PDA

View Full Version : EA Ships Four Games for Mac, Two to Come




MacRumors
Aug 17, 2007, 07:52 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As originally noted on Page 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/17/ea-delays-release-of-mac-port-of-madden-08/), Electronic Arts games Battlefield 2142, Command and Conquer 3, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and Need for Speed Carbon are all now available for order at the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com).

EA has now issued an official press release (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=NEWS_VIEW_POPUP_TYPE&newsId=20070817005520&ndmHsc=v2*A1187348400000*B1187413360000*DgroupByDate*J1*N1000837&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view_popup) (via Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/breaking/ea-finally-delivers-those-mac-games-290843.php)) provides some more details on expected availability.

Retail stores will have Need for Speed Carbon and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on Tuesday, August 21, and Battlefield 2142 and Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars on Tuesday, August 28. Current ship times at the Apple online store range from 24 hours (Battlefield 2142) to 3-5 days (Harry Potter, Need for Speed) to 7-10 days (Command and Conquer).

EA clarifies that Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 and Madden NFL 08 will not be available until "the September/October window".

EA first announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/11/wwdc-game-on/) that they would be releasing these Mac titles during the WWDC keynote in June 2007.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/17/ea-ships-four-games-for-mac-two-to-come/)



puckhead193
Aug 17, 2007, 07:54 PM
cool.... although i want to play NHL 08 :D:cool:

iBookG4user
Aug 17, 2007, 07:56 PM
I wish they would've released Need For Speed Most Wanted instead of Need For Speed Carbon, Most Wanted was a lot better. Although good nonetheless.

offwidafairies
Aug 17, 2007, 07:56 PM
macs are built for WORK... get back to it :cool:

techlover828
Aug 17, 2007, 08:00 PM
I want games for my new MBP!

Mistershark
Aug 17, 2007, 08:00 PM
Looking forward to some quality Mac gaming.

Hairball
Aug 17, 2007, 08:07 PM
Finally TW Golf. It's been ages since a current version of the game has been available.

Groovey
Aug 17, 2007, 08:08 PM
^^Not if you're a MacBook user...

Note: This game does not support the GMA950 integrated graphics card.

And that's for all four of them... :(

yzp
Aug 17, 2007, 08:09 PM
Pretty coool! (even though i'm not playing games)

The industry as finally woke-up and they do things for macs!

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 08:10 PM
^^Not if you're a MacBook user...



And that's for all four of them... :(

Probably needs hardware T&L.

Groovey
Aug 17, 2007, 08:11 PM
Probably needs hardware T&L.

So it must be. Again my less than a year old Mac is sorta obsolete.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 08:12 PM
So it must be. Again my less than a year old Mac is sorta obsolete.

Hate to break it to ya, but our MacBooks never were a contender (for games) in the first place.

daz087
Aug 17, 2007, 08:12 PM
Yeah... somehow the MacBook is not supported (GMA950 graphics card) yet I have Windows XP installed via BootCamp and I can play C&C3: Tiberium Wars on that... Hows that work?

Groovey
Aug 17, 2007, 08:22 PM
Hate to break it to ya, but our MacBooks never were a contender (for games) in the first place.

Sure I guessed it wouldn't play the games after like two years, but it's a bit sad it doesn't play any games even when it's the newest model. Don't you think?

You didn't break that much news anyway.

ZachPruckowski
Aug 17, 2007, 08:23 PM
Yeah... somehow the MacBook is not supported (GMA950 graphics card) yet I have Windows XP installed via BootCamp and I can play C&C3: Tiberium Wars on that... Hows that work?

Well, without knowing the details (no Macbook, and haven't played C&C3), I would guess that these games are optimized for Windows, and so have lower requirements on Windows. Since they're basically compiling against Cider to port these games (as opposed to optimizing them for OpenGL or OS X), they're going to be slower.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 08:25 PM
Could also be that they require more video mem. OSX limits it to 64MB but Windows uses the full 224MB.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 08:29 PM
Sure I guessed it wouldn't play the games after like two years, but it's a bit sad it doesn't play any games even when it's the newest model. Don't you think?

You didn't break that much news anyway.

I blame the game companies. I can play Oblivion on my MacBook (albeit horribly) thanks to Oldblivion. If they could do it, EA could have.

minznerjosh
Aug 17, 2007, 08:43 PM
So much for simultaneous release... although, this is better than before.

nlivo
Aug 17, 2007, 08:46 PM
not sure if people know this but you have to have an intel processor....thats ridiculous!!!! i wanted to get battlefield....

http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2007/06/ea/

Groovey
Aug 17, 2007, 08:46 PM
I blame the game companies. I can play Oblivion on my MacBook (albeit horribly) thanks to Oldblivion. If they could do it, EA could have.

Wish someone could make some kind of a game that would be fun, challenging and addictive. :) A nice game without all the candy. And once you lose the candy, the game sucks.

I need to get addicted!

bigpoppamac31
Aug 17, 2007, 08:54 PM
Yes bring on NHL 08 for the Mac. :D EA has never made an NHL game for the mac at least that I know of. I want my NHL on my Mac. And NBA Live 08 too. :) ... Finally the Mac is getting into the games sector. And for those who think Macs can't do games think again. It's just that there was no good games available until recently. Can't wait to see more game titles. Now all I need is a MBP to replace my MB (2nd gen.).

Groovey
Aug 17, 2007, 08:59 PM
Yes bring on NHL 08 for the Mac. :D EA has never made an NHL game for the mac at least that I know of. I want my NHL on my Mac. And NBA Live 08 too. :) ... Finally the Mac is getting into the games sector. And for those who think Macs can't do games think again. It's just that there was no good games available until recently. Can't wait to see more game titles. Now all I need is a MBP to replace my MB (2nd gen.).

Our Macs can't do games... :(

Eric5h5
Aug 17, 2007, 09:06 PM
To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.

The GMA950 isn't limited to 64MB on OS X. Apparently it uses more if it needs to. That's not really going to help, though. Anyway, even though the GMA950 may not be officially supported, the games will probably still run, if they work running on Windows with the same hardware. You just won't get any support if they don't.

Speaking of running on Windows, these are basically the Windows versions. They're being run in a very very similar fashion to the way you can get some Windows games to run with WINE on Linux (since Cider/Cedega/WINE have stuff in common). Thus, no PPC versions. It's not ridiculous, it's just the way it goes. For EA, I suspect it was either Cider or no games at all. (Disclosure: I have a PPC Mac, so I'm not just being callous there. Yes, there were a couple I would have bought too if they'd been real Universal Binary ports.)

--Eric

BKKbill
Aug 17, 2007, 09:27 PM
Guess this is good news for those who want to play the occasional game and has an intel processor. As said before the game builders are the ones who should be able to make a decent game for the Cupertino based gadget maker even if the video card is not up to par. Hopefully with Apple products going out the door at a faster rate this won't take too long.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 09:30 PM
The GMA950 isn't limited to 64MB on OS X. Apparently it uses more if it needs to. That's not really going to help, though.

--Eric

Didn't know that, could you provide a source for this?

Eidorian
Aug 17, 2007, 09:33 PM
Didn't know that, could you provide a source for this?http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303407

Mac OS X may make additional main memory available to the graphics processor for texture use beyond the base 80 MB amount mentioned above, depending on the application being used. The most common types of applications that request more system memory to be used as graphics memory are 3D and graphics-intense applications.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 09:34 PM
Super! Thanks for that.

Eidorian
Aug 17, 2007, 09:36 PM
Super! Thanks for that.It'd be nice if we could tweak that usage a bit more.

flopticalcube
Aug 17, 2007, 09:40 PM
It'd be nice if we could tweak that usage a bit more.

