True, I should have been a little more technically apt in belittling the dependency conundrums of Linux. I should not have blamed it on X11, even if manual xconf edits are required since, as you mention in correcting me, the nvidia drivers bundled with a system will keep working until a kernel upgrade happens (and if the driver becomes incompatible).

However, the layman would put the blame on the whole package. I'd like to view this from the perspective of a layman, since my old lecturers always emphasised that the only people we need to please are customers (if they don't buy, we won't get paid).

I said I replaced all my Linux boxes with MacOS ones: the ones I use for all my development and testing. I still keep a couple of Windows rigs for my gaming. Unfortunately, Windows and D3D still beats the current generation consoles to pulp.

I've never had a reliance on Windows-based productivity solutions like M$Office and such, so transitioning to iWork was easy. Almost everything else I can get on app store.

Please clarify how a call for a unified Linux standard (and I don't mean in terms of the kernel dev process, but particularly in terms of opengl, windowing and package management implementations) could be construed as a person's ignorance of Linux (do people still clarify it as GNU/Linux with all these distro's going around, and since Hurd is a different species)?

Yes. An opengl game does not require X11, and usually runs faster in Linux. However, a lot of the effects that are flawlessly rendered in D3D are rendered weirdly on opengl, especially shadow mapping. I'm betting this is mostly down to porting issues. Even if a game runs flawlessly on Linux, I'm not giving up my Windows rig or buying any Linux game licenses if a Windows alternative is available simply cos I don't trust the Linux option.

As for X11/window managers not being an issue in hampering 3D games, I disagree. Sure, the game does not run on X11, but you install it using a window manager. A normal gamer would not know how to resolve all the issues related to missing libraries and the like when installing a game. Linux has not come to the point where it guarantees a user painless interactivity, and that means it's still not attractive to average users.

What about before PS2 (and I would include PS3 too), when advanced 3D visuals like atmospheric effects and dynamic lighting (remember that Splinter Cell was released in 2002, just about 5 years before PS3 made dynamic lighting possible for console games) would have been impossible on consoles? Even now, I see distinctions between my PS4's rendering of Metro: Last Light and that of my PC (even when the graphics card is a dilapidated 680GTX).

True, the quality gap has reduced considerably enough to discard the reliance on PC's to get the best experience. Furthermore, the console has enough horsepower to host all the AI and still run the most demanding network protocols without much difficulty. However, this is a whole different topic.

Even before the demise of PC gaming, Linux has been suffering from gaining popularity amongst gamers. SteamOS is a good step in the right direction, but it will take time as did the Steam market itself (I remember the old days of Steam with Half Life 2, having to get the connections sorted). I think the saviour for PC gaming will be Nvidia with their cloud-based rendering technology. In fact, Linux should be at the core of it, if Satya Nadella doesn't pull off another MSDOS and fool them into submitting exclusivity.

On the mobile front, Linux is already being avenged by the mighty Android.

You're only proving that Linux has still not matured as a full-fledged desktop OS. 20 years ago the only excuse we had for owning a copy of Windows was for the sake of gaming. 10 years ago it was the same. And now you're saying it's still the same.

Not all developers need to commit to creating those public server APIs or the integrated environments you use to code. However, enough of us have to continue specialising in the science in order to ensure that those technologies are sustained and innovated. You might know how to create these tools, because by your own admission you have undertaken C/assembler coding, but the concern is that not enough of us are focus on that area. Languages/environments like Java, Objective-C and .NET are generally Turing-complete unto themselves.

I'm a guy who ordered a copy of Redhat all the way from Maldives back in 1996 (the shipping of which cost a bomb then), because it promised a new way to power our computers. From '96 till about 2007 I have exclusively used Linux in all my work. However, I've always had to keep a high-powered PC just for my games. With all the promise of different types of Wines and opengl implementations, games simply did not look as good or work as seamlessly (with few exceptions) as they did in Windows.

Since 2007, I have been using MacOS primarily for all my work, replacing all my Linux machines. Despite using Redhat, Turbo Linux, Slackware with Enlightenment, SUSE and Ubuntu, no Linux seemed to have the seamless productivity options boasted by the more mature MacOS or Windows applications, and some of these applications did not work proper with any of the Wines.

I think Linux as a desktop OS never really happened. I've mostly used it as my coding environment, and when I needed to author a document I swivel the chair and wake up the Windows (and these days MacOS) machine. All the various X, opengl and windowing implementations are just making applications ported to (or even originally developed in) Linux acquire quirks that aren't there in Windows and MacOS. Maybe instead of complaining about games developers, all the vendors should get together and conjure up a more unified Linux standard.

The flourish of automated tools appeared as a result of the 90s and early 2000s generations assimilating advanced programming skills. These generations knew how to directly handle hardware interrupts (and write peripheral drivers), write a tcp socket from scratch, code proper random access file management, program a perspective calculator for 3D rendering, etc. Now all these are deemed unnecessary because it's considered reinventing the wheel.

The question is who will continue the tradition of scientific innovation in computing if the younger generations aren't taught these basic skills? We should all ensure that our children go through the ritual of learning the fundamentals as we did, even if they eventually end up primarily using xcode (or whatever other heavily sandboxed coding environment exists then).

Too bad these machines aren't real AI units capable of autonomous policing. That might actually reduce the potential for extortionist behaviour (not that I'm saying this will be the case...).

Plus, all the Formula 1 drivers don't feel like they made bad choices in their lives while their practicing in simulators.

You're right. Starcraft 2 was what I was going for. Brood Wars was such a major part of my gaming life that I see it as a whole new version :).

Mass Effect 3 was fantastic, but GTA V was totally unexpected. My brother and I breezed through GTA V in a week, and managed to keep our day jobs at the end of it. It's an experience that any gamer should have to understand the extent to which the newest technologies have enhanced gameplay (and that's all I'll say).

Preferred Far Cry 3 over Tomb Raider, and wasn't excited enough about Max Payne 3 to give it a go.

Gaming is an escape into a dream world, and I prefer to keep my dreams filled with cutting-edge visual experiences, particularly when there's no story involved. I bought Nexuiz on Steam and removed it the very same day.