• Phil Spencer: "You’re not a real gamer if you root for other side to fail."
    93 replies, posted
Still waiting for the day exclusives die. - Sincerely a blue balled Halo 3-less PC gamer
The problem with Linux is that it's simply unrealistic to expect the vast majority of users to switch to an alternative that's harder to install, less user friendly, and has less software support. When non-power users start switching to linux because it's a good, user friendly alternative, you might see it start taking over some of the market share, but as it is, it simply doesn't make sense to the average user to switch to linux when they could just keep using windows. It has almost nothing to do with directX support.
Snip
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49973702]The problem with Linux is that it's simply unrealistic to expect the vast majority of users to switch to an alternative that's harder to install, less user friendly, and has less software support.[/QUOTE] Maybe if any of this was true, except for that last part where yeah, there is less software but not enough to matter for like 90% of users who use like an office suite and a web browser and that's it.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49974027]Maybe if any of this was true, except for that last part where yeah, there is less software but not enough to matter for like 90% of users who use like an office suite and a web browser and that's it.[/QUOTE] And why would that same 90% of users, who most likely bought a pre-built PC with the OS already installed, switch to Linux? When instead they could just keep using windows for their office suite and web browser?
Good point, but pretending that Linux is hard to install and use in 2016 is blatantly false.
It's not hard, for power users. Most users are not power users like I assume most people on this forum are. A lot of them never installed their own OS, to expect them pick a proper distribution of linux, and then correctly install drivers to match whatever hardware they have that didn't work out of the gate properly is quite a hassle for most users, for ultimately minimal benefit.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49971781]idk why people find it necessary to call themselves "true gamers" in the first place like you can be passionate about games without referring to yourself as a true gamer[/QUOTE] It's because they are insecure and want to feel special or different.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49973548]I've never ever seen someone complain about a game being ported to linux...[/QUOTE] I've seen most of it happening on the Steam forums
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49971595]Not really. Servers cost quite a bit to maintain, especially with the number of people playing on consoles. Besides, 60 dollars ever 2 years really isn't that much. [b]It's far less then something like PS+[/b].[/QUOTE] ????? XBL 1 year is $60, PS+ is $50 for a year.
Well I mean wanting to see one side fall is not bad if you have a proper reason to do so, for example Microsoft's original plans for the xbox ones and it's DRM.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49974130]It's not hard, for power users. Most users are not power users like I assume most people on this forum are. A lot of them never installed their own OS, to expect them pick a proper distribution of linux, and then correctly install drivers to match whatever hardware they have that didn't work out of the gate properly is quite a hassle for most users, for ultimately minimal benefit.[/QUOTE] Just like windows would be if it wasn't preconfigured by the manufucturers, the only thing keeping the majority from Linux is inertia.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49971781]idk why people find it necessary to call themselves "true gamers" in the first place like you can be passionate about games without referring to yourself as a true gamer[/QUOTE] I don't really understand people who call themselves gamers in general. Like, if anything, you'll see someone spout it on their social profile that they're a gamer and have an Xbox, but I've friends with 200+ games on Steam, sink hours upon hours into a title, and go "ew, gamers is a weird word."
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49973702]The problem with Linux is that it's simply unrealistic to expect the vast majority of users to switch to an alternative that's harder to install, less user friendly, and has less software support. When non-power users start switching to linux because it's a good, user friendly alternative, you might see it start taking over some of the market share, but as it is, it simply doesn't make sense to the average user to switch to linux when they could just keep using windows. It has almost nothing to do with directX support.[/QUOTE] It has pretty much everything to do with software support. Most modern Linux distributions aren't hard to install at all, they're just as easy to install as Windows, "Next, next, next, done". I wouldn't call them particularly hard to use, either. Different, if anything, not hard. (one of my uncles who's more or less completely computer illiterate has been using Linux Mint for the past year with no problems at all) Why do most games not run natively on Linux? Because there aren't a lot of people using Linux also interested in games. Why? Because most games do not run natively on Linux. Fortunately more and more developers are starting to support Linux, and I do expect (and hope) to see it growing in the coming years
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;49974449]????? XBL 1 year is $60, PS+ is $50 for a year.[/QUOTE] For one year PS+ is 50, but month per month it's 15 unless they've changed it. I know from experience that XBL is 60 for 2 years. [editline]20th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;49974608]I don't really understand people who call themselves gamers in general. Like, if anything, you'll see someone spout it on their social profile that they're a gamer and have an Xbox, but I've friends with 200+ games on Steam, sink hours upon hours into a title, and go "ew, gamers is a weird word."[/QUOTE] It's like calling yourself a motorhead or a foodie. It's to show what hobby you're into, what group of hobbyists you're a part of. There's nothing wrong with the term gamer, what is wrong is arbitrarily not including something just because they like one kind of game over another or some other dumb shit.
as someone who owns pretty much every console, console elitism is the stupidest thing ever. every console has it's pros and cons, every console has great exclusives. if you want to play halo and don't care about anything else, buy an xbox. don't hate other people because they like different games that happen to be ps4 exclusive. [quote]I know from experience that XBL is 60 for 2 years.[/quote] nope, it's 60 for one year. you must have gotten like a buy one get one free deal or something.
