol) - They are then being forced to run through "Wine" on GNU/Linux which adds additional load to the system, and obviously compatibility issues, as such may cause bad FPS and other issues. Games which are written and compiled natively for GNU/Linux usually run pretty much perfectly. Recently Nvidia released a driver update which has drastically increased the performance of Graphics on GNU/Linux. In most cases you can get games to run perfectly on GNU/Linux as well, if it's a Windows platform game you usually have to hack it around a little to get it to run smoothly, personally I hack things around a lot to make the run perfectly. I have games such as Assassin's Creed 1 through III running on highest graphic settings just fine. But then GNU/Linux is the ONLY operating system on my computer, as such no windows, as I refuse to agree to Microsoft's TOS and Licence Agreement's as such will not use their software :-). So when it comes to having to hack things around a little to make things work, I do not mind. I run CentOS 6.3, However it is far from stock, I run the latest graphics drivers from Nvidia, the latest kernel from kernel.org and a lot of other "tweaks" and "modifications" while leaving most of the applications as CentOS 6.3 stock or from EPEL repositories and have got a surprisingly stable system still :-) And I don't have that crud Gnome 3 or KDE :-P (Xfce, lightweight, allows me to play games easier, and get work done without it constantly being in my face and bogging the system down - I prefer a minimalistic desktop..) Anyhow's, as for native games, usually they can be run pretty easily and without any hacking around or issues. Just my 2c

Very interesting. I understand what you're saying. Personally, I do not believe I should have to hack a game that I paid for in order for it to work properly, though. I just want things to be easy. Install, click and play. I think for now I'll stay on Windows.

[advocatusdiaboli]

It all boils down to Wine sucks for gaming. Native games for Linux do not suck; yet there are crappy ones.

In my house we have PS3 and boardgames for gaming, Macs for people, Linux for servers, and windows for the house.

I must admit I prefer the homebrew games and emulators to the commercial PS3 games.

[Elegant]

Originally Posted by Annelies Valve is obviously moving towards Linux because they do not trust the Windows platform.

Okay let's just stop there. Tell me how you would customize Windows to run like a console (and for the love of god do NOT start with a 360 comment). If it's going to have an unmodified version of Windows (which again is the ONLY option, why would Microsoft hand over anything to Valve), why not buy a PC? I mean really what you're doing is buying a PC, there's no denying this.

Secondly, do you really think Microsoft would approve of Steam releasing a console with their OS to compete with their sales? I'm sure Microsoft would want to sell more next gen Xboxs. Or better yet, WHY should Valve PAY Microsoft for licensing? WHY?

That pretty much leaves Linux (if someone mentions OSX please find the nearest 4-way intersection). It's customizable, it has OpenGL which some big gaming companies do allow their games to work under (just DirectX kind of became a standard), and it's not prone to getting virus' (and trust me some dumbass kid WILL get a virus on it if it uses Windows). I would hate to see the day we have to install an anti-virus on a gaming console.

Also, you really can't say ANYTHING about the choice of DirectX vs. OpenGL when gaming companies (straight from the dev's at Ubisoft Montreal) say they have to completely change the foundation of their engines for it to work on the PS3. When they make a game like AC3 they built a PC/360 version side by side then have an entirely different team to build the PS3 version because of its "uniqueness" (serious flaw of the PS3, similar to our Skyrim issues). You would not have to do this for OpenGL for use on Linux.

This also helps solidify that Steam is really the go-to-place to get any game.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Well, then Microsoft should learn some math, a small share of something big, could be a lot bigger than a small piece of nothing.

[Annelies]

Originally Posted by Elegant Okay let's just stop there. Tell me how you would customize Windows to run like a console (and for the love of god do NOT start with a 360 comment). Secondly, do you really think Microsoft would approve of Steam releasing a console with their OS to compete with their sales? I'm sure Microsoft would want to sell more next gen Xbox's then have a small piece of a Valve console. That pretty much leaves Linux. It's customizable, it has OpenGL which some big gaming companies do allow their games to work under (just DirectX kind of became a standard), and it's not prone to getting virus'. I would hate to see the day we have to install an anti-virus on a gaming console.

I can feel the hostility!

1. I do not want Windows to run like a console. If I wanted a console-like experience, wouldn't I have just stayed on consoles?

2. No, and that is why I am contemplating whether or not I want to install Linux in the first place because I feel like it may be inevitable in the future. I just want it to be as seamless as possible: I want my entire experience to be in a GUI, and I want it to be click-and-play if that makes sense. Easy! Screw the terminal, I just feel like that is a complete waste of time.

You know I am not buying the Steam Box, right? Why would I buy a console just to play the games I already own at even lower settings than my PC? All I am saying is... it's going to dominate the Wii U, Xbox 720 and possibly PS4.

[hellsing9]

Problem on all this (i stated the same in other threads) is the lifespan of each console.
We can't upgrade PS3 hardware nor Xb0x360 or wii, yes we can *modd* it but we can't replace certain vital components to make it run better like a pc.

That's the main reason i purchased a console to satisfy my favourite games on the spot.
I saw many friends of mine getting exclusives on both consoles meanwhile (like any pc gamer) wait at least 3 months to play a miserable game that i waited for more than a year.

Im a console user because i *choose* to be another marketing whore on this one.
MGS 4 on pc??! i doubt so and i hate emulation on PC.

Honestly i reached a point where i don't fully understand console wars.
They are using the same hardware for how many years?..6?, 7? and still can handle some games with mid to low graphics pretty well.

