Mac is not for games [Archive]

alset

May 13, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by JustinChaloner
I think the mac is getting better and better as a gaming platform. Okay, Mac games aren't exactly a multi-zillion dollar industry, but if it continues to improve its market share, gaming companies will take notice, see the $$$s and churn out more titles. Well.....that's what I think anyway.

My gripe with the Mac is that the hardware is too lame. I've got a 2year old iMac and it barely plays any current mac titles - the poor thing grunts and groans before giving up. My brother got a PC not long after me and his is happily running all the latest stuff. The graphics card is a pile of poo! If only Apple kept up with the PC world on this issue I think things would be better.

This is my first post, people, so be nice to me!:)

That's just life in computers. 2 years old is ancient. I think PCs probably fall just as far behind or farther in that time.

Still, I have an old 500 MHZ Graphite that can hold it's own with large 3d games like Black and White. Not to mention that my iBook (800 MHZ, but it's a G3) can handle Doom and Medal of Honor.

Dan

edit: ps, welcome to the forums

Giaguara

May 13, 2003, 11:42 AM

peecees are not for gaming.

my favorite game - deimos rising - has never been released for peecees. period. ;) :p

Sol

May 13, 2003, 11:45 AM

Try telling a Mac or PC user playing Unreal Tournament 2003 that their computers are not for games.

While consoles are great at what they do, some types of games are better suited to desktop computers (FPS, real-time strategy, sim-life, etc). A lot of games designers are also attracted to computers because their architecture is not set in stone like console architecture is.

The idea that there is no point gaming on a Mac because the Windows platform has more releases, technology, etc is lost on me. Most games on Windows are cheap clones of what came before and the ones that are AAA quality get ported to the Mac eventually. I cannot speak for everyone but the situation for me is that there are many good Mac games but no time (or money) to play them all.

Anyway, to each his own, but when a Mac comes with the same graphics card found in PCs nobody can say that machine would not be great for games.

DreaminDirector

May 13, 2003, 01:23 PM

Sol's got a point. I've been playing the UT2K3 demo for a few days now and the experience would be different on a console. I do have both an xbox and a PS2, and the FPS on them do come close, halo, red faction 2 and metal of honor especially. However, I've really only liked about 3 games on my Mac, the rest I have to say are better on a console.

DeusOmnis

May 13, 2003, 02:11 PM

As far as the released later issue, Ive been playing the Warcraft 3 Expansion Beta for a while now. I doubt the expansion would be released for PC before mac ;) Wasnt it Quake 3 that was released on mac before PC or something like that? And there was concern about Halo not being made for PC? Yeah, not all the games come to mac, like "pokemon's adventures in spain", but all the good ones do =)

Gymnut

May 13, 2003, 07:41 PM

Blizzard has always been noted to release Mac/Pc versions of their software on the same disc. So with the frozen throne expansion in mind, PC and Mac versions will be released on the same disc as well. It's a matter of economics unfortunately that many game makers release games solely for the PC or PC first then Mac for obvious reasons.

MrMacMan

May 13, 2003, 07:59 PM

The top 10 games were all mac compatible as of last years top sellers list.

In case you are wounder 14/15 of the top sellers were mac compatible...

since you don't mention a game specifically, we can't respond as well as we could have.

We got UT2K3, yes it was a while in the making, but it doesn't crash, and runs fine...

King Cobra

May 13, 2003, 08:03 PM

The Mac will always be a dominant advanced graphics/audio machine.

The PC will always be a dominant gaming machine.

Your best bet is to not rely on the Mac having super fast gaming graphics compared to a PC released at about the same time as the Mac. There simply isn't enough bus speed and graphics acceleration for the Mac to keep up with the highest demand of games.

PCs hold a high amound of RAM and ridiculous bus speeds (some are 800MHz effective). But so many companies support the PC so they get the benefits of availability.

Expect the competition of gaming to become a little tighter when availability for fast Mac bus speeds are present and when more companies are willing to spend time working for the Mac.

iJon

May 13, 2003, 08:25 PM

until apple gets direct x we will never have much games. and we will never have direct x because microsoft owns direct x. mrmacman is partially right in my opinion. we do get the top games, but if you look at the top games for last year almost half of them are the sims an their expansion packs. which equal out to be one game. the creative eax techonology doesnt bother me as much as it use to. i cant tel the difference and creatives software sucks a**. its just the plain lack of games and high performance video cards for the mac. but i really dont care that apple does get a choice of very many video cards, because macs arent made for games so it really doesnt matter. on my desktop i have battlefield 1942, planet side, americas army, postal 2, and raven shield, vice city, and gta3. none of these are for macs. then with my new list of games from e3 puts the mac in the gaming perpective to shame. with the new metal gear coming out (this will come out for consoles so its no biggie), new ninja turtles game, new prince of persia, theif 3, deus ex 2, and a much longer list that you can get from ign. its just pitiful our selection of games, until this problem is solved there will be a pc by my desk always.

iJon

QCassidy352

May 13, 2003, 08:42 PM

"its just pitiful our selection of games, until this problem is solved there will be a pc by my desk always."

as long as blizzard keeps doing simultaneous releases the mac will continue to be the only gaming machine I need. :)

Stelliform

May 13, 2003, 08:44 PM

It is all a matter of priorities. I want a computer that works more often than not, doesn't require alot of time fixing problems when they do arise, and it generally fun to use. Then I want to play games second. I have a PC for gaming, but I have only used it to play a few games since I got my Mac. In the last 6 months since I got my Mac I have spent more time fixing my PC than I have spent using it. (In all fairness my family uses it, but I won't touch it anymore. I got a bigger desk so I can use my TiBook while my wife uses the PC. :))

Gymnut

May 13, 2003, 08:52 PM

Uhmm..the Mac video card market certainly has gotten better over recent years despite the fact that no one other than Nvidia and ATI manufacturer video cards for the Macintosh Platform. It is unfortunate no third party developers such as Vertigo or BFG are permitted to do so. Perhaps then we'd see price comparisons between Mac video cards and PC video cards level off. Remember, not too long ago, the only video card packaged with Apple computers were the muscle lacking Rage Pro's and their paltry 16mb of VRAM. Certainly I do not think it is a lack of high powered video cards that prevent many games from being ported or developed for the Macintosh in conjunction with their PC counterparts. While the Radeon 9700 has certainly took its time getting into Apple computers, the divide between PC and Mac, in terms of gaming, has certainly narrowed. Certainly one thing is for sure, when companies port a game over to the Mac, they make damn sure they've done their homework and assessed the feasibility of doing so. Therefore insuring Mac owners that the games they receive are of "quality" not "quantity". Crack open a mag of PC gaming and you'll find one starred dud games up the wazoo.

mstecker

May 13, 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Gymnut
Uhmm..the Mac video card market certainly has gotten better over recent years despite the fact that no one other than Nvidia and ATI manufacturer video cards for the Macintosh Platform. ...