I'm just surprised that so much misinformation is floating around regarding the 64MB limit of the GMA950. This is the first time I have seen that link from Apple in 8 months of owning a MacBook. All my own fault, of course.

mattthemutt
Aug 17, 2007, 09:42 PM
I'm in the same boat about the Macbooks.

The only reason that I would hesistate when purchasing my next Mac, or why I would even consider a PC is because of Apple's refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of their gaming situation. Apple is appallingly bad with games, unfortunately (and it's not all Apple's fault, but they can do something about it).

It IS unfortunate that our year-old Macbooks cannot play these games in OS X.

While I do appreciate the fact that EA is releasing these on the Mac, it is another half-baked release, considering the emulation (I do however notice that the Mac market is very small by comparison, and does not merit the same amount of resources as the PC market does).

I suppose my Mac will remain the *almost*-perfect computer for another day. :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Aug 17, 2007, 09:45 PM
I'm just surprised that so much misinformation is floating around regarding the 64MB limit of the GMA950. This is the first time I have seen that link from Apple in 8 months of owning a MacBook. All my own fault, of course.I have to keep finding that KB article every time someone asks about the GMA950 in OS X. It should be in the wiki.

I'm in the same boat about the Macbooks.

The only reason that I would hesistate when purchasing my next Mac, or why I would even consider a PC is because of Apple's refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of their gaming situation. Apple is appallingly bad with games, unfortunately (and it's not all Apple's fault, but they can do something about it).

It IS unfortunate that our year-old Macbooks cannot play these games in OS X.

While I do appreciate the fact that EA is releasing these on the Mac, it is another half-baked release, considering the emulation (I do however notice that the Mac market is very small by comparison, and does not merit the same amount of resources as the PC market does).

I suppose my Mac will remain the *almost*-perfect computer for another day. :rolleyes:It was up to Apple to use the GMA950 after using dedicated graphics for so long. The X3100 on the Santa Rosa platform alleviates this somewhat but it's still sharing system RAM.

Cider isn't emulation it's the transcoding of Windows API to work in OS X.

sbluetruck
Aug 17, 2007, 10:08 PM
*)(&^!()&$! no GMA? oh well.

but it is under minimum requirements... and you probably can still play them.... just maybe not "play" them :rolleyes:

that's a real bummer.


maybe the sports games won't be as bad??? oh man, i tried not to laugh there :D

aspro
Aug 17, 2007, 10:23 PM
Well, they certainly took their sweet time :)

ZachPruckowski
Aug 17, 2007, 10:25 PM
not sure if people know this but you have to have an intel processor....thats ridiculous!!!! i wanted to get battlefield....

http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2007/06/ea/

It runs via Cider, which is an attempt at Win32 -> OS X instruction translation (technically, it's a very incomplete and buggy copy of the Win32 libraries for OS X). Running it via Cider and then emulating x86 on PPC is simply out of the question, and since EA isn't even porting to a Mac-native app, you can bet they're not going to port instruction sets.

Stridder44
Aug 17, 2007, 10:32 PM
macs are built for WORK... get back to it :cool:


Computing is serious business! No fun allowed!

Sad thing is, you're kind of right. No thanks to Apple and their love for @#$% GPU's. Seriously, the graphics card situation with Macs is embarrassing. I'm not asking for an Nvidia 8800 Ultra in a MacBook but for the love of God, at least gives us something decent. And no, GMA950 is not decent, stop lying to yourself.

mattthemutt
Aug 17, 2007, 11:05 PM
Cider isn't emulation it's the transcoding of Windows API to work in OS X.

Well, whatever the case may be, it certainly dishes out a big performance hit.

ghall
Aug 17, 2007, 11:15 PM
Took long enough. :mad:

mainomega
Aug 17, 2007, 11:15 PM
Computing is serious business! No fun allowed!

Sad thing is, you're kind of right. No thanks to Apple and their love for @#$% GPU's. Seriously, the graphics card situation with Macs is embarrassing. I'm not asking for an Nvidia 8800 Ultra in a MacBook but for the love of God, at least gives us something decent. And no, GMA950 is not decent, stop lying to yourself.

Macbooks are entry level laptops. If you look at other entry laptops or desktops you'll see most cant run BF2142 or if they can it'll run and look ******.

twoodcc
Aug 17, 2007, 11:59 PM
hopefully madden will come out earlier than expected. wouldn't mind to see tiger woods do the same.

SiliconAddict
Aug 18, 2007, 12:04 AM
Umm its EA...who cares. EA is the Microsoft of the gaming industry. All EA does it gobble up small independent game shops, dumps 90% of their staff, and releases craptastic sequels that are so bug ridden they require twice the machine to even make the game run marginally well. I mean seriously. I stopped buying EA games about 7 years ago. Anything EA touches has the innovation sucked out of its marrow just before it withers and dies. Anyone remember Origin Systems? Bullfrog? How about the popular Westwood Studios? No? That's because they bought them up and killed them off in rapid succession. EA is dead to me and they should be to anyone who is remotely interested in originality and quality. they are also the Walmart of the gaming world.

fr4c
Aug 18, 2007, 12:16 AM
well its about time. I got tired of waiting and just played them on Bootcamp instead. to be honest, I'm bored with C&C already.

DanB91
Aug 18, 2007, 12:45 AM
Apple doesnt seem to have the right hardware for these games, and im sure they will correct it. it seems they want to get into gaming
mark my words for a gaming announcement 2007-2008.

BenRoethig
Aug 18, 2007, 01:59 AM
Well, whatever the case may be, it certainly dishes out a big performance hit.

Not all that big. I might actually end up being less than the hit for a traditional universal binary port.

BenRoethig
Aug 18, 2007, 02:00 AM
Apple doesnt seem to have the right hardware for these games, and im sure they will correct it. it seems they want to get into gaming
mark my words for a gaming announcement 2007-2008.

The hardware is tailed to what Steve thinks you should be doing. He thinks things like gaming and watching T.V. are wastes of time, so gaming and PVR capabilities are sorely neglected on the Mac platform.

tjcampbell
Aug 18, 2007, 02:48 AM
People play games on these things? To me the fun on the mac is all the other cool stuff I can do with iLife and such. When it comes to gaming I'll always stick to my consoles.

bigandy
Aug 18, 2007, 03:26 AM
i'm quite interested to see how hot my MBP gets with C&C on Mac OS - on Windows, it gets damn hot, and the fans go completely mental...

the other games just don't interest me much :o

EVH
Aug 18, 2007, 05:36 AM
Does anyone know if you can get a patch to enable a previous copy of BF212 to run on a MBP?

...I already have BF2142, but don't fancy buying the game again (just for the cider patch) ;)

RichardI
Aug 18, 2007, 06:53 AM
I'm looking forward to TW '08. I'm a switcher and I really enjoyed a round of Links 2003 in the dead of winter:o.
Interesting that its release will correspond with the Leopard release date. I suspect it won't run on Tiger.
I also noted the system requirements for these games is quite high. My new iMac might be out of date already when it comes to this type of game...;)

Rich :cool:

DanB91
Aug 18, 2007, 08:10 AM
The hardware is tailed to what Steve thinks you should be doing. He thinks things like gaming and watching T.V. are wastes of time, so gaming and PVR capabilities are sorely neglected on the Mac platform.

when steve ever imply that??? apple wants to get into other things. if steve REALLY thought gaming was a waste of time why did he let EA and id come on stage?? mac will be a gaming platform soon enough

especially about PVR. apple has stated they want to get into the multimedia business. a PVR is part of that (not that i really care about an apple pvr though).

gutb
Aug 18, 2007, 08:27 AM
It's the same everywhere.
My friend got a low end dell laptop with intel integrated graphics, and he can't play Call of Duty 2 because of system requriments.
It's not only Mac, people have to know that low end machinese are just not made for gaming. The price of low end machinese can only afford to use integrated graphic card. Even if apple gives you a low end graphic cards (say below X1600), you also can't play those 4 EA games.

aliquis-
Aug 18, 2007, 09:11 AM
A guy told me demonoid "ships" lots of CIDER ports nowadays ;D

clevin
Aug 18, 2007, 09:20 AM
again, seriously, how many people buying macbook with game in mind?

