pc games wrote:
> <snip>

Another thing I just noticed... why, the ****, did you decide to cross
post this in two Linux newsgroups as well? One of them's a ****ing
ADVOCACY group for Christ's sake!

No wonder this thread's become bloated with responses. It's as if he's
trolling or something...

FoolsGold wrote:
> pc games wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Another thing I just noticed... why, the ****, did you decide to cross
> post this in two Linux newsgroups as well? One of them's a ****ing
> ADVOCACY group for Christ's sake!
>
> No wonder this thread's become bloated with responses. It's as if he's
> trolling or something...


I have a most excellent solution....I don't play games. Therefore don't
need any means to run them.

In article <5h9quiF3ipt8cU2@mid.individual.net>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@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 **** 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

On 2007-07-31, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?

Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
the kernel. IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.


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

Pretty much true. They are making too much money with Windows and
console games.


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

At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
to the iPod, iPhone etc.

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

See above.

> Benjamin

On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg******.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Exactly.
It's 'she' btw :)

On Jul 31, 3:31 pm, waterskidoo <water.ski...******.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-31, WDS <B...@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.

I don't blame the companies. The whole point of a company (well, most
of them) is to make money for their investors. I've love to see
certain games on certain platforms but I would never invest in
them. :-(

Hadron wrote:

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

They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications. In
many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under Windows.

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

C.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> And no, Linux doesn't have a "lower overhead" than Windows.

Linux has a /much/ lower overhead than Windows - if only because it doesn't
need "anti-virus", "anti-spyware", "anti-trojan", "anti-adware" and all the
rest of the "anti-" crap running all the time.

The fundamental structure of Linux dictates that it is substantially more
efficient than the badly-written spaghetti-code of Windows /ever/ can be.

Don't believe the marketing hype about Vista taking years to "re-write
everything" - that's complete nonsense. Vista was thrown together in under
9 months because Ballmer needed to get /something/ into the marketplace.
It's just XP with added useless eyecandy and "performance" further crippled
by the inclusion of "nag dialogues" to give the illusion of "security" and
ineffective DRM measures that will just annoy legitimate users.

> Another reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't been the
> breakthrough it was expected by the Linux community for several years now.

That might be true where you /live/ but 'round here we have <5% Windows use
in this neighbourhood. There are huge areas of the world where Windows
simply isn't used any more. Americans persist with that crippled
"operating system" out of mistaken patriotism - their government will
probably outlaw any other OS sooner or later...

C.

* Hadron:

> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.

BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.

Benjamin

* Tim Smith:
>> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
>> now. Still most game developers don't give a **** 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.

Right, that's another problem. I find it ridiculous how the community
attacks gfx vendors like ATI/AMD and Nvidia because they don't want to
open source their drivers. Heck, they (the community) should be happy
that both companies develop for their operating system. Instead, they
are attacking them.

>> 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.

Exactly. BTW: the Mac is still the platform where Shareware/Donationware
is very strong. That's probably why there is a lot of very good
shareware available for it.

Benjamin

* waterskidoo:

>>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>> Why should that be the case?
>
> Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.

Nope. Unlike Windows you can tune Linux for using very few ressources
but then it's far from being useable as a gaming platform (or even as a
desktop computer).

> Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
> the kernel.

Same in Windows.

> IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.

In theory a dog can fly if you put a rocket in his arse. But it's still
a dog ;-)

Yes, you can tune Linux (which basically is just the kernel). For gaming
you need much more than the kernel. You need X for example, gfx drivers,
some sound subsystem (but which one?), networking, and a ****load of
libraries and other stuff that all need to be of the correct version to
work together. Talk about DLL hell, eh?

A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
Windows.

>> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac ;-)
>
> At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
> to the iPod, iPhone etc.

Probably, even when Apple removed the word "Computers" from their name.
But now with the Mac being x86/x64 instead of PowerPC this makes porting
games more easy.

Benjamin

On Jul 31, 3:56 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
wrote:

> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
> return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).

Are you telling me the Linux community helped in the creation of
STEAM? Helped in the creation of the "Monster"?
That is so disapointing! I though you guys knew better than that...
I see the Linux community as the equivalent of the "French resistence"
in WWII and did you ever saw the "French resistence" helping the Third
Reich?
And from Valve you will only get the middle finger to those that are
not SHEEP OBEYING SUBMISSIVE FOLLOWERS, but I will not take the insult
and shut-up, you bet I'll retribute the "compliment" as I'm doing
since November 2004, so this is specially for you Valve, **** YOU!
YEAH **** YOU TOO!

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:19:41 +0200, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Hadron:
>
>> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
>> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of
>> performance.
>
> BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
> In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
> in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.
>
> Benjamin

Crap. Where have you been the past 6 months? Almost across the board
games on Vista are slower,

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Follow up:

Vista _is_ DX10.

On Jul 31, 3:30 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> magnate <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> FoolsGold <f...******.com> writes:
> >> > Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> >> >> * magnate:
>
> >> >>> I'm dangerously close to agreeing with pcgames here. There are
> >> >>> hundreds of games which run perfectly under linux,
>
> >> >> With the majority of them being just plain crap.
>
> > By what measure? My guess here is that you mean "the majority of them
> > don't use the latest resource-hogging eye candy" - which has little to
> > do with the quality of gameplay. To many of us at least.
>
> No. The majority are plain crap. Don't play the eye candy line.

It's a valid line, since it's the most significant difference between
gaming on Windows and gaming on Linux - as you yourself acknowledge
below.

> There are some good ones of course - well, ok ones, but dated. The best
> action games being from ID and Epic.

Ok, at least we've met at some point.

