L4D2 Runs Faster on Linux than Windows

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Mussels

far more gaming happens on PC, than ever will on consoles. the consoles are just marketed more heavily, since theres greater profit in those systems.

Wut?!?
The sales of games on consoles is much higher than on PC based systems, even when a game is released on both platforms.
If more gaming (and thus gamers) where playing on a PC platform than consoles we would see the developers and publishers catering to the PC crowd.
That is simply not the case.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your statement that "more gaming happens on PC".

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Wut?!?
The sales of games on consoles is much higher than on PC based systems, even when a game is released on both platforms.
If more gaming (and thus gamers) where playing on a PC platform than consoles we would see the developers and publishers catering to the PC crowd.
That is simply not the case.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your statement that "more gaming happens on PC".

more can sell on a console in a given time period, but mostly because the one game is resold 5 times. and then it gets abandoned for the next console where it cant be played again - unlike PC, where people happily play 5-10 year old games.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by Mussels

more can sell on a console in a given time period, but mostly because the one game is resold 5 times. and then it gets abandoned for the next console where it cant be played again - unlike PC, where people happily play 5-10 year old games.

PC gamers tend to be more dedicated to some games. Console gamers will ditch a game and move on to the next pretty regularly (at least I've found this with myself and some of my friends.) There really aren't many games for Xbox 360 that I really can get into and stick with. Geometry Wars 2 was one of the few that really captured my attention for an extended period of time. For PC, I'm still playing TF2. I played WoW for a good 6-years before giving up on that (not because of the game but for what Blizzard did to it as far as end-game content). Granted I don't play a whole lot of games anymore, but the ones I do, I play a lot.

I don't know, maybe I have this all wrong but I think a PC offers a more immersive experience than a console and some games you wouldn't otherwise see (like SC2 or Civ5.) So I think that is why I prefer a PC over a console for gaming.

[Kreij]

Ahh ... I see your point now.
A console game is static. It sells in large volume, people play it, and then abandon it as they are done (not counting DLC).
PC games potentially have a much longer life span due to the fact that even if they do not release modding tools someone will eventually figure out how to mod it and give it more "life". Thus "more gaming on PCs" for a given game over time.

This does not equate to more income for the developers and publishers though.
This is why the mindset to not release modding tools and such, which will make the longevity of a PC game much greater, is kind of baffling. Even if the developers cannot devote resources to a game because they have moved on, it keeps the IP alive for future versions/expansions of the game.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Ahh ... I see your point now.
A console game is static. It sells in large volume, people play it, and then abandon it as they are done (not counting DLC).
PC games potentially have a much longer life span due to the fact that even if they do not release modding tools someone will eventually figure out how to mod it and give it more "life". Thus "more gaming on PCs" for a given game over time.

This does not equate to more income for the developers and publishers though.
This is why the mindset to not release modding tools and such, which will make the longevity of a PC game much greater, is kind of baffling. Even if the developers cannot devote resources to a game because they have moved on, it keeps the IP alive for future versions/expansions of the game.

Then what you get is CoD and re-texturing of old maps that you've already played (and paid for). I can't tell you how pissed I was when I noticed that for the first time. I've also heard of instances where modders have made agreements with game companies to allow them to release a copy of the game with the mod free of charge because the game was so old and stopped making money a long time ago. I don't remember the name of it, but it was a role-play mod for Star Trek: Elite Force. Not the second one, but the first. Quake 3 engine. Anyways Raven Software agreed. I was pretty surprised to hear about it myself initially.

[Chevalr1c]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I used the 295.59 drivers. I had to type a code in to even get them to install correctly.

But why didn't you use the "install restricted drivers" tool that Mint (AFAIK) gives?

[johnnyfiive]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Ahh ... I see your point now.
A console game is static. It sells in large volume, people play it, and then abandon it as they are done (not counting DLC).
PC games potentially have a much longer life span due to the fact that even if they do not release modding tools someone will eventually figure out how to mod it and give it more "life". Thus "more gaming on PCs" for a given game over time.

This does not equate to more income for the developers and publishers though.
This is why the mindset to not release modding tools and such, which will make the longevity of a PC game much greater, is kind of baffling. Even if the developers cannot devote resources to a game because they have moved on, it keeps the IP alive for future versions/expansions of the game.

Another thing that should be taken into account is the resale factor on the console platform.
People buy the new games, get bored of them and then trade them in. Then someone else buys the game for $40 while the first person spent $64+ (after tax). So that is nearly $100 in total sales for one game. On PC however, you buy a game, and thats it. Used game sales make up a huge market value in the console industry. Those rumors about the next gen consoles not allowing used games, if that were to become true, that would be really bad for the console market.

The PC gaming market is largely profitable in the subscription and DLC area. It completely explains why things like CoD Elite exists and why EA decided to make their own Steam-like platform, the stupid Origin.

[Inceptor]

Ah well, I'll take the totally minor hit for the ease of use, huge application library, and compatibility that Windows 7 offers.

1)I find this classic gamer statement so extremely ironic.
Take it out of context, put it into the mouth of a Mac user and you get:
"I'll take the hit in performance for ease of use, growing application library, and compatibility OS X offers."

2)I came across this sentiment on another site, and I think it's worth repeating:
Most gamers are not highly tech-literate (the small minority of people who post here, and at other 'enthusiast' sites are not 'most'); the most telling support for that is the continued success of companies that purposefully market prebuilt systems to 'gamers', with over the top, angular, transformer-esque aesthetic ads that are geared towards said juvenile 'gamers'. Those people won't want to switch to Linux proper. But, if Windows 8 is so amazingly horrible, it's very possible that a Linux powered box with simplistic UI could be marketed for the vast majority of simpleton users to play games on, as well as simple PC tasks. Steam box anyone? IIRC there's already a simplified gamer version of Linux out there.

3)Taking into account what I said in #2, it would be wrong to base an opinion on how much anyone has spent on Windows based games through Steam. That's a personal problem, and not one that would really concern Valve. If you've bought a game, they've got their cut of the money and so does the developer; they don't care much after that, beyond making the occasional patch.

4)A slow migration to Linux is doable. Valve can port their games and forge the path for the other developers to follow whenever they feel comfortable. As soon as the selection of games becomes enticing, more and more users will make the move. Leaving the brainless techtards gaming on Windows 8, and the stubborn, older users, who still have access to Win 7 gaming on Win 7. I have no doubt something along these lines has occurred to the Valvians.

5)John Carmack's comments about how in his experience Linux users don't want to pay for games doesn't apply to a situation like that in #4. If as a Linux user you have the choice of playing an open source game that doesn't have much support, that is buggy and constantly in development OR playing something a little more polished and ready for primetime, coded by professional game developers, and that everyone else is playing... well the choice is simple for most people. Right now Linux users are not primarily gamers and make up a small percentage of the market. If you have a large number of former PC users make the move to some flavour of Linux that is easier to use (like Ubuntu)... BAM! The whole game marketing situation changes drastically.
It might not ultimately be something that the open source movement would like to see, as it might have some future commercial implications for Linux they would rebel against, but money flows where the user goes.