Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

>> and still more which run with varying
>> degrees of success under WINE.
>
> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.


It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!

It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
actually /worsens, the user's experience!

C.

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running
> simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!

If you're talking 3D games I'd love to see that myself, u got a link?

> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens, the user's experience!

Hmm, I'll give you Windows ME and maybe Vista (too early to tell but it
certainly looks that way right now). Most other versions of Windows
fared ok in that regard.

Ivan Marsh wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:38:11 -0700, pc games wrote:
>
>> I'm dying to use Linux, I'm just waiting for you guys to turn it into a
>> great gaming platform!
>
> My Linux systems make money, not polygons.
>
> Go buy a PS2.

*Well* *said!*

C.

On 2007-07-31, WDS <Bill.TakeThisOut@seurer.net> wrote:
>
> The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
> thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
> rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
> that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
> Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
> the money is better.

Sad but true. I pretty much agree with you and the other person
who says it's a catch-22.

This message is not archived

This message is not archived

On Jul 31, 4:38 am, pc games <pcgamer23... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
>
> STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
Linux has has had collaborative gaming almost since it's inception.
Granted, Empire wasn't exactly real-time 3D animation, and it took a
while for hardware to catch up to BZ-Flag, but these are two very good
examples of ways that Linux users have been able to join others in a
"Community Game".

Sure, it's a bit like Jabber or IRC servers. There are directories of
servers offering the game, and the registries are mirrored, which
means that it might take a day or two for a new server to hit the
registry mirror, but once it's online, it's not that hard to find.

Creating collaborative game servers isn't all that difficult. You
have game clients, you have game servers, and you have a registry.
You could use UDDI (a wide-open Standard used in SOA applications for
business), or you could have your client connect to an LDAP server (or
have your LDAP server contact the game server's LDAP server. The
servers register themselves with the registry server, and clients
contact the registry to see which servers have the game they want to
play.

> STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> yet...

STEAM is also a registered trademark.

> YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!

It's certainly their choice to make STEAM a Windows only product. But
then again, there is nothing to stop some college sophomore from
taking the public description of public protocols described in the
paragraph above, create an Open Source registry, and let Linux users
register their game servers. FreeCiv, BZFlag, Poker, or whatever
else, all available for community play.

The games can be implemented using OpenGL code, which means that the
games can be played on Windows, Sony, Nintendo, Linux, and Mac.

Remember that company (Microsoft) who wanted to restrict their search
engine to "Windows Only" users. And this other company (Google)
decided that they would make ANYBODY's content searchable? How did
that turn out?



If the publisher wants to limit STEAM to "Vista Only" it's their
choice.
Of course, there are risks and consequences to that kind of choice.

* waterskidoo:

> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform

Why should that be the case?

> however
> with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
> under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
> the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.

Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.

It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac

> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
> this worthwhile.

Which "potential performance increase"?

Benjamin

In article <5h9quiF3ipt8cU2.RemoveThis@mid.individual.net>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.RemoveThis@gmx.de> wrote:
> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.

It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.

> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac

It definitely is more appealing. Mac users in general don't require
software to pass a religious test before they'll consider it, and have
historically shown themselves willing to buy good software.

--
--Tim Smith

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?

>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.
>
> Which "potential performance increase"?

I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
operating system = more of the games, or something like that.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:40:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
(snips)
> The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
> Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
> companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
> than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.

In the last benchmarks I saw Vista was crucified by XP. Up to a 30% loss
in fps rate. So much for optimising Dx and an "upgrade". Another reason
to give Vista a miss.

> A modern game takes 10s if not hundreds of people to design, write, QA,
> localise and distribute. There is simply no market for games by current
> Linux users unfortunately.

Unfortunately. If a decent Linux native game comes out I buy it. The
game writers more often release server binaries.

dapunka <dapunka.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> writes:

> On 31 Jul, 19:58, WDS <B....RemoveThis@seurer.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 11:24 am, waterskidoo <water.ski....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
>> > with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
>> > under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
>> > the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
>> > The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> > this worthwhile.
>>
>> The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
>> thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
>> rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
>> that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
>> Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
>> the money is better.
>
> Yes... Linux home users generally use software that's free (as in
> beer), which is no good to the games software manufacturers. And, as
> has been pointed out many times before (but never by me, until now),
> hardcore gamers generally use consoles for gaming.

Wrong. "Hardcore" gamers use PCs.

Family "platform consoley type games" are generally played on Consoles.

Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter RemoveThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>>> and still more which run with varying
>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
>
> It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running

What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
that most wont run on Linux?

> simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!

Fool. You embarrass yourself and other Linux users.

>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens, the user's experience!

Only for Linux zealots. Windows is an excellent gaming
platform. Sorry. But its true. And the gaming market seems to back it
up.

http://www.lokigames.com for more details.