Come on, the only two video card manufacturers that matter one bit are Nvidia and ATI. I can't even think of another video card manufacturer, other than those that simply repackage Nvidia and ATI gpus onto their own cards. If anything, someone should send apple a cake for managing to keep both major manufacturers of graphics hardware in the tent despite their small market share.

iJon

May 13, 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Gymnut
Uhmm..the Mac video card market certainly has gotten better over recent years despite the fact that no one other than Nvidia and ATI manufacturer video cards for the Macintosh Platform. It is unfortunate no third party developers such as Vertigo or BFG are permitted to do so. Perhaps then we'd see price comparisons between Mac video cards and PC video cards level off. Remember, not too long ago, the only video card packaged with Apple computers were the muscle lacking Rage Pro's and their paltry 16mb of VRAM. Certainly I do not think it is a lack of high powered video cards that prevent many games from being ported or developed for the Macintosh in conjunction with their PC counterparts. While the Radeon 9700 has certainly took its time getting into Apple computers, the divide between PC and Mac, in terms of gaming, has certainly narrowed. Certainly one thing is for sure, when companies port a game over to the Mac, they make damn sure they've done their homework and assessed the feasibility of doing so. Therefore insuring Mac owners that the games they receive are of "quality" not "quantity". Crack open a mag of PC gaming and you'll find one starred dud games up the wazoo.
well basically all i was saying is that the best nvidia card we can buy is the 4600, and costs 400 dollars, can you say major rip off. i dont think ati have sold the 9700's individually yet.

iJon

mstecker

May 13, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by iJon
well basically all i was saying is that the best nvidia card we can buy is the 4600, and costs 400 dollars, can you say major rip off. i dont think ati have sold the 9700's individually yet.

iJon

It really bothers me when people talk about how much of a "rip off" it is that video cards cost more for the "same" hardware on the Apple platform. Although you are buying the same hardware as you would for a PC, remember that you require specialized and vastly different driver software. The cost to manufacture and sell you the card depends on the cost of the hardware AND its associated driver software. For mac applications, the cost of the software is subsidized by far fewer units than on the PC. That's why it costs more.

Unfortunately, most people think the driver is "free" (as in beer) becuase they can download it from the card maker's web site, while the card is the thing that costs money becuase, well, you'll get in trouble for walking out of the store without paying for one.

Yes, you can maybe get around this by buying a "PC" labeled card and finding a way to flash it. If you do this, however, you remove all incentive for the card manufacturers to develop mac drivers.

Would it make you feel better if they sold the cards at a lower price, but then forced you to buy and register the driver software separately?

Please remember that no one is making a killing selling Mac video cards. The manufacturers support it becuase they like the platform, just like us.

Gymnut

May 13, 2003, 09:20 PM

Reason being the Geforce4Ti 4600 is so steep is it has no other 3rd party manufactered equivalent to compete with. This is not a fault with Apple, but with Nvidia. As for ATI dragging its ass, typical but they're certainly getting better in delivering Mac video cards, albeit a little late. If you want something higher than the Geforce4 Ti 4600, such as the new GeforceFX, I suggest you read some of its dismal reviews on its comparison with the 9700 and 9800. As well if you don't mind having a second PCI slot taken up by that monstrosity they call a "fan", by all means purchase it when it is released for the Macintosh. Most games nowadays do not really even challenge today's games, with maybe the exception of a few, counting the impending D3. If you look around, the only two fighters left standing in the video card market are ATI and Nvidia. The others such as Voodoo have been gobbled up.

iJon

May 13, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by mstecker
It really bothers me when people talk about how much of a "rip off" it is that video cards cost more for the "same" hardware on the Apple platform. Although you are buying the same hardware as you would for a PC, remember that you require specialized and vastly different driver software. The cost to manufacture and sell you the card depends on the cost of the hardware AND its associated driver software. For mac applications, the cost of the software is subsidized by far fewer units than on the PC. That's why it costs more.

Unfortunately, most people think the driver is "free" (as in beer) becuase they can download it from the card maker's web site, while the card is the thing that costs money becuase, well, you'll get in trouble for walking out of the store without paying for one.

Yes, you can maybe get around this by buying a "PC" labeled card and finding a way to flash it. If you do this, however, you remove all incentive for the card manufacturers to develop mac drivers.

Would it make you feel better if they sold the cards at a lower price, but then forced you to buy and register the driver software separately?

Please remember that no one is making a killing selling Mac video cards. The manufacturers support it becuase they like the platform, just like us.
why does it bother you, its the truth. well actually it bothers me too when my friends have to shell out more cash for a card that can be bought on the pc market for much less. nvidia should lower the cost because they dont even make the drivers, apple does. linux users can use the new cards for the pc price and nvidia makes their drivers for them, and there are less linux boxes out there than macs.

iJon

phgreer

May 13, 2003, 10:07 PM

Well all I can say is it's very disconcerting that a quality game such as Uru;

http://uru.ubi.com

is only currently being planned for the PC.

the other games Cyan producted

Myst and Riven

(Exile as well even though it was done by another developer)

http://uru.ubi.com/faq.php#q10

I'm not mad at Cyan or the publisher (Ubisoft) but Apple really should be more serious about the gaming market. heck it doesn't have to even be on a Mac running OSX per se. The iPod doesn't run OSX. Why not an Apple branded game console that could take advantage of Apple technologies and strategies like the iPod.

iJon

May 13, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by phgreer
Well all I can say is it's very disconcerting that a quality game such as Uru;

http://uru.ubi.com

is only currently being planned for the PC.

the other games Cyan producted

Myst and Riven

(Exile as well even though it was done by another developer)

http://uru.ubi.com/faq.php#q10

I'm not mad at Cyan or the publisher (Ubisoft) but Apple really should be more serious about the gaming market. heck it doesn't have to even be on a Mac running OSX per se. The iPod doesn't run OSX. Why not an Apple branded game console that could take advantage of Apple technologies and strategies like the iPod.
we already got 3 of them, gamecube, playstation, and xbox. apple has already been in the console market and it flopped, its would be very stupid to hop in this market because sony, nintendo, and microsoft already have it and they are doign it right.

iJon

Gymnut

May 13, 2003, 10:53 PM

Recall the Pippen my dear Watson? Unlike the NBA counterpart of the Trailblazers, Apple's Pippen didn't win it all.

phgreer

May 13, 2003, 11:33 PM

That is such a defeatist attitude. Just because they failed once doesn't mean they shouldn't try again.