Roderick Usher
Aug 18, 2007, 09:43 AM
It's the same everywhere.
My friend got a low end dell laptop with intel integrated graphics, and he can't play Call of Duty 2 because of system requriments.
It's not only Mac, people have to know that low end machinese are just not made for gaming. The price of low end machinese can only afford to use integrated graphic card. Even if apple gives you a low end graphic cards (say below X1600), you also can't play those 4 EA games.
The elephant in the room is the graphics gap between Macs and PCs. Compared to what you can get on the PC side for equivalent prices, the iMac, Mac mini, and MacBook all have crap for video hardware. You need to shell out at least $2000 (MacBook Pro) or $2200 (Mac Pro) for decent graphics, because Apple insists on a ridiculous, artificial "consumer/professional" stratification of its product line. (WTF, only "professionals" play graphics-intensive computer games?) Even at the top end, the gap still exists: the best cards you can get for a PC are better than the best cards you can get for the Mac Pro. This has implications beyond gaming.

There's also the related elephant of expandability, but that's a whole other discussion.

aliquis-
Aug 18, 2007, 09:54 AM
Sure I guessed it wouldn't play the games after like two years, but it's a bit sad it doesn't play any games even when it's the newest model. Don't you think?

You didn't break that much news anyway.Well, the good thing with it is that we now know that the cider implementation uses T&L effects on our graphics cards. Sure it's said when you don't have one which supports it thought. But the specs have been there all the time.

not sure if people know this but you have to have an intel processor....thats ridiculous!!!! i wanted to get battlefield....

http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2007/06/ea/Since it's only more or less DX-emulation on top of OS X and all the CPU-stuff runs more or less natively on the CPU as always they can't run on PPC. That would require a real port, this is only like a Windows-compatbilitylayer.To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.

Speaking of running on Windows, these are basically the Windows versions. They're being run in a very very similar fashion to the way you can get some Windows games to run with WINE on Linux (since Cider/Cedega/WINE have stuff in common). Thus, no PPC versions. It's not ridiculous, it's just the way it goes. For EA, I suspect it was either Cider or no games at all. (Disclosure: I have a PPC Mac, so I'm not just being callous there. Yes, there were a couple I would have bought too if they'd been real Universal Binary ports.)

--EricObviously they don't know better. Of course for the money asked you can't ask for much, but ANY sort of real GPU with it's own dedicated memory would be better. They should have used an nv6200 or something.

Exactly, this isn't like EA saying "Oh, btw, we have decided to develop games for Macs aswell!", it's more like: "Oh, Transgaming has made this utility which let you run Windowsgames on other platforms, so we thought it might be a good idea to release a few windowsgames for macs thru this."Guess this is good news for those who want to play the occasional game and has an intel processor. As said before the game builders are the ones who should be able to make a decent game for the Cupertino based gadget maker even if the video card is not up to par. Hopefully with Apple products going out the door at a faster rate this won't take too long.Well, if the game is graphicaly demanding they can't do magic.The only reason that I would hesistate when purchasing my next Mac, or why I would even consider a PC is because of Apple's refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of their gaming situation. Apple is appallingly bad with games, unfortunately (and it's not all Apple's fault, but they can do something about it).

I suppose my Mac will remain the *almost*-perfect computer for another day. :rolleyes:Well, Apple could start by making their OS ready and fast for 3D-applications, and sell hardware with better graphics capabilities.

It's better than no games, apparently his daugther would be happy enough if she could run them on her macbook, or wait, now she can't... (During the WWDC he said "My daugther lives on the macbook".It was up to Apple to use the GMA950 after using dedicated graphics for so long. The X3100 on the Santa Rosa platform alleviates this somewhat but it's still sharing system RAM.Yeah, X3100 might run these games since it has T&L and eventually more up to date shaders, I even read they might release DX10-drivers or whatever it was for it. It's still slow thought and not more than twice as fast as 950GMA or something.

The old Radeon 9200 they used in the iBook and Mac mini was (more than?) 50% faster in opengl than the 950GMA if I remember things correctly :D

Welcome to the MHz myth! Part 2! 5 times faster!! :D

I remember back in the days when they compared the iMac with a Dell desktop to show that the mac was faster for games. The iMac had X1600 and the Dell X300, or something. Yeah, only dell you can get hold of!! ;)Computing is serious business! No fun allowed!

Sad thing is, you're kind of right. No thanks to Apple and their love for @#$% GPU's. Seriously, the graphics card situation with Macs is embarrassing. I'm not asking for an Nvidia 8800 Ultra in a MacBook but for the love of God, at least gives us something decent. And no, GMA950 is not decent, stop lying to yourself.Something decent would be X2400 or 8400m? They still aren't that great but atleast they could run the games.Apple doesnt seem to have the right hardware for these games, and im sure they will correct it. it seems they want to get into gaming
mark my words for a gaming announcement 2007-2008.Yeah right, thought they may switch away from integrated graphics (I doubt it thought since they choosed to have it in the first place) but they still not be anything a real gamer would want.

There are a lot of problems:
1) Incompetent hardware.
2) Slow OpenGL performance in OS X.
3) Small market for game developers and therefor no reason to do ports.
4) Game developers probably see even less reason for it if Apple releases inferior hw and sw for games.
5) Gamers choose to dual boot anyway.
6) ... or they don't buy macs in the first place.


Macs have always been bad for games. What is needed is a "Mac midi".Not all that big. I might actually end up being less than the hit for a traditional universal binary port.Yeah, the transgaming people are very skilled at DX so some day that might maybe be possible aswell. But still OS X OpenGL performance need to increase a lot before that will happen.

It's sad I don't have any means to benchmark OS X vs Linux, or well, if I got Quake 4 for both I could do it, maybe I should go dow... downtown and buy it. Do I only need some patches to make it work or special versions? Would be nice to see how it performs with the same settings in both OSes.

People play games on these things? To me the fun on the mac is all the other cool stuff I can do with iLife and such. When it comes to gaming I'll always stick to my consoles.There are no wc3 or wow on consoles, and there will be no sc2. FPS on consoles sucks aswell. Consoles are good for single player rpgs and multiplayer games if you have someone to play with.Does anyone know if you can get a patch to enable a previous copy of BF212 to run on a MBP?

...I already have BF2142, but don't fancy buying the game again (just for the cider patch) ;)I guess that you can probably just download it and set it up with your windows key. If it's the windows version of the game in cider aswell it might work. Or maybe you could call the people who made it and ask them if they can somehow generate a key for you.


when steve ever imply that??? apple wants to get into other things. if steve REALLY thought gaming was a waste of time why did he let EA and id come on stage?? mac will be a gaming platform soon enough

especially about PVR. apple has stated they want to get into the multimedia business. a PVR is part of that (not that i really care about an apple pvr though).Because Steve loves hype? Because some positive news are better than none at all?

Macs WON'T be a gaming platform, thought it would be nice if they where. If everyone coded games for OpenGL it could happen. Let's hope Apple brings OpenGL 3.0 to OS X real fast .. Thought if Microsoft doesn't do it I guess noone will make games for it anyway? Or can they bundle their own OpenGL libs somehow?

Apple probably wants to get into as many business as possible since they can make more money that way.

That doesn't mean that they will do it.

mattthemutt
Aug 18, 2007, 09:56 AM
Umm its EA...who cares. EA is the Microsoft of the gaming industry. All EA does it gobble up small independent game shops, dumps 90% of their staff, and releases craptastic sequels that are so bug ridden they require twice the machine to even make the game run marginally well. I mean seriously. I stopped buying EA games about 7 years ago. Anything EA touches has the innovation sucked out of its marrow just before it withers and dies. Anyone remember Origin Systems? Bullfrog? How about the popular Westwood Studios? No? That's because they bought them up and killed them off in rapid succession. EA is dead to me and they should be to anyone who is remotely interested in originality and quality. they are also the Walmart of the gaming world.