It's 10 better to the average consumer to sit on his/her couch in front of the TV and open a disc tray and insert the game or just connect and external HDD and play from there.
10 times more lazzy and better than tweaking or researching on how to get better fps or mess with AA or whatever you like on a PC.

Now with this Steam *stand alone* mini machine, maybe they can't outperform a next-gen console but like i said PC gamers/users have the upper hand this year.
But if you see many people are getting tired of too much eye candy and poor gameplay.
That's why Machinarium and World of goo or Limbo had such some high impact on gaming community. (I even own Machinarium OST i love that game and it's mostly made on flash!)

People is getting tired of complexity gameplay, they want to go back to 0.
Where you had to use a little of your imagination like a book.

[TitaniumL]

I for one am excited about this steambox/piston/whatever it's called. It's basically a PC just for gaming that is made for the living room (or wherever you game). Steam already has a massive user-base, so instead of limiting themselves on PCs they're reaching out to many more people with this device. Can imagine them saying, "You can enjoy our games/service easily from the comfort of your favourite couch on your TV".

Also, I've read there would be 3 models and obviously 3 different prices. I think it's going to be one with low settings, one with mid and one with highest settings. It's not a bad idea I guess. Depending on your budget, you can still buy their device, and still play their games, but with graphics/detail differences.

[Elegant]

Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli Well, then Microsoft should learn some math, a small share of something big, could be a lot bigger than a small piece of nothing.

Why would Valve want to pay for licensing regardless?

@Annelies I think it will dominate too though some console specific titles will keep the others around. The ONLY issue is Steam's policy conflicting with EA which I blame EA for being so dumb.

I don't think it'll be worth using Linux PC-wise until Windows 7 is done or Windows 9 is not a tablet OS hybrid.

[stevorkz]

I dual boot linux mint and windows 8 currently (changing back to 7 as soon as I have a gap because windows 8 is a mistake for home computers). I only use windows for gaming or if theres an app that is on windows and there isnt a similar one on linux (rare)

Another major reason why the linux platform isnt great on gaming is because windows came first. Developers arent going to waste time on linux when 90% of the world is running the latest flavour of microsofts OS. It just wouldnt make sense nor as much profit.

Having said that I am a firm believer that windows will not be around forever in this life time. Open source is king and Linux is really all you need in an OS and it COULD run games flawlessly and even better than windows given its better infrastructure, if developers would start developing for it. I dont understand why people dont use linux it is SO much better than windows and much more stable and secure and fast. The only downfall which isnt linuxs fault, is the games. Its only due to devs not making much games for it due to the widespread use of windows in contrast to linux as I stated. It is however, just a matter of time before a transition takes place slowly but surely in my opinion. Im sure one day we will be telling our grand kids "You know, back in my day we used to pay for an OS"

As for Bill Gates being illuminati, I doubt it. He left because he knows windows has no future in the internet age and hes spot on. Thats why he tried to buy yahoo in a desperate attempt to compete with google and yahoo wouldnt budge even after being offered $45 Billion. I think right then he realised that windows at least is doomed as the last major computer breakthrough that people would have to pay for. Microsoft missed the internet age leap by just a year or two and it was too late. Sure they could venture into something new...look what they trying to do with bing. You think its working? Not quite as much as they need it to.

In a nutshell, Linux is MUCH better than windows. Windows just has more followers because they were first on the OS bandwagon. People who love windows are perfect products of Microsoft. Their initial plan back in the day when they started licensing DOS to IBM, was to get people so used to their OS that they would think "Microsoft" whenever they see a computer. That way they could leave IBM and venture on their own because people would want what they have...DOS/Windows. And their plan worked perfectly. The average computer user only knows windows and thats currently the last trick up Microsofts sleeve.

[baargle]

Originally Posted by Annelies Valve is obviously moving towards Linux because they do not trust the Windows platform. The Steam Box will most likely be running a custom-made distro of Linux created entirely by Valve, likewise, the Steam software is already available for gamers running Linux on their desktop machines. Still, I hear so many bad things about gaming on Linux. From what I've read, and from what I've heard, Linux has very bad driver support for NVIDIA graphic cards and games that run via Wine constantly lag. I want to like Linux but if I cannot properly game on it... Well it just isn't happening. Period. Will gaming on Linux ever be worth installing the OS? I am mainly referring to Ubuntu but I suppose all distros suck as well -- for gaming.

I think the preconceptions that have made you say what you are saying are based on totally incorrect understanding. For one, nvidia is as good as it gets for Linux support in mainstream GPU companies, FAR better than the other big player - AMD.

Linux is complicated to use for average person, and even for the user that knows what he's doing it's still a pain in the rear end to use. It's great for bare metal automated setups like XBMC...where the user isn't actually directly using it and speed is of the essence, but other than that, just not enough demand by the average retard - so it stays complicated.

In all honesty, the distributions with juicy shells have become more bloated than say Windows 7 anyway.

Linux and all "free" operating systems by nature are a dead loss for mainstream by nature, the workflow of coding/bug fixing cycles just isn't appropriate for the average end user to harness.

Fact. (maybe)

....imo

In reality, if Linux and all the rest of them weren't "free", they'd just been seen as poor alternative to Windows. If you're a power user and demand direct access to hardware on console level through the base operating system and access to powerful command set then yes it's great. But there in lies it's weakness, it's darn complicated stuff.

Linux will never replace Windows, and it shouldn't either as they are totally different things. It's just we've all been brainwashed into believing that Linux is the future. It's not, it's obscure and will stay that way as an operating system for the masses. As a base OS in small appliances and the like, yes it's only going to get bigger.