I've heard more than once about Devices Apple had that failed. Maybe they were ahead of their time at the time. I don't think most people were ready for the Newton or that other thing you mentioned.

Maybe they could develop a relationship with Nintentdo or Sony and co-brand something.

Heck if they can works with cell phone companies and Palm...

iJon

May 13, 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by phgreer
That is such a defeatist attitude. Just because they failed once doesn't mean they shouldn't try again.

I've heard more than once about Devices Apple had that failed. Maybe they were ahead of their time at the time. I don't think most people were ready for the Newton or that other thing you mentioned.

Maybe they could develop a relationship with Nintentdo or Sony and co-brand something.

Heck if they can works with cell phone companies and Palm...
i just dont see what good apple could do. apple hopped into the music business because nobody was making a good music player. apple ahd a vision. there is no point teaming up with nintendo or sony, they already know what they are doing, apple could do nothing to contribute to them besides making a pretty case and slapping an apple logo on there. why would you want them to make a console.

iJon

Sol

May 13, 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by iJon
there is no point teaming up with nintendo or sony, they already know what they are doing, apple could do nothing to contribute to them besides making a pretty case and slapping an apple logo on there. why would you want them to make a console.

I agree that Apple has no reason to get into the console business again but what about getting some of those console software developers to support OS X? SEGA became multi-platform after they dropped the DreamCast (most perfect console there ever was) but the Mac was the only platform they did not support (even Palm got a Sonic port). Even if it is through an emulator, games from consoles should be playable on Macs as well.

Gymnut

May 14, 2003, 05:08 AM

Defeatist? Bah, more like realist. I'm not sure you understand the business and financial risk embarking in the realm of consoles.

9hundred

May 14, 2003, 09:32 AM

It really doesn't matter about the consols, but they should definately improve the gaming side of a Mac computer. PC's are no good for anything excect games and the Mac is great for everything except games.

JustinChaloner

May 14, 2003, 12:41 PM

I get the impression that some titles for the consoles come out even after the mac version. The only one I can think of is Jedi Knight II - I'm pretty sure that it came out PC, Mac then Console.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

iJon

May 14, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by JustinChaloner
I get the impression that some titles for the consoles come out even after the mac version. The only one I can think of is Jedi Knight II - I'm pretty sure that it came out PC, Mac then Console.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
i believe you are right, but its usually like this. pc, console, mac.....never

iJon

JustinChaloner

May 15, 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by iJon
i believe you are right, but its usually like this. pc, console, mac.....never

iJon

So that's a good thing, right? Macs have a slight advantage over the console market because we get them (the cream of the crop, admittedly) first. Isn't that something of an attraction to a potential switcher?
I assume it's easier to port a game from a PC to a Mac...:confused:

patrick0brien

May 15, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by JustinChaloner
I assume it's easier to port a game from a PC to a Mac...:confused:

-JustinChaloner

Only if the developers of a game left the door open to that possibility should it prove to be successful in the wider market.

BTW- A big exception to this would be Halo. It was originally written for the Mac and was a few months from release when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. Then all efforts were put into it being the launch-game of the Xbox. Then will come PC, then Mac.

That being said, we Mac users do have some bragging rights - though empty ones.

Sol

May 15, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
...Halo. It was originally written for the Mac and was a few months from release when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. Then all efforts were put into it being the launch-game of the Xbox. Then will come PC, then Mac.

Although Halo's history is unusual, it goes to show how much potential the Mac has as a games platform. The fact is that this game was made for Macs before Microsoft recognized it as an AAA-class title. Had Bungie remained independent, HALO would have gone a long way towards further legitimizing the Mac as a games platform. Of course most people only know Halo as an X-Box title but many Mac and PC gamers know that there is more to it than that.

merman637

May 15, 2003, 10:59 AM

You guys DO KNOW that it goes in order least to greatest....AAA --> AA --> A right? A being the best...

Veldek

May 15, 2003, 01:17 PM

You guys DO KNOW that it goes in order least to greatest....AAA --> AA --> A right? A being the best...

Not in terms of corporate bonds where AAA is the best you can get. Look at the sites of some rating agencies.

JustinChaloner

May 15, 2003, 02:34 PM

Halo was originally for the Mac? Really???:eek:

That is so unfair!!!!

iJon

May 15, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by JustinChaloner
So that's a good thing, right? Macs have a slight advantage over the console market because we get them (the cream of the crop, admittedly) first. Isn't that something of an attraction to a potential switcher?
I assume it's easier to port a game from a PC to a Mac...:confused:
i wasnt thinking so. basically i was saying pcs and consoles get the games, while we get left behind in most. i think the easiest port would be pc to xbox, since the xbox is a pc. if only had macs had direct x, then developers would have to spend as much time porting games to a small market. when it comes down to all the work it just isnt worth it sometimes.

iJon

toughboy

May 21, 2003, 01:34 PM

I remember a friend saying that

"mac is for productivity
windows is for solitaire"

yeah!.. thats true.. if you want to play games, go for a Playstation or a XBOX.. they are much better than PCs or Macs or else...

Flickta

May 21, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-JustinChaloner

Only if the developers of a game left the door open to that possibility should it prove to be successful in the wider market.

BTW- A big exception to this would be Halo. It was originally written for the Mac and was a few months from release when Bungie was purchased by Microsoft. Then all efforts were put into it being the launch-game of the Xbox. Then will come PC, then Mac.

That being said, we Mac users do have some bragging rights - though empty ones.

Halo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What M$ have done to it. They deserve death, and tortures... F*** 'em all... I'm sorry for being rude, but Halo was the Game... The messiah that could save the Mac (to me). And now... M$=EVIL.

patrick0brien

May 21, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Flickta
They deserve death, and tortures... F*** 'em all...

-Flickta

Just curious, and off topic, with all this talk about Bungie and Halo, I just noticed your nick "Flickta".

Any relation to the creatures in Marathon 2: Durandal by Bungie?

iJon

May 21, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by toughboy
I remember a friend saying that

"mac is for productivity
windows is for solitaire"

yeah!.. thats true.. if you want to play games, go for a Playstation or a XBOX.. they are much better than PCs or Macs or else...
cheaper...yes. better is most ways no. a pc can be upgraded to meet the demand for better graphics of games. plus do you really want to play all your first person shooters with a controller. consoles are great if you want a cheap solution and a vast selection of games that easily plays on tv for hours of fun. pc is better because it has better graphics, more games, currently can take advantage of the latest technology, keyboard and mouse. the only exception i would go for would be an xbox. because you can put a bigger hd in there, mod it and load your games on there, or put windows or linux and use it as a cheap pc.

iJon

Dont Hurt Me

May 21, 2003, 04:13 PM

Halo would have been that game that made people get macs just to play. Apple should buy a gaming company( is Id for Sale?) Anyways the Mac is becoming a gaming machine again. when the 970 is out it will have the performance to rock all games.I have been gaming on my powermac for over 2 yrs. Nascar,Wolfenstein,Medal of Honor,UT,UT2003...................Mac IS for Games and everything else.SWEET! :D

Sol

May 21, 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Halo would have been that game that made people get macs just to play.