Very well said.

I agree completely. EA is an unfortunate, bloated, unoriginal behemoth.

aliquis-
Aug 18, 2007, 09:59 AM
The elephant in the room is the graphics gap between Macs and PCs. Compared to what you can get on the PC side for equivalent prices, the iMac, Mac mini, and MacBook all have crap for video hardware. You need to shell out at least $2000 (MacBook Pro) or $2200 (Mac Pro) for decent graphics, because Apple insists on a ridiculous, artificial "consumer/professional" stratification of its product line. (WTF, only "professionals" play graphics-intensive computer games?) Even at the top end, the gap still exists: the best cards you can get for a PC are better than the best cards you can get for the Mac Pro. This has implications beyond gaming.

There's also the related elephant of expandability, but that's a whole other discussion.Thought of course not everyone DO play games, either pros or poor people. But they could atleast give people the option to get a machine for games if they wanted one.

Instead of offer a different case color what about a different motherboard with dedicated graphics in the macbook? But then there already exists the macbook pro...

But there need to be something like the mac mini but capable of games for people who don't want the iMac.

Yeah, it's retarded you need special mac graphics cards for a mac pro. Hacks can use anything thought... But they run BIOS instead of EFI from the begining but shouldn't Apple be able to come around that aswell? Or they could just have sticked to BIOS themself aswell. I guess this is a way for them to make even more profit on rediciously priced graphics cards.

Easiest way to solve it is to build a hack, but then you might run into some troubles with updating software and such.

Columbo X
Aug 18, 2007, 10:15 AM
Agreed - the graphics gap is a big deal. Sure, great graphics hardware doesn't necessarily mean great games, but it sure can help! I think Apple need to update their model of what a "digital hub" should be able to do - gaming plays a large part in people's entertainment now and the Mac should keep up with this. Sure, if you want to play you could follow the "get a console" logic, which is fine, but many want to play games on their computers as well!!

We constantly read about consoles offering a more robust experience than PCs, with people not having to worry about hardware or driver consistency / stability issues when they buy a game. With Apple's tighter control over hardware, a more robust experience can also be offered. Personally, I'm not looking for Apple to provide a large range of GPU hardware, just GPUs offering decent performance for games.

God^Cent
Aug 18, 2007, 10:19 AM
It's the same everywhere.
My friend got a low end dell laptop with intel integrated graphics, and he can't play Call of Duty 2 because of system requriments.
It's not only Mac, people have to know that low end machinese are just not made for gaming. The price of low end machinese can only afford to use integrated graphic card. Even if apple gives you a low end graphic cards (say below X1600), you also can't play those 4 EA games.

But the difference between your friend and us mac owners; is that your friend spent probably around $800 on his dell, where as we spend twice, some times 3 times as much... apple dropped the ball on GPU.

alec
Aug 18, 2007, 10:34 AM
It's a shame that brand new $1000+ MacBooks can't play these games.... we're waiting Steve!

Roderick Usher
Aug 18, 2007, 10:38 AM
Sure, if you want to play you could follow the "get a console" logic, which is fine, but many want to play games on their computers as well!!
And that's also part of the problem - the "get a console" mantra does absolutely nothing to strengthen the Mac platform. It's basically an admission that Macs will always be subpar gaming machines, which doesn't work from a standpoint of platform advocacy. Apple's userbase should be up in arms about this, even the people that don't play games. Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the Mac wouldn't be stronger with a better game library, and graphics cards to match it?

I don't know what it would take for Apple to reconsider. Maybe if Macworld published an article titled "THE GRAPHICS GAP" in big bold letters...

socamx
Aug 18, 2007, 11:09 AM
Someone wake me up when a respectable game company such as Epic Games, ID Software or Blizzard releases some Mac games that they put some real effort into making native. (Unreal Tournament 3, Gears of War, any Blizzard title, Doom/Quake etc....)

Till then, these EA games are just a big yawn for me. They should of had Aspyr do the porting like they did in the past.

I can wait longer for a Mac game if the company puts *real* effort into making a great port that runs well instead of this lame Cider bull. I will never buy or play a Cider-based game, I don't want to support that kind of lazy developing for a quick buck.

JimUrban
Aug 18, 2007, 11:16 AM
EA is an unfortunate, bloated, unoriginal behemoth.

Damn,EA sounds A LOT like my Ex Wife.

halhiker
Aug 18, 2007, 11:25 AM
Now they just need to come out with a controller of some sort so I can use these games with Apple TV to play on my TV.

ViperDesign
Aug 18, 2007, 11:25 AM
Will madden 08 for mac be able to play windows madden 08 online?

How would I be able to find that out?

50548
Aug 18, 2007, 12:35 PM
Umm its EA...who cares. EA is the Microsoft of the gaming industry. All EA does it gobble up small independent game shops, dumps 90% of their staff, and releases craptastic sequels that are so bug ridden they require twice the machine to even make the game run marginally well. I mean seriously. I stopped buying EA games about 7 years ago. Anything EA touches has the innovation sucked out of its marrow just before it withers and dies. Anyone remember Origin Systems? Bullfrog? How about the popular Westwood Studios? No? That's because they bought them up and killed them off in rapid succession. EA is dead to me and they should be to anyone who is remotely interested in originality and quality. they are also the Walmart of the gaming world.

Kinda worrying to know that...I acknowledge both Origin and Bullfrog made GREAT games for the Apple II and the Mac, including some of the best RPG games out there (the Ultima series, if I remember well) and also the excellent MacSyndicate...really good games.

theheyes
Aug 18, 2007, 12:36 PM
CNC3 didnt run that well on my iMac (1.83/128 x1600) and from what I've read the new 2xxx series arent much better.

Software is not going to drive Mac gaming. The hardware needs to come first.

commander.data
Aug 18, 2007, 01:09 PM
It's better than no games, apparently his daugther would be happy enough if she could run them on her macbook, or wait, now she can't... (During the WWDC he said "My daugther lives on the macbook".Yeah, X3100 might run these games since it has T&L and eventually more up to date shaders, I even read they might release DX10-drivers or whatever it was for it. It's still slow thought and not more than twice as fast as 950GMA or something.

The old Radeon 9200 they used in the iBook and Mac mini was (more than?) 50% faster in opengl than the 950GMA if I remember things correctly :D
The thing with the X3100 is that everyone thinks that if it made it into the latest Mac Mini and MacBook we wouldn't be in this position now. The problem with the X3100 and likely the reason why Apple didn't include it is that currently it is barely faster than the GMA950. It has great hardware inside, including hardware T&L, and SM4.0 (DX10) PS and VS. The problem is that Intel themselves haven't figured out how to activate those features. The only thing done in hardware right now is PS so it's really no better than the GMA950 with only higher clock speeds setting it apart. Intel has said they would release drivers for Windows that support everything up to DX9.0c in hardware by the end of the year and DX10 in hardware in H1 2007. Apple is likely waiting for Intel to figure out the DX9.0c hardware implementation so that they can develop the OpenGL equivalent drivers. Otherwise if Apple released the GMA X3100 now, the performance will be little better than the GMA 950 and what little reputation it could have had would be forever scared even if Apple released better drivers later. This way Apple could probably get the older 667MHz Meroms are bargain prices to help Intel clear inventory, while going with the GMA X3100 would have mandated Santa Rosa, which kind of looks them into the 800Mhz Meroms.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macmini.ars/5

In terms of the GMA 950 vs the Radeon 9200 in OpenGL tests I'm assuming you means CineBench and XBench. In those tests the Radeon 9200 leads the GMA 950, 480 to 453 in hardware shading in CineBench. But the GMA 950 leads the Radeon 9200, 58.45 to 52.18 in Quartz graphics and 162.28 to 69.02 in OpenGL graphics in XBench. And this was with the slowest 1.5GHz Core Solo Mac Mini so a more modern Core 2 Duo would perform better. Neither is leading the other by 5 times in pure OpenGL tests, but the GMA 950 seems to lead the 9200. Of course, that doesn't translate that well into actual gaming but even then I doubt the 9200 has 5x the fps of the GMA 950 in any game.