> >> > When I was running my two-months Linux-only trial, I played a lot of
> >> > quite good, free games - particularly FPS. Two things I noticed:
>
> >> > (a) The vast majority of these games used Quake 3 as they engine (not
> >> > mods, standalone games)
>
> > This is the source of my guess above. I'm primarily a strategy fan, so
> > eye candy is less important to me.
>
> What strategy games do you play? Loki ported Alpha Centauri and went bust.

I never really got into SMAC, though it has tremendous potential. The
mind control exploit spoiled it slightly for me (and I have an
annoying tendency to reload when I lose a battle, which is very bad).

My favourite strategy games are Dominions 2/3, MoO 1/2, MoM,
VGAPlanets 3. I'm also a big fan of roguelikes, which are more
tactical.

> >> > (b) About 100% of the games I liked playing in Linux had Windows
> >> > versions anyway. They weren't Linux exclusive.
>
> > The discussion is not about how many Linux-only games exist, it's
> > about how many games run well under Linux. The existence of a Windows
> > version is neither here nor there.
>
> Not many. Sorry.

Here we agree - not many modern, commercial games run well under
Linux.

> >> >>> thousands more
> >> >>> which run perfectly in DosBox,
>
> >> >> Yeah, right. DOS games.
>
> >> > Gotta LOL at that. :)
>
> > Why? They must be crap because they run in DosBox? We clearly have
>
> Pretty much. People stopped developing DOS games eons ago. Games
> developed for DOS are pretty rubbish by todays standards. There are a
> few exceptions but not many.

No, there are lots of exceptions. Just because a game runs in DOS and
therefore has limited graphics does not necessarily mean it's not fun
to play.

> > totally different concepts of quality. Many superb games run in
> > DosBox: X-Com, MoO, MoM, Fallout ...
>
> Yes, all very old and "been there done that". All very good in their
> day.

The fact that you've played all these games is a much more valid
reason for not liking them anymore than simply saying "they run in
DOS, they must be crap".

Personally I haven't had much time to play all the games out there
(and I spent a lot of time playing the ones I did get into), so I'm
very happy firing up a classic DOS game like Jagged Alliance or
Fallout2 or Machiavelli the Prince, because I never played it before.

My guess is that there are more people like me, who haven't played a
lot of these great games, than like you, who have played them all and
are no longer able to be entertained by them. Of course, it's not in
the interests of games companies to point this out.

> > This thread - and indeed quite a lot of debate about Steam - seems to
> > be of interest mainly to people who want FPS eye candy games.
>
> Steam is nothing to do with eye candy.

Except insofar as it is a vehicle to deliver "modern" games, which
major on eye candy.

> >> The majority of Linux users who solely use Linux really have no idea how
> >> far Windows gaming has come or just how powerful the modern gaming cards
> >> are.
>
> > Again, it's all about the eye candy your GPU can offer. If that's your
> > measure of "how far Windows gaming has come", that's pretty sad.
>
> It's a measure. And pretty sad that you even think to deny that the
> advances in graphics have added a total new dimension to gaming. or are
> you one of these nerd types who can "picture the dungeon in your head"
> and plays D&D with the computer rolling the dice?

So you acknowledge that (in your view) advances in graphics are a key
element of modern gaming. You don't have to be a nerd to be easygoing
about eye candy. Sure, it looks nice, but it's way down the list of
what makes a great game for me.

> "Here" being COLA.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the acronym COLA. What is it?

> > The Linux community doesn't need to attract games companies. Linux is
>
> No : it does. As people of all ages like to play games -whether flight
> sims or fps or strategy or rpg or ....

No, it doesn't. It only "needs" to attract games companies if you
think that Linux "needs" to attract people who play modern eye-candy
games. Where is the need? Where is the published corporate strategy
for Linux which says it needs to grow in that particular market? Er,
it doesn't exist. Linux doesn't *need* to do anything. It grows in the
way its community wants it to grow. If that's in crap remakes of
classic board games, that's what people want.

> > free (both gratis and libre), and it would make little sense to try
> > and attract games companies who want/need to make a profit. There are
>
> Why? So you admit Linux users do not pay for SW? A lot of people will be
> pissed off to hear that as they consider releasing commercial ports of
> the SW. Whoops. Another bit of crap advocacy.

Well, I can't speak for a majority of Linux users, but a lot of users
I know use it precisely because it is free in both senses. Those type
of users would not be interested in putting copy-protected software
onto their system. I'm sure there is a whole other user base who would
be happy to install and pay for commercial software, as RedHat have
proved.

> > Hadron wrote:
> >>Steam is a SW protection thing isn't it? And a SW library and delivery
> >>system? It seems quite useful to me. A bit like the .deb stuff under Ubuntu.
>
> > Linux doesn't need Steam either, for the same reasons. As a "content
> > delivery system" it has nothing on the package management systems of
> > most Linux distros. Ditto its library function. Linux systems do not
> > need "SW protection" because the software is free.
>
> You clearly have no idea of the real meaning of OSS. OSS is not
> necessarily "free" as in "free beer". Go read up on it.

Odd that you should say that, when my previous post used both "gratis"
and "libre". Perhaps you don't understand non-English words.

> >>Doing a bit of reading it also seems to have a done a lot to
> >>curb online cheating in multiplayer games by checksumming the SW
> >>installed. That in itself is a great step forward.
>
> > Well, this is obviously of huge importance. Good call.
>
> It is if you like gaming. Which clearly you don't as you appear to know
> sweet **** all about gaming, graphics, standards, cross platform games,
> delivery systems, OSS games, and quality levels of modern releases.

Ooh diddums, teddy left the pram here, didn't he?