You are forgetting that Halo was originally for Mac and PC. The same people who buy PCs for games would continue doing so but at least Mac players would have an AAA-class title to purchase off the shelves and play online.

Anyway, no point dwelling on what-could-have-been. The Halo-like games I am looking forward to now are Aliens Vs Predator 2 and DOOM 3.

VegetaPunk

May 22, 2003, 12:54 AM

I think apple is caught in a "catch 22" kind of situation. Alot of people dont get Macs because of their lack of games, and mac cant get alot of games because of the lack of players (market is too small) Companies will make a game for any plateform as long as they will make $$$.
for example - I was a BIG fan of Fallout (great game) the first one was origonally Mac only (at first, later it was ported to PC) then Fallout 2 came out PC only, I emailed interplay (I think thats the company) and they said they probably wouldnt make the game because just because not enough people bought the first one (market was too small). anyway you get my point.

Flickta

May 22, 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Flickta

Just curious, and off topic, with all this talk about Bungie and Halo, I just noticed your nick "Flickta".

Any relation to the creatures in Marathon 2: Durandal by Bungie?

It is irrefutable beyond the shades of any doubt...

Well, of course my nick is related to wonderful, hard-working, tall and beautiful F'lickta's of Lh'owon. (Time when Mac was for games...)

The whole trilogy still resides on my HD, together with various scenarios and A1.

That's why I was a little bit angry, when Bungie was bought by... You know...

patrick0brien

May 22, 2003, 01:46 AM

-Flickta

The devil? :D

"tall and beautiful"

Dude, we have a few issues, or at least a few more beers, to work out.

:D

Flickta

May 22, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Flickta

The devil? :D

"tall and beautiful"

Dude, we have a few issues, or at least a few more beers, to work out.

:D

Ghm. WTF? (sorry)

F'lickta is a creature, rather primitive maybe, but able to operate machinery of the S'pht (and Macs :) ), that's why F'lickta are maintaining what has left of the glorious S'pht civilization. And yes, they are tall (at least higher than the marine) and in some way beautiful. Sure, they aren't so nice when a stranger is wandering in their home (they sweared to protect), killing everyone on his way.

Few more beers, few more beers... :D

OutThere

May 22, 2003, 09:36 AM

Gaming Switcher-Someone who switches to the Mac because it is way better than a PC but keeps a PC hanging around for gaming.

Dont Hurt Me

May 22, 2003, 09:53 PM

Macs do so much, Its Great that they are becoming true game platforms, though i have played games on macs for years now that we have g4's at 1 gig and plus you can run everything thats been coming our way. To Have to deal with windows sucks and Mac gaming is making greater and greater strides. What do you think is pushing the envelope on the PC side? GAMES Apple should wise up and make joint ventures with some gaming powerhouses such as Id or whoever and get some Mac only exclusive game every year that nocks the socks off of everyone. They have done it with everything else? sorry for ramblin but the bud light was on sale.

iJon

May 22, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Macs do so much, Its Great that they are becoming true game platforms, though i have played games on macs for years now that we have g4's at 1 gig and plus you can run everything thats been coming our way. To Have to deal with windows sucks and Mac gaming is making greater and greater strides. What do you think is pushing the envelope on the PC side? GAMES Apple should wise up and make joint ventures with some gaming powerhouses such as Id or whoever and get some Mac only exclusive game every year that nocks the socks off of everyone. They have done it with everything else? sorry for ramblin but the bud light was on sale.
i dont think they should get mac only games, thats just dumb. i think apple just needs more games period. they should just try to get developers interested. No one hardly wants to port to Mac because it's to much work and little return. If there was an easy way to emulate DirectX 9.0 on OS X developers would pay more attention to us.

iJon

Dont Hurt Me

May 23, 2003, 02:25 PM

Hey ijon, i disagree i think a exclusive mac only game that was made to apples high standards might help attract new people to the platform. Just look UT2003 had over 400,000 downloads. Please dont use dirty words again or ill have to notify Arn!( EMULATE)!

Flickta

May 23, 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Hey ijon, i disagree i think a exclusive mac only game that was made to apples high standards might help attract new people to the platform. Just look UT2003 had over 400,000 downloads. Please dont use dirty words again or ill have to notify Arn!( EMULATE)!

Bugdom, Cro-Mag Rally. Supporting companies like Pangea software is the right way. And Ambrosia, of course.

jelloshotsrule

May 23, 2003, 03:01 PM

pangea makes this game with little droplets of water and whatnot... it's pretty darn sweet. i forget the name.

pangea's cool

VegetaPunk

May 23, 2003, 05:54 PM

I dont think an exclusive game is the answer either, read my last post, fallout was an exclusive and GREAT game for mac... they saw that it was a good game and know they would make alot of cash porting it to PC so they did..... anyways we just need more games, on the blizzard forms most people say they dont like macs because the lack of games, lets face it the gaming market is HUGE and if macs had every game that a PC did then they would grow much faster, guess thats just my opinion

iJon

May 23, 2003, 06:15 PM

yeah im sorry guys, as long as we have cro-mag rally and enigno they pc users will be crawling:rolleyes:. they are fun games but those are just small shareware games to keep you busy. we need the big games, the ones that are shown at e3. but as long as their not directx version for os x, apple will have to do some heavy convincing to developers that their 5% market is worth it.

iJon

job

May 23, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by iJon
but as long as their not directx version for os x, apple will have to do some heavy convincing to developers that their 5% market is worth it.

Why should Apple attempt to use a proprietary API which would cost thousands to license?

Look at all the games we did get because Apple embraced the multi-platform standard of OpenGL.

Why do you think RAVE failed? The only reason DirectX exists is because Microsoft rams it down the throats of developers. Their market dominance allows them to establish the so-called "industry standards" even when better alternatives exist.

OpenGL is the future.

iJon

May 23, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by job
Why should Apple attempt to use a proprietary API which would cost thousands to license?

Look at all the games we did get because Apple embraced the multi-platform standard of OpenGL.

Why do you think RAVE failed? The only reason DirectX exists is because Microsoft rams it down the throats of developers. Their market dominance allows them to establish the so-called "industry standards" even when better alternatives exist.