In terms of EA's new games, I can understand that BF2142, C&C3, and Carbon don't support the GMA 950. However, I think OotP not supporting the GMA 950 is a mistake. The PC version can run on a 32MB Radeon 7500 so it's not like the game is graphically intensive even with the Cider layer on top of it. Plus, the target market is kids and teens and the likelihood of them having a Mac Pro or a MBP is rather low. By excluding the Mac Mini and MacBook from OotP for no other reason than what appears to be laziness will probably make the game a flop in sales. Really, they could have just waited and released OotP in the September/October window like the other 2 EA games and optimized it better. Then they can't come running back complaining about lack of sales.

socamx
Aug 18, 2007, 01:25 PM
Apple's hardware doesn't need to catch up, drivers and game port quality need to. If the game is extremely poorly ported, it will always run bad regardless of hardware; except in the case you have the most ultimate gaming machine.

When my iBook came out in October of 2003 (wow it's been 4 years already), first thing I did was run UT2004 on it. I was impressed that it was a playable level of performance on a 1 ghz G4 with a lowly Radeon 9200 Mobility. From what I see the Macbooks don't even perform much better than my iBook here. Testament to how much the GMA950 is a crock.

Look at Halo for example, that was an absolutely abysmal attempt at a PC port, let alone Mac. Performance was so shoddy it was laughable. I remember getting 1 to 5 frames per second on the last stage of that game on a Dual 1.8 G5 with a Radeon 9800 Pro. A few patches later and the game runs much better.

It's all about software people, if developers don't take the time to optimize it, a game will never perform good on a Mac. This is why Cider is so bad, there is no optimizing. It's still DirectX code running in an API layer on a non-native OpenGL platform.

If EA took the time to make true, Mac native games then performance would be a non-issue. If Apple, ATI and Nvidia got on the ball with their graphics card drivers, the new iMacs would have much better performance.

This is lazy developing; the hardware is good but the software is the bottleneck. Bad drivers and lazy developers. Common people...

caccamolle
Aug 18, 2007, 01:53 PM
anybody knows whether these games might be available at the stores ?

commander.data
Aug 18, 2007, 01:58 PM
If EA took the time to make true, Mac native games then performance would be a non-issue. If Apple, ATI and Nvidia got on the ball with their graphics card drivers, the new iMacs would have much better performance.

This is lazy developing; the hardware is good but the software is the bottleneck. Bad drivers and lazy developers. Common people...
I think I would have to agree with that. The advantage of native ports and porting companies like Aspyr is that their survival depends on the success of the Mac games they make. For something like Halo, I'm always surprised by the number of patches that that game received to correct issues and improve performance. And the fact that they put up with things like creating Universal binaries for old games for little to no cost or the changes that Apple makes to OpenGL in different OS versions. That's one thing about Cider and EA, I doubt they will show the same level of patch commitment as porting companies do, since for EA, if you bought it they already made their money, and if you don't like their support, they always have their PC and console market to fall back on.

Manic Mouse
Aug 18, 2007, 02:07 PM
I hope Apple have removed the "do everything" rubbish on the MacBook pages. Honestly, the MacBook GPU is worse than the iBooks, when has an updated product ever had an inferior component before? And then, when given the option to upgrade to the X3100 (which is over twice as fast) they don't bother.

Heck, the Apple TV could probably make a better job of running these games. It has a way better GPU, after all.

And of course Apple somehow managed to find a way to put a REAL GPU in the Apple TV but not the $1,000+ MacBook. Apple's practice of artificially inflating it's "pro" Macs value by crippling the consumer Macs is really quite disgusting.

koobcamuk
Aug 18, 2007, 03:49 PM
I hate gaming on laptops and PCs. Get a console. It's not at all a shock that the baseline products can't play 'cutting edge' games. Mine emulates MAME and Genesis games well, but if I want to play NHL - I would use a 360 or something. The Wii is more fun than a keyboard/mouse anyday.

commander.data
Aug 18, 2007, 04:14 PM
Heck, the Apple TV could probably make a better job of running these games. It has a way better GPU, after all.

And of course Apple somehow managed to find a way to put a REAL GPU in the Apple TV but not the $1,000+ MacBook. Apple's practice of artificially inflating it's "pro" Macs value by crippling the consumer Macs is really quite disgusting.
I can understand why Apple had to put a Go 7300 in the Apple TV. The GMA 950 requires the CPU to handle T&L and VS and the Apple TV only had a Dothan based Pentium M running at 1GHz. Dothan didn't have the SSE and FP improvements or SSE3 support than the Yonah Core Duo's had and combined with the low clock speed, the GMA 950 would be even more underpowered. The Go 7300 also has better MPEG2 and h.264 hardware acceleration than the GMA 950, which is important to free up the CPU to handle interface and other OS tasks, especially since Dothan isn't dual core.

That of course doesn't explain how Apple could afford to put a Go 7300 in the Apple TV since ULV Pentium Ms aren't cheap.

CalPoly10
Aug 18, 2007, 04:31 PM
It's good to see that support for Mac games has come back! Yay!

macidiot
Aug 18, 2007, 05:40 PM
Took long enough. :mad:


Yup.

I think I'm going to delay my purchases of any Mac titles from EA. Kind of... postponed. But to be fair, I will be closing the gap between my EA Mac game purchases and purchases for other platforms... :rolleyes:

Eric5h5
Aug 18, 2007, 06:54 PM
I hate gaming on laptops and PCs. Get a console.

Because you hate gaming on PCs, you think the answer is "get a console"? Maybe you should wake up and realize that many people would rather game on PCs/Macs. The answer is not "get a console"; that's silly and shortsighted and not realistic at all. The answer is for Apple to do something about the situation. At this point it's so ridiculous that one suspects they are being deliberately stubborn about it for no good reason.

--Eric

mattthemutt
Aug 18, 2007, 07:21 PM
Damn,EA sounds A LOT like my Ex Wife.

Brilliant response.

Roderick Usher
Aug 18, 2007, 08:06 PM
Because you hate gaming on PCs, you think the answer is "get a console"? Maybe you should wake up and realize that many people would rather game on PCs/Macs. The answer is not "get a console"; that's silly and shortsighted and not realistic at all. The answer is for Apple to do something about the situation. At this point it's so ridiculous that one suspects they are being deliberately stubborn about it for no good reason.

--Eric
Thank you. Between all the half-baked defenses of Apple and outright hostility that I so often see towards this viewpoint, it's like a breath of fresh air.

vicious7
Aug 18, 2007, 08:07 PM
cool.... although i want to play NHL 08 :D:cool:

ditto, here.

AidenShaw
Aug 18, 2007, 08:26 PM
Damn,EA sounds A LOT like my Ex Wife.

I've heard that she's been calling you MicroSloth....

...something about being tiny and lazy.

AidenShaw
Aug 18, 2007, 08:30 PM
Kinda worrying to know that...I acknowledge both Origin and Bullfrog made GREAT games for the Apple II and the Mac, including some of the best RPG games out there (the Ultima series, if I remember well) and also the excellent MacSyndicate...really good games.

...and the companies disappeared 12 years ago....

Gamoe
Aug 19, 2007, 12:20 AM
Apple sticks to integrated graphics on the MacBook to:

1.) Further differentiate the consumer and Pro product lines.

