15 replies to this topic

[SpleenBeGone]

With steam coming out for linux, specifically Ubuntu, and WoW already working great through WINE on it, I'd like to refresh my idea of a cheap gaming box. An A10 setup can be had for around $300 in parts, and stock is plenty to handle most steam things and WoW rather well, plus the overclocking ability that could be marketed as well.

With these I'd like to have Ubuntu, but have it look a bit different to set it off. At the base, a custom theme and background that gets set as default to make things easier. At the most advanced going with Gnome over the Unity interface, and a few things along that line. I'm rather green at anything past the basic use of linux, how hard would it be to set something like this up?

[LD50]

why do something yourself when someone has already done it? >___>
http://ubuntu-gs-rem...rge.net/p/home/

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

years ago I told myself i wouldnt buy PC hardware for gaming until they make a gaming OS for PCs accepted by the big developers.

[SpleenBeGone]

why do something yourself when someone has already done it? >___>
http://ubuntu-gs-rem...rge.net/p/home/

Nifty. I'd like to replace firefox with chromium though, and still with the style and such.

years ago I told myself i wouldnt buy PC hardware for gaming until they make a gaming OS for PCs accepted by the big developers.

That's windows.

[LD50]

yeah, but that's still half the work done for you. better than installing ubuntu and telling people to remember to pick gnome as their wm before they log in.

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

That's windows.

You're correct. I should have been more specific... A free OS accepted by the big game and GPU/APU software/firmware developers.

[SpleenBeGone]

yeah, but that's still half the work done for you. better than installing ubuntu and telling people to remember to pick gnome as their wm before they log in.

This is true.

You're correct. I should have been more specific... A free OS accepted by the big game and GPU/APU software/firmware developers.

Yeah, that's much harder to do, but we're on our way to it.

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

Yeah, that's much harder to do, but we're on our way to it.

My reasoning is that paying for the hardware, game and ISP for multiplayer should be enough.

[SpleenBeGone]

Well, an OS does a lot more than gaming. If you want something that only games, consoles are the way to go.

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

First of all... i think we both know what an OS is. Obviously they 'can do more than gaming'. Such as watching Netflix on my Xbox 360, Browsing the web on my PS3, or making a phone call on my Android.

Consoles are proprietary and you cant hardly fix them if something goes bad w/ the hardware. You have to pay $100+ dollars to the company for a refurb. Plus you have to pay for online gaming services to Xbox!

Second point is that consoles are get OLD. The hardware does nothing but limit what the game makers can do. And that sucks for gamers. Even if they come out with a new $300 console. It will be dated in 5 years and console gamer's will have to wait for new hardware.

Third, I think it id ridiculous that I would need to pay $100 bucks for an operating system if all i want to do is play the games I PAID FOR. Windows is great... but overkill when it comes to capability if I just want a rig for gaming.

If there were a free operating system that was supported by game makers and hardware designers, i would be able to play games with cutting edge graphics... and not have to fork over money to Microsoft via Windows/Xbox, or Sony...and fix it myself when it breaks.

[SpleenBeGone]

I think you're being unreasonable in your expectations. Not that it wouldn't be nice, but it's a lot to ask for.

Also, you don't pay for a game that works everywhere, you pay for a game that works on specific things, windows being one of the requirements.

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

Right... which is why the platform is written on the front/back of every game. (Windows, PS3, Xbox, Wii, etc.)

I don't think I ever mentioned expecting a game that works 'everywhere'. I specifically desired a free operating system. The obvious choice being something unix based. All this means is that games would have to be ported to use "POSIX-like" standards, rather than the .NET or whatever the Playstation XMB platform standards are for I/O.

I don't think it is unreasonable, and it would seam that Steam/Ubuntu does not think it unreasonable either.

Computer savvy population is growing, and more and more people are realizing that they don't need to buy certain types of software, and that there is a large open source community that can support.

With that being said, I would not mind paying for an operating system dedicated to PC gaming. I know I have not always had the easiest time getting games to work on Windows platforms in the past.

If I want to write an email, I can always dual boot into windows, or pickup my tablet/phone.

[SpleenBeGone]

I think steam for linux is perfectly reasonable. What I would consider the unreasonable part is every game company agreeing to support something when they're not forced to. The only reason they all work on windows is because there are pretty much forced to.

[SpleenBeGone]

If you'd be dual booting windows isn't the whole point moot?

Also this.

[Champion of Cyrodiil]

I've changed my mind on the entire topic. Now I think we should pay Microsoft to play PC games forever.