OpenGL is the future.
this ties in to my original statement. Apple can get directx (probably never happen) or they can convince people to port it using another standard. all i am doing is stating the facts. most games are on the pc, most pc games are made with directx. it doenst matter if microsoft shoved it down there throat, they are using it and its pretty much now the standard for a game. thats why linux boxes are worse for gaming than macs in many situations, the linux box has better hardware, but not as many games, and since linux doesnt have directx, no one wants to port. but i guess as long as cromag rally, enigno, and sims are some mac peoples favortite games, we will always be considered "just as good" as the pc world.

iJon

job

May 23, 2003, 08:02 PM

I still disagree.

Many PC based games currently support OpenGL as it is, so developers don't have to "port it using another standard."

OpenGL is perfect for Apple's purposes. Open source is far better than a closed source proprietary API.

patrick0brien

May 23, 2003, 08:15 PM

-Gents

I've something else to toss into this fire of the Direct X/OpenGL discussion.

Put yourself in the shoes of the developer. If you had the choice, would you develope for a proprietary API that ran on only one, proprietary OS, or many more including that original proprietary OS? Doing the latter would also be conducive to marketing beyond a Personal Computing platform as well.

Personally, I myself would do the latter as it would appeal to the widest possible audience, and not just the largest segment.

job

May 23, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
Personally, I myself would do the latter as it would appeal to the widest possible audience, and not just the largest segment.

Bingo.

That's the beauty of OpenGL.

VegetaPunk

May 23, 2003, 10:06 PM

blizzard does this and thats why they cator to the mac crowd so well, now if only other companies could follow suit....

beatle888

May 23, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by JustinChaloner
I think the mac is getting better and better as a gaming platform. Okay, Mac games aren't exactly a multi-zillion dollar industry

actually i just read in HOW magazine that the gaming industry is right there with the movie industry. something like 9.4 billion a year.

VegetaPunk

May 23, 2003, 11:24 PM

ya but out of that 9.4 billion probably only about 5% is due to the mac plateform...

job

May 23, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by beatle888
actually i just read in HOW magazine that the gaming industry is right there with the movie industry. something like 9.4 billion a year.

Globally, the entire gaming industry, consoles and PC gaming combined pulled in a total of 27 billion. That's right. 27 billion.

I'd like to have 27 billion. ;) :D

job

May 23, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by VegetaPunk
blizzard does this and thats why they cator to the mac crowd so well, now if only other companies could follow suit....

I'd have to say that the Blizzard's Mac fan base is only rivaled by Bungie's, pre-Microsoft.

Blizzard has Mac fans in droves. :)

maraczc

May 24, 2003, 10:25 AM

The Mac isn't for games.

I just bought a brand new iBook and it doesn't meet the minimum requirnments for most new action games. There is no other $1499 computer in the world which you can say that about.

VegetaPunk

May 24, 2003, 06:10 PM

labtops arent for games period whether is mac or PC

job

May 24, 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by VegetaPunk
labtops arent for games period whether is mac or PC

unless you count that monstrosity from alienware.

that thing is more of a lapwarmer. :eek: ;) :p

maraczc

May 24, 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by VegetaPunk
labtops arent for games period whether is mac or PC

Not really, many laptops from Gateway, Compaq, or Dell can run games better than the Apple desktops.

If I was a serious gamer I would rather have a $2,000 CND PC than a $6,000 CND Mac. Luckily I'm don't play many games.

job

May 24, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by maraczc
Luckily I'm don't play many games.

Then why are you even complaining about the iBook's game performance if you don't even play many games?

Quit your whining.

maraczc

May 24, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by job
Then why are you even complaining about the iBook's game performance if you don't even play many games?

Quit your whining.

Where was I whinning? I am just pointing out that the topic of this thread is correct: Macs are not for playing games. Neither desktops (towers excluded) or notebooks can match the power of a PC. Not to mention the compatibility issues.

job

May 24, 2003, 09:41 PM

sorry about that.

i misunderstood your previous comment concerning the $1400 ibook purchase. i thought you had bought it with the impression that you would be able to play graphic-intensive games on it. my mistake. :)

VegetaPunk

May 24, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by maraczc
Not really, many laptops from Gateway, Compaq, or Dell can run games better than the Apple desktops.

If I was a serious gamer I would rather have a $2,000 CND PC than a $6,000 CND Mac. Luckily I'm don't play many games.

They might run games better but my point was that laptops arent built to play games, not whether PC labtops ran games better then mac laptops, all of the labtops I have seen dont have great graphics cards... so your gaming experience is not that great

patrick0brien

May 24, 2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by VegetaPunk
...laptops arent built to play games...

-VegetaPunk

Actually, there is one.

The Alienware Area 51m (http://www.alienware.com/system_pages/area-51m.aspx)

iJon

May 24, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-VegetaPunk

Actually, there is one.

The Alienware Area 51m (http://www.alienware.com/system_pages/area-51m.aspx)
yes that is true, although you only get about 30 minutes of battery life. but beyond the point, that would be good for gaming, but you wouldnt get the same results as a desktop with the same specs. although that alienware pc is one hell of a laptopl if you only carry it around to lan parties.

iJon

job

May 24, 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-VegetaPunk

Actually, there is one.

The Alienware Area 51m (http://www.alienware.com/system_pages/area-51m.aspx)

at the risk of re-posting a post from page three of this thread... ;) :p

unless you count that monstrosity from alienware.

that thing is more of a lapwarmer. :eek: ;) :p

VegetaPunk

May 25, 2003, 12:57 AM

nice laptop :)

jadam

May 28, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by 9hundred
I like the Mac and I want to switch but, the mac does not yet beat the PC for playing games because....