Yeah no clue where you're getting 2 years of XBL $60. It's been $59.99 for a year for a while. PS+ for a year is $49.99 3 months of XBL is $24.99 while for $17.99 you get 3 months of PS+
[QUOTE=woolio1;49971769]Someone doesn't remember using the PS3 or Wii online. Wii U's gotten better, but it's still not great.[/QUOTE] It's not like the 360's was any better. Games still had to rely on developers/publishers deciding whether the game would use dedicated servers or P2P connection. Xbox live membership did nothing but charge you for a service you're already paying for.
[QUOTE=Makol;49975379]Yeah no clue where you're getting 2 years of XBL $60. It's been $59.99 for a year for a while. PS+ for a year is $49.99 3 months of XBL is $24.99 while for $17.99 you get 3 months of PS+[/QUOTE] there were some deals a while back that was $60 for 2 years
Ok I think I remember that, but that deal is over. That was a limited time thing. It's normally been $60/year for a while now. There's some new thing they're doing for 6(+1) months for $40 now.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49971492]God, I remember being 12, but then I grew out of stupid game console tribalism.[/QUOTE] yeah now i just dont buy any consoles
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49974624]It has pretty much everything to do with software support. Most modern Linux distributions aren't hard to install at all, they're just as easy to install as Windows, "Next, next, next, done". I wouldn't call them particularly hard to use, either. Different, if anything, not hard. (one of my uncles who's more or less completely computer illiterate has been using Linux Mint for the past year with no problems at all) Why do most games not run natively on Linux? Because there aren't a lot of people using Linux also interested in games. Why? Because most games do not run natively on Linux. Fortunately more and more developers are starting to support Linux, and I do expect (and hope) to see it growing in the coming years[/QUOTE] apparently you need to be a power user to stick a disc into a computer and hit "ok" a bunch of times now [editline]21st March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;49974608]I don't really understand people who call themselves gamers in general. Like, if anything, you'll see someone spout it on their social profile that they're a gamer and have an Xbox, but I've friends with 200+ games on Steam, sink hours upon hours into a title, and go "ew, gamers is a weird word."[/QUOTE] do you go running? congrats, you're a runner. do you like fishing? you're a fisher. do you paint paintings? you're a painter. do you regularly play video games? sorry to break it to you, but you're a gamer.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;49974608]I don't really understand people who call themselves gamers in general. Like, if anything, you'll see someone spout it on their social profile that they're a gamer and have an Xbox, but I've friends with 200+ games on Steam, sink hours upon hours into a title, and go "ew, gamers is a weird word."[/QUOTE] currently ive got 335 games on steam with over 2500 hours in tf2 alone i consider myself a gamer
[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;49971809]The PS3 and Wii did have free online, yes, but they were both shit. The Xbox had paid online, and it worked just fine. I'm seeing a little correlation here.[/QUOTE] The Wii online system was just trash, pretty indefensible really. But the PS3 online system worked quite well, the main issue is MS got a leg up by getting the 360 out first, and by selling it for less than a mortgage on a small flat. Sony insisting on using the Cell BE for the PS3, along with Blu Ray (which was ungodly costly at the time) drove the price right up. Their utter domination of the generation before made them complacent. But the weird architecture and lack of mass adoption meant developers weren't really fussed about the platform for a few years and Sony had no incentive to fix up the PSN. After the price drops the quality of the PSN rapidly improved. I don't think we ever got a real party system however.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49974435]I've seen most of it happening on the Steam forums[/QUOTE] The Steam forumers are fucking dumb though Have you ever had problems with a game and you google it only to find steam community answers and then realized it's just people who can't read, people who say "deal with it lol dumbass", and the occasional answer you can get everywhere else like a reddit thread
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49978946]But the PS3 online system worked quite well,[/QUOTE] cough cough 2011 cough cough I remember when Portal 2 came out, I was gonna play it with one of my friends who had it on PS3. And I did, once. But then PSN went down for nearly a month. That never happened with X-Box Live, as far as I know.
[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;49981070]cough cough 2011 cough cough I remember when Portal 2 came out, I was gonna play it with one of my friends who had it on PS3. And I did, once. But then PSN went down for nearly a month. That never happened with X-Box Live, as far as I know.[/QUOTE] Yeah, hence why I didn't say "perfectly". Every system has it's problems, Live has been down several times for extended periods. MS certainly had more incentive to get it working again until PS+ came about. It is still a perfectly stable service for the 99% of the time it works. Shame that there is basically no real interaction with other players in most games on it. Though it does mean there are also less to no screechers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.