A company wants to try to make their product work better on your OS, and you tell them to fuck off? Why am I not surprised?
Enjoy your ideological win. Likewise, enjoy your permanent relegation to second class status in the desktop OS world. Nvidia certainly won't cry themselves to sleep if their drivers don't work as well under Linux as they'd like. It's not as if losing the few thousand video card sales (integrated and discrete) that are made to desktop Linux users would affect their bottom line much.
bolt enough proprietary stuff onto it it's not really linux anymore
Yeah, it would probably end up being something that's better and more usable than Linux.
What it will lead to is *zero* vendor GPU drivers being developed in the open. Who the hell would expose their proprietary code to placate less than one percent of the desktop market share?
GPL zealots are both stupid and clueless. Keep your actions up and you'll be lucky if you have access to accelerated 3D drivers -- even closed-source ones -- five years from now.
What's with all the Path of Exile shills these days? It's just another shitty free-to-play game that will eventually be forced to switch to the same 'pay to win' model that nearly every other F2P game already has.
With few exceptions, I want to know what a game is going to cost me to play *before* I start playing. Charge me up front - don't make me piss away a few bucks here or a few bucks there to get full enjoyment out of the experience.
Graphics are not my main consideration when looking for a good game to play, and I question the intelligence of anyone who considers the quality of the graphics above anything else.
Good graphics can make a game with solid gameplay even better. However, no amount of graphical polish is going to make up for shitty gameplay. I'll take a good roguelike over a game like Final Fantasy XIII any day.
Who the hell would pay $5, let alone $175, for a piece of virtual gear in a game like Diablo 3? There's a sucker born every minute...
(Not that I'd complain about taking such a sucker's money - I'd be rubbing my hands in glee if someone chose to pay as much for an item of mine as they did for yours.)
There's definitely a lot of unfounded hate for Diablo 3. It's certainly not Diablo 2, but I got my money's worth out of it.
The main problem with Diablo 3 is the auction house. Not even the RMAH - just the auction house in general. The main draw to an ARPG, and pretty much the entire endgame, is farming for better loot. In Diablo 2, you had to find all the good gear yourself, or make an effort to seek out other people to trade with. There was an entire rune-based economy that facilitated the trades, but you still had to go to the effort to set prices, find willing buyers/sellers, and complete the transaction.
With the Diablo 3 auction house, any piece of gear that you could possibly think of - and almost certainly better than any piece you'll ever find on your own - is available to buy with your gold. Some of these items cost next to nothing because the market is so flooded with gear. Why bother grinding for loot when you can get stuff that's so much better so easily? The auction house removed the one major motivator to keep playing like we all did in Diablo 2 - the hope for better loot on whatever you happened to kill next. Without that sense of excitement, there's really no point in playing long term.
I also think that there's too big of a difficulty jump between normal and veteran. In normal, I'd build up a big excess of potions since nothing hit me very hard. In veteran, I was dying continuously and sending my pet back to town constantly just to get enough potions to survive. I was spending all of my gold just to keep an adequate stock of potions around.
At least for a first playthrough, the perfect difficulty would be something between normal and veteran. Unfortunately, that difficulty level doesn't exist (yet - at least until someone chooses to come along and make a mod to create it). That's just a minor complaint though - I've already put 30 hours in and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon.
Well, if you feel the need to keep a dozen or more games installed on your system at any time, and choose not to have a larger capacity secondary disk to hold the stuff you're not heavily using right now, then that's your problem.
You've obviously never used a SSD -- otherwise your answer to this question would be very different. My first SSD was only 80GB, and Windows took up almost 20 of that. Even with that limitation, and having to juggle which games I had installed on the SSD at any given time, it was still worth every penny of what I paid ($300). The difference between platter-based drives and SSDs is so great that many people feel that it's worth the hassle of juggling installed apps in exchange for better performance.