1. There is no EAX mutisound

2. Most games are for PC first and just maybe second for Mac

if you want to waste your life playing games, then go have yourself some fun.

iJon

May 28, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by jadam
if you want to waste your life playing games, then go have yourself some fun.
and sitting at a computer talking on this forum isnt a waste of time?

iJon

Schiffi

May 28, 2003, 04:46 PM

I might buy an Alienware A51m, in about 4 years. Probably to play my PC games that I can't play anymore due to the switch. It'd probably be down to at least $300 in 4 years.

jadam

May 29, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by iJon
and sitting at a computer talking on this forum isnt a waste of time?

iJon

which is why i have .5 posts a day.

iJon

May 29, 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by jadam
which is why i have .5 posts a day.
so that means people play games all the time? not just every now and then. anything can be said to be a waste of time if you talk to certain people. playing games helps me a lot. i played games all the time when i was younger, like super munchers, math blaster, they helped me in elementary. i play games now, so i can tell people about them and then i can sell them the game, which means money for me, i dont consider money making wasting time. i also play games for fun.

iJon

scem0

May 30, 2003, 04:19 AM

I definitely agree with you - compared to PC's - macs suck (when talking about games ;)). One of the reasons I bought a PC.

jadam

May 30, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by iJon
so that means people play games all the time? not just every now and then. anything can be said to be a waste of time if you talk to certain people. playing games helps me a lot. i played games all the time when i was younger, like super munchers, math blaster, they helped me in elementary. i play games now, so i can tell people about them and then i can sell them the game, which means money for me, i dont consider money making wasting time. i also play games for fun.

iJon

umm no, but if you decide which computer to use solely based on what games are available for it, then its stupid.

iJon

May 30, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by jadam
umm no, but if you decide which computer to use solely based on what games are available for it, then its stupid.
ah ok, so everyone including me and scem0 are stupid for buying a pc for games, i gotcha.

iJon

ouketii

Jun 1, 2003, 10:13 PM

yees, if want games, buy console. if want something that will still be worth it after you have beaten the game and your console is no longer new, dooming you to be outcast from your friends, buy a mac ;)

mstecker

Jun 1, 2003, 10:49 PM

Here's a contrary voice for this discussion:

Mac laptops are great for games.

There, I said it. I'll be the first to admit that a mac laptop (mine is a 12" pb) isn't the world's best platform for games. BUT, if you are already carrying one, and find yourself wanting to play some games, there are plenty of really nice titles to keep you busy.

One my desk at home, I have a G4 tower, and a PC, and between the two, it's a no brainer as to which is the better gaming machine. (I have a 3Ghz pentium and a Radeon 9700 in my PC :)).

Still, I'm not carrying around my laptop to play games - most of the time. I carry a 12" pb becuase it is quite simply the best mobile computing platform in the world. The perfect combination of size, battery, power, and sweet, sweet, OS.

I'm just thankful that when I find myself really needing a break on a long train ride, that this awesome productivity machine also supports a pretty wide catalog of interesting games.

No, it's not as vast as might be available on a PC laptop, but it's more than enough to keep me busy.

In the last year, I've played (all on OSX), Warcraft III, Heavy Metal II (which, as an aside, is an amazing bang-for-the-buck game - it's always on sale at the MicroCenter for $1.99), Freedom Force, and Black and White. I'm working on Medal of Honor and Unreal Championship now.

The only downside is that I'm really addicted on leading-edge games for my gaming PC. There's nothing like seeing that Radeon 9700 cut through 1600x1200 with all of the graphics details set to "max". So, when it comes time to play Mac games, I need to buy things all over again (except for WCIII, which releases Mac and PC clients on the same disc). Still, I don't mind. I'm more than happy to support the good work of folks publishing mac games.

All of that being said, I'll be pleased as punch if the 970 that I buy next year can outpace the best gaming PC that money can buy.

job

Jun 2, 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by iJon
ah ok, so everyone including me and scem0 are stupid for buying a pc for games, i gotcha.

iJon

I'll tell you right now that all the money you've poured into your gaming rig from Day 1 could have been better spent on something else. I don't mean the initial purchase either. Tally in the cost of the games (assuming you purchase them legally) and all the upgrades you have made. It's not small change. Yes, gaming is fun, I'll be the first to admit that, but in the greater scheme of things, there is more to life and computers than pixels, detail levels, textures, resolutions, and FPS. It's one of the reasons I've decided I won't buy a gaming PC this summer, or any time for that matter. I've decided that I've had enough of attempting to play the latest and greatest. I haven't played a computer game in nearly six months. Instead I've saved my time and money and I've made something with my time. You may enjoy gaming and that's fine with me, but I wouldn't consider buying a PC purely for gaming a "smart" move either.

mstecker

Jun 2, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by job
I'll tell you right now that all the money you've poured into your gaming rig from Day 1 could have been better spent on something else.

Oh come oh, that's the most pompous thing I've seen posted here in a long time. Who are you to tell people how best to spend their money? You're free to state your opinion, but to objectively state that some pursuits are "better" than others is just absurd.

Look at it this way, I upgrade my sports car every couple of years at what amounts to a staggering loss. Why? Because it makes me happy.

For a small fraction of that investment, I upgrade my gaming PC every year to current "high-end" specs.

On a dollar-per-hour of enjoyment basis, I get much more bang for the buck out of the gaming PC investment.

(note that this calculus might change dramatically if I weren't married, and was able to really use that sports car as the lord intended).

job

Jun 2, 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by mstecker
Who are you to tell people how best to spend their money?

I never told him nor suggested any alternative as to how he was to spend his own money. I merely stated my opinion that all the money put into his gaming rig could have been used towards something else. If I came across as arrogant or pompous, I apologize. Such was not my intent, nor purpose.

You're free to state your opinion, but to objectively state that some pursuits are "better" than others is just absurd.

Ah, but how can I state my opinion in an objective manner? ;)

I'm saving my money for university. A long term goal as opposed to the instant gratification that comes from the top of a line gaming rig.

I've sought out his help when I've had gaming questions and I respect and appreciate his advice. I don't mind gaming and enjoy it. But I've realized that I don't need to spend the best years of my life behind a computer monitor.

chewbaccapits

Jun 2, 2003, 03:55 AM

I concurr that Apple computers aren't optimized for games as the pc.....Although, I have to say that for everything else macs take the cake..:)

9hundred

Jun 6, 2003, 12:26 AM

Yes, in every other way, the mac is great, but the Mac still drags behind the PC on the gaming side.

9hundred

Jun 30, 2003, 12:07 AM

I will switch back to PC just because of gaming. The mac is not yet complete.
The only worthwhile game on the mac is Unreal tournament but it's too late it is so old now. New games are not even planed for the mac and halflife 2 will be for pc of course, and then eventually for the mac when halflife 3 is released for pc.

I recently bought a 17inch widescreen 1gig with ddr ram because it looks increadably cool and is powerful. I wanted to use it as a tv and dvd player, but the quality sucks arse. There is no option for this. Also the games that are avaliable are all outdated and don't support multi-channel sound.

PC does everthing (not necessarily better) but it does do everything so it truely can be a digital hub for everything. There for I will switch the other way back to PC and save money too.

scem0

Jun 30, 2003, 12:26 AM

And the Quake benchmarks:
http://a1008.g.akamai.net/7/1008/51/a78dff83763cf4/www.apple.com/powermac/images/graphicsquakechart06232003.gif
are complete crap.

a 3Ghz p4 will get more than 275 fps...

Quite frankly that makes me sick that apple would lie for marketing purposes.