2.) Save resources by using an already integrated system.

Yes, the MacBook is the entry-level Mac notebook. But it is not low-end. Any new MacBook from Apple will cost you from $1,100 up. This is not an $800 PC laptop and should certainly be held to higher standards. The only people who seem intent on tagging the MacBook as low-end are those who think that only Macs priced over $3,000 are worthwhile.

It is shameful that a game that will run just fine on a 7 year old console cannot run on a modern dual-core MacBook. It is unbelievable that the graphics performance from the GMA 950 barely tops that of an old iBook.

Get a console? Sure, I do the majority of gaming on consoles. But I have no choice (I don't do Windoze). And consoles are better deals graphically for gaming. But I was kind of excited there for a moment when I thought I could actually play a pretty modern racing game on my Mac soon. Not so.

Gaming on the Mac is still a joke, and Apple has its good share of the blame.

GulGnu
Aug 19, 2007, 02:42 AM
To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.
--Eric

Really funny thing is that my old G4 Mini can chug along decently in, say, WoW - because it has a real graphics chip :P The irony...

50548
Aug 19, 2007, 04:04 AM
...and the companies disappeared 12 years ago....

Yep, I am starting to feel old... :rolleyes:

Do you guys still remember the Ultima series on the Apple II? As for MacSyndicate, it was a really cool RTS game I bought back in 1995 for my Quadra 605...oh boy..! ;)

gregorsamsa
Aug 19, 2007, 07:58 AM
And that's also part of the problem - the "get a console" mantra does absolutely nothing to strengthen the Mac platform. It's basically an admission that Macs will always be subpar gaming machines, which doesn't work from a standpoint of platform advocacy. Apple's userbase should be up in arms about this, even the people that don't play games. Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the Mac wouldn't be stronger with a better game library, and graphics cards to match it?

I don't know what it would take for Apple to reconsider. Maybe if Macworld published an article titled "THE GRAPHICS GAP" in big bold letters...

I agree. As for "what it would take for Apple to reconsider"... perhaps a drastic drop in Mac sales would get the message across?

It'll never happen of course. Apple well know people buy Macs principally for OS X, hardware reliability, Apple's wonderful iLife/iWork suites, etc. You want all of that, you have to live with Macs' gaming shortcomings. In other words, Apple have got dudes like you & me by the b*lls. Yes, it stinks, but Windows stinks even more so.

bananas
Aug 19, 2007, 09:16 AM
I agree. As for "what it would take for Apple to reconsider"... perhaps a drastic drop in Mac sales would get the message across?

It'll never happen of course. Apple well know people buy Macs principally for OS X, hardware reliability, Apple's wonderful iLife/iWork suites, etc. You want all of that, you have to live with Macs' gaming shortcomings. In other words, Apple have got dudes like you & me by the b*lls. Yes, it stinks, but Windows stinks even more so.

..well if apple isn't interested in getting the money I spend in gaming then I'll be happy to give 'em to sony. I'll just keep buying low end Macs and game consoles.

opeter
Aug 19, 2007, 09:20 AM
Wish someone could make some kind of a game that would be fun, challenging and addictive. :) A nice game without all the candy. And once you lose the candy, the game sucks.

I need to get addicted!

Well, you could go to http://www.isotope244.com/ and pick up Atomic Cannon and Machines at War. These game are totally awesome and addictive.

I buyed a MegaPack before 2 weeks and play it almost everyday for 1-2 hours. For a casual game-player like me, there game are fantastic. :)

opeter
Aug 19, 2007, 09:39 AM
BTW: yesterday i buyed a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 and 3 GB of RAM and i must say, that there is a big difference between the old PowerMac G5 and this new PC. I mean the working in Photoshop, Illustrator etc. it is so much more responsive here on this PC than on the G5... i almost can't believe it.

Cloudane
Aug 19, 2007, 10:21 AM
To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.

They do know better. But they don't want you to be able to use the Macbook (or Mac Mini) for anything other than web browsing / iLife / iWork. How would they sell the higher end Macs (e.g. Macbook Pros) then?

Umm its EA...who cares. EA is the Microsoft of the gaming industry. All EA does it gobble up small independent game shops, dumps 90% of their staff, and releases craptastic sequels that are so bug ridden they require twice the machine to even make the game run marginally well. I mean seriously. I stopped buying EA games about 7 years ago. Anything EA touches has the innovation sucked out of its marrow just before it withers and dies. Anyone remember Origin Systems? Bullfrog? How about the popular Westwood Studios? No? That's because they bought them up and killed them off in rapid succession. EA is dead to me and they should be to anyone who is remotely interested in originality and quality. they are also the Walmart of the gaming world.

Well said. I still hate them for gobbling up and spitting out Air Warrior and Earth & Beyond, which were both extremely innovative and exciting for their time.

Apple's hardware doesn't need to catch up, drivers and game port quality need to. If the game is extremely poorly ported, it will always run bad regardless of hardware; except in the case you have the most ultimate gaming machine.

You could have a point here. I can play WoW smoothly on my old Powerbook G4 with integrated NVidia Go5200, which falls over at just about any other game you throw at it.


I've often said that gaming should be left to PCs, as that's the platform the developers aim for... having said that, with Bootcamp now involved it would be kind of nice. It'd mean not having to have a separate PC just for games.

AidenShaw
Aug 19, 2007, 10:34 AM
BTW: yesterday i buyed a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 and 3 GB of RAM and i must say, that there is a big difference between the old PowerMac G5 and this new PC. I mean the working in Photoshop, Illustrator etc. it is so much more responsive here on this PC than on the G5... i almost can't believe it.

How much cheaper than a Mac Pro was the Conroe-based Core2 system?

opeter
Aug 19, 2007, 10:59 AM
How much cheaper than a Mac Pro was the Conroe-based Core2 system?

The whole specs of the system is that:

- ASUS p5K Motherboard
- 3 GB RAM (2x1GB, 2x512 MB) in DC
- new midi tower (Codegen (http://www.codegenworld.com/03_products/index.asp?max_id_search=11&min_id_search=24&pro_id_search=238), quite cheap)
- Xilence 550W ATX 2.2 PSU
- Windows Vista Business DSP

The whole bunch did cost me 560 with taxes here in Slovenia (EU)

The other parts are left from my old PC. These parts are:
- a GeForce 7600 GT PCIe with Dual-DVI
- 2 HDs - one 150 GB WD Raptor and a 320 GB WD
- NEC 7170 DVD-RW
-floppy (you never know, when you need it :p)

these together are at 380 (with 20% Taxes). This price is so high because of the Raptor.

It was much-much cheaper than the Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro here where i live begins at 2150 (the base 2.0 modell).

Eric5h5
Aug 19, 2007, 12:19 PM
They do know better. But they don't want you to be able to use the Macbook (or Mac Mini) for anything other than web browsing / iLife / iWork. How would they sell the higher end Macs (e.g. Macbook Pros) then?

Strangely, they never had a problem before...they even bragged about the G4 Minis being able to play games. All they have to do is put a low-end GPU in there, like they used to. All recent Macs should be able to play any games released for them. Maybe with the settings on low, but they should at least play and be supported. Unlike the GMA950. Then the Macbook Pros get better GPUs. You know, like it used to be with the Powerbook and iBook. Have I emphasized this point enough? ;) People have short memories....

--Eric

stevenz
Aug 19, 2007, 02:25 PM
Someone wake me up when a respectable game company such as Epic Games, ID Software or Blizzard releases some Mac games that they put some real effort into making native. (Unreal Tournament 3, Gears of War, any Blizzard title, Doom/Quake etc....)

Blizzard release most of their stuff for Mac already and id have already said that their upcoming stuff will be platform-transparent. Although obviously they expect only Mac Pro users to run it going by the fact that the tech demo looked like it was using some pretty serious GPU power.