Seems very M$ish.... :mad:

scem0

Frohickey

Jun 30, 2003, 01:38 AM

For you guys that complain that Macs are not for gaming... I suggest that you start buying more Mac games. The companies that make Mac games LOVE it when you send them your money for a game that they made. ;)

Thats how the PC gaming industry started too. You don't start one by pirating or trading games. Of course, I'm not saying that Mac people pirate games, I'm just saying that is how you get the Mac gaming industry to grow. It needs food/money to grow.

Last game I bought was Mac Fallout2.

At one point, I was buying so many Mac games that I forgot I already bought Deus Ex, and I bought it again! :eek:

One of these days, I'll finish it. Maybe this time, playing on a new dual G5. :D

iJon

Jun 30, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
For you guys that complain that Macs are not for gaming... I suggest that you start buying more Mac games. The companies that make Mac games LOVE it when you send them your money for a game that they made. ;)

Thats how the PC gaming industry started too. You don't start one by pirating or trading games. Of course, I'm not saying that Mac people pirate games, I'm just saying that is how you get the Mac gaming industry to grow. It needs food/money to grow.

Last game I bought was Mac Fallout2.

At one point, I was buying so many Mac games that I forgot I already bought Deus Ex, and I bought it again! :eek:

One of these days, I'll finish it. Maybe this time, playing on a new dual G5. :D
how the hell are we suppose to buy games when the games we want arent out. you telling me that if i buy enigmo and sims battlefield 1942 will come as well as half life and galaxies.

iJon

scem0

Jun 30, 2003, 03:16 PM

For macs to get more games, apple needs to increase their market share and get more younger people attached to macs.

If there are a lot of mac users demanding games, Vevindi and other game developing companies will make the games because there will be a large profit.

But for apple to increase its marketshare it needs lower priced computer, faster microprocessors, etc, etc, etc.

scem0

Frohickey

Jun 30, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by iJon
how the hell are we suppose to buy games when the games we want arent out. you telling me that if i buy enigmo and sims battlefield 1942 will come as well as half life and galaxies.

iJon

Businesses want to be shown the money. :D

iJon

Jun 30, 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Businesses want to be shown the money. :D
personnaly i dont feel its worth the developers time to port a game to mac, not when time is money. now if more developers used opengl instead of dx9 we would get more, or if microsoft released dx9 to the mac, but dont count on that happening. i would love to have more games for the mac, so i could just have 1 computer, but if was a developer, i wouldnt want to spend the time for the mac community.

iJon

Pete_Hoover

Jun 30, 2003, 06:46 PM

Who really cares if a mac is or isnt made for games. Let's face it. Most computers arent made for games. Computers are made for other thigs, like surfing the web, doing work and communicating. That said, gaming does, however, push the limits of technology. Companies make more powerful computers just to run new games. Even though most dont need the power of a new computer, they are forced to buy speed they dont need just for games.

couch potato

Jul 1, 2003, 06:38 PM

it seems like, when you guys all bought macs, you figured we would be getting games just like the PC's. well, sorry, but nope. i dont see how you guys can complain when things have improved over the years. now at least we get a lot of the games, even though its later. no one should be complaining, because its only getting better.

oh, btw, computers are made for games. why do you think there is all of this top notch hardware if they are just made for web surfing and word processing?

9hundred

Jul 6, 2003, 02:00 AM

you are right because gaming does indeed need top notch hardware but even with the superpower of a g5 machine you will still have the same problem with games on a Mac machine. The support for gaming on a mac does not really exist properlly.

Can I hook up a pc to my imac 17inch widescreen just to play games?

NNO-Stephen

Jul 6, 2003, 03:31 AM

the gaming situation wont get better unless we buy the games and more and more devs/publishers see the potential profits

9hundred

Aug 22, 2003, 11:34 AM

Perhaps game devolopers should be taking advantage of the widescreen on the imac for a different gaming experience. Something like this that would make the mac more attractive for gaming.

Dont Hurt Me

Aug 22, 2003, 01:07 PM

9hundred is so right, but really there are a lot of games for mac. No not like the pc but all the top stuff usually finds a way to the mac and a lot garbage games never make the way. My regulars are Wolfenstein,UT2003,Nascar, 4x4 Evo2 etc soon to be ? Doom3 & Halo yes on Mac!

iJon

Aug 23, 2003, 11:49 AM

well i just took a look at my latest pc gamer, and they did a review of the hottest FPS that are going to be released this year, and i have a very few of them will make it to the mac.

1. Half Life 2- I predict no, because Mac users are already to small to develop for, but your gonna need a G5 to play this game if you ask me.

2.Halo- Yes because they have already said so.

3. Doom 3- Yes, but when and will a iMac or G4 beable to handle these graphics I am looking at right now, im skeptical but we will find out.

4.Max Payne 2 - Maybe, the first one got ported, but these graphaics are much much much better than the old one, and I am feeling G5 on this one.

5.Jedi Knight:Jedi Academy - Yes, because I've played this and the graphics are nothing to get excited over, its based on the quake engine and it if fun as hell.

6. MOH: Pacific Assult - Yes because they always come to mac, but these graphics have been stepped up, so iMac users and old G4 users beware.

This is only a few I've looked at, I believe with technology like the G5 and a 100,000 preorders maybe Steve should send Phil on a developer visit around the world. I hope these games come to Mac, also I wish Apple would beg and beg and beg to DICE to get Battlefield Vietnam to come to Mac.

iJon

Daveman Deluxe

Aug 23, 2003, 01:33 PM

I think that Half-Life 2 will be ported to Mac. I remember reading an interview saying that the first one used code that would have been REALLY hard to port, but with HL2 they took great pains to make sure it is easy to port.

sawaguchishinji

Aug 23, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by couch potato
...oh, btw, computers are made for games...
A videogame is a computer with proprietary architecture.