Going to special effort to port games to the Mac is currently a waste of resources. The market that can actually run them (Mac Pro owners) and wants to run them is surely far too small to be viable.

I guess the new iMacs can run the games in say 800x600 with most of the quality settings lowered. Doesn't sound like fun to me. Honestly, the 2600Pro chipset is rubbish. Even the 2600XT is significantly better, but still sub-par.

flopticalcube
Aug 19, 2007, 02:29 PM
I guess the new iMacs can run the games in say 800x600 with most of the quality settings lowered. Doesn't sound like fun to me. Honestly, the 2600Pro chipset is rubbish. Even the 2600XT is significantly better, but still sub-par.

That is stretching things a bit, don't you think? Many people have had good experiences with the iMac and decent resolutions on medium and even high settings. The iMac does use the Mobility XT chipset as proven in another thread.

hob
Aug 19, 2007, 06:30 PM
Can anyone find C&C 3 for pre-order in the UK? I can't see it on Amazon UK or Apple UK!

Gamoe
Aug 19, 2007, 06:30 PM
Strangely, they never had a problem before...they even bragged about the G4 Minis being able to play games. All they have to do is put a low-end GPU in there, like they used to. All recent Macs should be able to play any games released for them. Maybe with the settings on low, but they should at least play and be supported. Unlike the GMA950. Then the Macbook Pros get better GPUs. You know, like it used to be with the Powerbook and iBook. Have I emphasized this point enough? ;) People have short memories....

--Eric

Exactly. It's like we Mac folk have to come up with reasonable-sounding excuses to justify Apple's completely irrational and ridiculous stance. The graphics cards on the iBooks weren't all that great, but at least they were real graphics cards.

Before we prided ourselves on the fact that even "non-pro" Macs had dedicated graphics cards. Now we make excuses for why they don't.

Since the Intel transition, it seems we've taken a few steps back in the graphics department. Maybe Apple does feel it would threaten the pro machines. Maybe this is an experiment or some kind of deal with Intel, or maybe Intel's promised Apple they will get low-end graphics card functionality shortly in the upcoming next generation. Who knows?

All I know is that I'm tired of all the excuses and I wish Apple would give its consumer line graphics cards worthy of the rest of the hardware.

appleguy
Aug 19, 2007, 07:08 PM
I knew there was a good reason to buy one of the new iMacs... :p
I do have one of the current macbooks too. I brought one just to tie me over until the new iMacs were released.

pizzach
Aug 19, 2007, 07:09 PM
Bah. I'm going to wait for Need for Speed Cocoa. Carbon is so yesterday.:D

aussie_geek
Aug 19, 2007, 08:12 PM
What about some demo's .... Are there any available.

Why the push for gaming on a Mac. That's what Boot Camp is for...

Or just get a console. xbox 360 ftw

aussie_geek

travishill
Aug 19, 2007, 08:44 PM
Intel has released new Windows drivers for their later integrated graphics chip that enable hardware T&L and Shader Model 3.0. I know its not the same as the 950 in Macs (although why Apple uses an older chip from Intel I don't know, but none of their GPU moves seem to make sense)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OogVYWQLAhM

Since parts of the architecture are similar- I wonder if they'll work with Apple soon to get some improvements for the 950?

flopticalcube
Aug 19, 2007, 08:49 PM
Intel has released new Windows drivers for the 965 that enable hardware T&L and Shader Model 3.0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OogVYWQLAhM

I wonder if they'll work with Apple soon to get some improvements for the 950?

Not likely. The GMA950 is now old news for Intel. The 965 (aka X3100) is were the future lies for integrated graphics.

travishill
Aug 19, 2007, 09:09 PM
Not likely. The GMA950 is now old news for Intel. The 965 (aka X3100) is were the future lies for integrated graphics.

Yeah, I updated my comment to reflect that reality once I thought about it. It shocks me that Apple is using not only an intel graphics chip, but an outdated Intel graphics chip at that.

I guess graphics decisions by Apple shouldn't surprise me any more!

Roderick Usher
Aug 19, 2007, 09:12 PM
Exactly. It's like we Mac folk have to come up with reasonable-sounding excuses to justify Apple's completely irrational and ridiculous stance. The graphics cards on the iBooks weren't all that great, but at least they were real graphics cards.

Before we prided ourselves on the fact that even "non-pro" Macs had dedicated graphics cards. Now we make excuses for why they don't.
Yeah, and the excuses are usually one of a few things: (1) Computers aren't for gaming, get a console, (2) Macs aren't for gaming, get a PC, (3) it's not really that bad, just castrate most of your graphics settings, or (4) Apple Doesn't Target You And That's Just How It Is.

Every one of those is crap. The first flies in the face of history, the second is the exact opposite of the stance that a true Mac advocate should take, the third is disposed of with performance numbers, and the fourth... the fourth is the real crown jewel. It's the one where the zealotry most amply reveals itself, with people twisting themselves into all sorts of bizarre arguments and senseless car analogies in an effort to justify Apple's indifference/hostility towards decent video for its sub-$2000 systems.

I must say, though, I'm glad to see an increasing number of people hollering about this. That's exactly what they should be doing. I get worried when they don't.

Eric5h5
Aug 19, 2007, 09:17 PM
Why the push for gaming on a Mac. That's what Boot Camp is for...

Or just get a console. xbox 360 ftw

No and no. Buying Windows = teh suck, losing a big chunk of hard drive space to Windows = teh suck, rebooting = teh suck, consoles = teh suck. Native gaming ftw!

--Eric

thelini
Aug 20, 2007, 02:36 AM
My biggest gripe for the gfx hardware issue is simply because I would use bootcamp to run these games, and the gfx hardware is simply below par.

OK people are whining they would need to lose some HD space and have to splash out for a copy of windows, but the reason I would use boot camp is purely and simply because you would not have to wait for patches (I am guessing the patches will be delayed).

You would have thought by now that apple would be giving top end gfx cards in the mac pros, and refreshing the product line to reflect changing technology a little more frequently. I would love a mac pro with a 768mb 8800gtx, but I shudder at the thought of the price, especially after apple over inflate the price of an already expensive component, in an already expensive machine.

The higher level mac book pros actually have a decent enough chip in them, but I wouldn't want to do hours on end of gaming on a laptop, you'd certainly need a 7200rpm HD and a hack to run the fans at full speed all of the time.

It would be nice to see the mac books and minis at least move away from integrated gfx and sharing system ram, but then you have to remember this would more than likely up the price of these systems.

jicon
Aug 20, 2007, 12:28 PM
Something not mentioned here about Apple's push for integrated graphics:

The mini was initially sold as a unit pushing the fact that it had a dedicated 32MB video card for graphics...

The part they leave out is that the graphics card had a heat sink removed, and was underclocked to keep it cool. Meaning for a fair number of people, there was difficulty using the DVI-D connector to a lot of monitors, as the signal coming out of the unit wasn't necessarily up to spec.

When the intel switch came, integrated graphics meant they could correct the DVI output, and not require any additional heatsink.

And I think that is the tradeoff even in the iMac... Underclock the GPU to limit the heat coming off the unit. I thought I read somewhere that the new iMac runs considerably hotter under Windows, as the GPU is clocked normally.

RobHague
Aug 20, 2007, 02:05 PM
Woot! The games are here! Now we just need to wait for the hardware to play them... :D

Apple just need a sturn slap, and realise that just being able to "run" a game isnt enough on systems you are paying 1000's/$1000's for. Especially the "higher end" of the mid-range, which are as high as you can go before the "pro" systems.

There is nothing stoping Apple from using one of the top-end Mobile Chipsets from Nvidia in the 24" mac. Take away the "Extreme" id rather lose some Mhz on the CPU and gain something thats going to make a much bigger difference where it counts, not in photoshop benchmarks, but in common tasks and mulimedia.

Once Apple bring out an iMac with a powerful graphics card, ill get one of the 24" versions. Until then i will have to wait.

flopticalcube
Aug 20, 2007, 02:08 PM
There is nothing stoping Apple from using one of the top-end Mobile Chipsets from Nvidia in the 24" mac. Take away the "Extreme" id rather lose some Mhz on the CPU and gain something thats going to make a much bigger difference where it counts, not in photoshop benchmarks, but in common tasks and mulimedia.


Except there are no high end mobile cards from the current generation available yet. I would hope that a BTO for the 8800M or the Mobility 2900 will be available when the cards appear.

BenRoethig
Aug 20, 2007, 02:43 PM
Looking forward to some quality Mac gaming.


Not until Jobs retires.

Roderick Usher
Aug 20, 2007, 02:49 PM
Not until Jobs retires.
Well, he might change his mind. As others have said, the video hardware was (proportionally) better before the Intel switch. It's possible that whatever spider that's been whispering in his ear since 2005 will die off.

morespce54
Aug 20, 2007, 03:29 PM
Can't wait to see Battlefield... :confused::D

keep 'em comin'!

cliffjumper68
Aug 20, 2007, 04:08 PM
Yeah, and the excuses are usually one of a few things: (1) Computers aren't for gaming, get a console, (2) Macs aren't for gaming, get a PC, (3) it's not really that bad, just castrate most of your graphics settings, or (4) Apple Doesn't Target You And That's Just How It Is.

Every one of those is crap. The first flies in the face of history, the second is the exact opposite of the stance that a true Mac advocate should take, the third is disposed of with performance numbers, and the fourth... the fourth is the real crown jewel. It's the one where the zealotry most amply reveals itself, with people twisting themselves into all sorts of bizarre arguments and senseless car analogies in an effort to justify Apple's indifference/hostility towards decent video for its sub-$2000 systems.

I must say, though, I'm glad to see an increasing number of people hollering about this. That's exactly what they should be doing. I get worried when they don't.
Great comment, I only wish Apple would listen to people in this thread. Enhancing graphics hardware would only benifit OSX's great interface and ilife's features.

cliffjumper68
Aug 20, 2007, 04:12 PM
Well, he might change his mind. As others have said, the video hardware was (proportionally) better before the Intel switch. It's possible that whatever spider that's been whispering in his ear since 2005 will die off.

Jobs has a history of resisting a change and then pouncing on it. The fact that he showcased the "games" coming to OSX is a good sign that things might be changing. I just wish the graphics card in the iMac was upgradeable.

triskadecaepyon
Aug 20, 2007, 09:33 PM
I'm glad that at least epic games is going to release Gears of War for Mac and PC. They have been good about giving mac versions of their engines some attention. Hopefully that'll be released soon as well as EA's line.

dmw007
Aug 20, 2007, 10:17 PM
I finally purchased Battlefield 2142 for Mac & iWork '08 yesterday (I figure a little play is okay if I counteract it with a little work ;) ). :D :)

coffey7
Aug 22, 2007, 06:47 AM
Macs have games? Wasn't the reason I installed windows on my mac to play all of the windows games. Its too late now.

paprizzi
Oct 21, 2007, 05:44 AM
Pre-ordered BOTH Tiger Wood and Madden for my NEW iMAC.. turns out NEITHER of them will run til there is a update to the ATI HD2600 video .. Why release em unless the work on the newest MAC ?????

gregorsamsa
Oct 21, 2007, 07:09 AM
Yeah, and the excuses are usually one of a few things: (1) Computers aren't for gaming, get a console, (2) Macs aren't for gaming, get a PC, (3) it's not really that bad, just castrate most of your graphics settings, or (4) Apple Doesn't Target You And That's Just How It Is.

Every one of those is crap. The first flies in the face of history, the second is the exact opposite of the stance that a true Mac advocate should take, the third is disposed of with performance numbers, and the fourth... the fourth is the real crown jewel. It's the one where the zealotry most amply reveals itself, with people twisting themselves into all sorts of bizarre arguments and senseless car analogies in an effort to justify Apple's indifference/hostility towards decent video for its sub-$2000 systems.

I think you've summed it up perfectly, though I'll admit that your 2nd point (or rather, the classic zealot's excuse) is gathering greater substance in my thinking as I edge closer to buying a new desktop in the coming weeks. I'd really like to get another Mac (really!) - I already have a Mac laptop - but glossy iMacs with their budget-range, non-upgradable graphics aren't an option; whilst the Mac Pro is overkill.

I believe I'm representative of a growing number of people. I'm not a dedicated gamer & my new desktop won't be used only for gaming. I already own a PS2, which I now hardly touch because I find most console games aren't really my thing. I just want something that also gives me access to untrammelled, high calibre, computer-specific gaming, for eg. Medieval 2: TW, Empire: TW (coming early 2008), et al, for the odd few hours at weekends, etc. If Apple gave me a new headless Mac with discrete graphics, at iMac prices, I'm certainly buying. I'd happily use Boot Camp only for non Mac-native games.

To those that say "Apple won't do this because it'll cannibalize iMac sales", I disagree. We have no proof of this & it's debatable how many iMac sales would be lost to such a new Mac & how many switchers would be gained. As things stand, Apple certainly won't have lost an iMac sale in my case. Though I'll continue buying Mac laptops in future, currently I feel I have little option but buy a PC desktop.

I'll wait a while longer, more in hope than expectation, for Apple may surprise me, but I'm also becoming increasingly fed up with Apple's limited product range compared to what PC hardware offers.

Cloudane
Oct 21, 2007, 12:46 PM
I still think "point 4" is the key. Apple simply don't care about gamers... it's not that they're doing this to spite gamers (why would they?) they just.... don't care! It's not important to them, it's not part of their current strategy.

I hope as much as anyone else that they'll make a gaming capable machine, but I just don't see it happening no matter how much the small minority that we are, shout about it.

As for cannibalising iMac sales, I don't think cannibalising sales of any product is a problem, after all it's still their product so they're still making money so long as they keep the profit margin the same. It only really mattered for the iPhone, where they had contracts with AT&T etc (and they still released the Touch regardless)

gregorsamsa
Oct 21, 2007, 05:25 PM
As for cannibalising iMac sales, I don't think cannibalising sales of any product is a problem, after all it's still their product so they're still making money so long as they keep the profit margin the same. It only really mattered for the iPhone, where they had contracts with AT&T etc (and they still released the Touch regardless)

Though I don't think a new headless Mac with discrete graphics would cannibalize iMac sales, I can see why the mere perception of it doing so would raise some strong objections.

As SJ said, Apple won't ship junk, as in cheap beige towers, etc., so any new line in Mac hardware would be at a considerable cost to Apple. If sales of any new headless Mac resulted in too many lost sales of the iMac range, Apple would see it as eroding their profit margins rather than adding to them, etc. - I can't see too many other reasons why Apple won't give us such a Mac, but I disagree with their reasoning.

Cloudane
Oct 21, 2007, 05:27 PM
The main problem for me is space. I already have a PC for games, and well, it has a monitor. No room for an iMac. Mac Pro would be ridiculously overpowered, and Mac Mini ridiculously underpowered... (it's junk stock from older models of their lowest powered Mac otherwise, the iBook)

gregorsamsa
Oct 21, 2007, 05:47 PM
As you "already have a PC for games" & space is a problem, I'm thinking perhaps a Mini wouldn't be a bad move for you. AFAIC, it's only underpowered for serious gaming & professional-user software, but for most applications it's really more than enough.

Cloudane
Oct 21, 2007, 06:06 PM
Maybe... main problem is I'm impatient when it comes to computers (the PC is a high end C2D). I currently have a G4 Powerbook and it's so slow it drives me up the wall!