9hundred

Aug 24, 2003, 03:23 AM

All the great games like half-life 2 even if ported to the macintosh will need the G5 to play it.
The mac is so much more expensive to constantly upgrade which doesn't make it worthwhile because the game will eventually be ported when Half Life 3 is released for PC.
Most games available are ***** games like Jedi Knight and Alice in wonderland.
That Mr. Steve Jobs or whoever is planing for future development should seriously consider making the mac more attractive for gaming. Either by making use of some apple technology or by bridging the enormous gap. Because now I need a PC as well, for gaming.

iJon

Aug 24, 2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by 9hundred
All the great games like half-life 2 even if ported to the macintosh will need the G5 to play it.
The mac is so much more expensive to constantly upgrade which doesn't make it worthwhile because the game will eventually be ported when Half Life 3 is released for PC.
Most games available are ***** games like Jedi Knight and Alice in wonderland.
That Mr. Steve Jobs or whoever is planing for future development should seriously consider making the mac more attractive for gaming. Either by making use of some apple technology or by bridging the enormous gap. Because now I need a PC as well, for gaming.
i think one of apples biggest problems is the emac and imac. they are awesome computers, but you can upgrade the gpu. many people when they want to play the latest they just go pick up a new video card, cpu may not be to fast, but at least the games look good. one thing i would love to see apple do is add the techonology to replace video cards in laptops. i would like them to apply it to the powerboook, ibook, imac, and emac.then they can attract more people probably.

iJon

Mord

Aug 24, 2003, 05:49 AM

I have a 600mgz ibook and play the odd game of ut qIII evn and mohaa b&w ect. and very rarly have a slowdown

+ (Im 14 I live at home) I use my dads g4 cube (450mhz 704 mb ram gforce 2 32mb)
And I have never had a game slowdown + it rund games that the manufacturers claim wont run on it eg ut2003 (took a while to make it work but its possible) macs have the stuff but need game developmentyou lot are inteligent people
(on average mac users have a 20 % higher iq than pc users(read it ages ago in a magazine))
look at the great shareware available

go create

whitegold

Aug 24, 2003, 12:38 PM

Gaming on the Mac is not as bad as it used to be. As stated earlier, most of the best games come out for Mac, though sometimes with a delay. Sometimes even a very LONG delay.

The problem is that some of the games that are lesser known are PARTICULARLY good. I recently played my way back through Serious Sam again, for example. That is a fantastic game, that to my knowledge was not, and never will be released for Mac.

I believe GTAIII and Vice City are not available for Mac?

This is just an isolated example, but representative of a genuine concern about gaming on mac.

Regardless of getting 80% of the games on Mac, PC users get 99% of the games.

Granted there are a few particularly good ones that we miss out on in WinLand (Cough cough Ambrosia Cough) but frankly most PC users can live without. We're not exactly starved for choice.

Another factor is the games that come out are often a) expensive, and b) delayed.

A good example is that I recently (well, not recently) played through Giants again. I bought it as a discount game for $9.95. That's Australian. About $5 there. At about the same time it was a new release on Mac, and was $90. (Again, that's australian.)

I note on the Apple store Black and White is for sale for $49.95 US. I can buy that for PC in K-mart for $24.95, and that's the AUSTRALIAN dollar price.

Granted the Apple store isn't exactly a discount outlet, but the RRP is at least a guide.

Deus Ex I recently bought for PC for $19.95AUD. Hell, the thing is like 3 years old? Four years? The mac version is still up around the $80 mark here.

Any Australian Mac Gamers are welcome to correct me on this issue. I'm going to a shopping center tomorrow, so I might stop in at an Apple center and see.

Finally, I want to point out a few things.

One: A lot of the games mentioned in earlier statements, such as Black and White, Medal of Honour (I'm spelling it correctly in protest), Max Payne, etc are quite old. They really aren't accurate judgments for gaming comparisons.

Two: Don't overestimate the hardware requirements of the next generation of games. The top end hardware will only really be needed for extremely high end levels of detail. (1600x1400 resolution, trilinear filtering, Anti-aliasing, etc). These games should be a great experience on a mid to high level G4 with a good video card. Though not necessarily great... something like a GeForce 4 4200 would be fine. I run an Athlon 1.1 with a GeForce MX, and UT2003 runs great. Though that being said I think it would melt if I tried to get Doom 3 going, so it's time for an upgrade soon.

Granted a Dual G5 or Pentium 3 3.2 with a Radeon 9800 Ultra would probably be kinda neat for games. :)

Anyway, to sum up.

I personally feel that games are one of the Mac's weaknesses. Not from a hardware point of view, but limited software availability and sales.

Most of the Apple Center stores I've been into (Apple Center is a Mac chain in Australia) or other Apple dealerships have only a small range of games, and they're usually one third"Edutainment" and one third out of date. And the other third is old, to a PC gamer like me.

Finally, I am not a mac advocate. Quite the opposite. I applaud Apple for providing a choice in a world otherwise owned by Microsoft, as well as for creating software that is well designed and implemented. BUT I also feel that their hardware comes at a premium price, and does not represent good value for money, even to a professional graphic designer like myself, let alone for gaming. In actual fact I see NO benefit to the Mac whatsoever, but that's my personal opinion, and my experience with using OSX is fairly limited. Personally I prefer XP.

Please don't give me a flaming over this. I'm not trolling, I'm just stating my opinion. You're welcome to have yours. It's a big world, and i don't much care.:D

If games are in any way a factor in a decision about buying a computer, I don't think you can look past a GOOD PC, running Windows XP.

DON'T try to save a few bucks by going to the dodgy guys around the corner. Buy something from a known company. (I recommend Dell by reputation, and Gateway by personal experience. Also Alienware build fantastic gaming rigs, but at a premium price.)

OK Zealots... BRING IT ON! :D

whitegold

Aug 24, 2003, 12:51 PM

Despite writing the forum equivalent of War and Peace (except crap) I forgot something I wanted to mention.

I got into computer through playing games. So have a lot of other people. Todays gamers are tomorrows programmers, designers, techincal writers, etc.

Don't look down on gamers because they aren't high end programmers or graphic designers. Soon they might be.

A computer is a tool, and games are one of the things that can be done with it. It's a form of entertainment. Just because you don't personally enjoy it doesn't give you a right to frown on those who do.

And yes, games push hardware. Apart from things like Photoshop and some other Pro Tools (like.. um... ProTools :D) nothing even touches the sheer power of todays CPUs, let alone the graphics hardware that's being ignored while you run your spreadsheet. Only games are actually made to truly use the beast you own. The comparison between car manufacturers and racing is a fair one.

Frivolous? Probably. Fun? Definitely!

And yes, as for money spent, well, I'm not a good example. I bought a Gateway computer a few years ago (Four? Three?) and haven't spent a thing on upgrades since, except a single stick of RAM. Oh! I forgot. And I bought a new hard drive last week. 120 gig. Yay!

And most of the games I buy are cheap as chips. I'm too stingy to pay for a game that just came out at $100 when I can get good ones for half that.

But regardless, I know for a fact that I spend more money on Coke (a Cola) than I ever could on computer games. People spend money on what's important to them. I know people who spend thousands on their car. I know people who spend more money on cigarettes than a new game a month. Or on collecting sports memorabilia. Or shoes, lottery tickets, or magazines, or clothes, or books. Who is to say which are "frivolous"? Just because something isn't important to YOU doesn't mean it has no value.

Anyway, I'm off.

Matt