Gaming on Mac sucks ass!

[aldo]

Sorry, but I am _so_ disappointed with the state of Mac gaming. I got my iBook a little while ago, and OSX blew me away. However, Gaming completly sucks on it.

Lets take Age of Mythology for example... a very good game on PC. MacSoft 'ported' it over to Mac, and multiplayer is bugged up to hell.

I can't get it working behind a NAT router, and it still doesn't work if it's in a DMZ - the PC version does this fine.

Also, I was so damn disapointed that it doesn't work with PC clients on LAN... wtf is the point of that - I would expect 'ported' to mean that it works the same as PC in all things, not just some of them.

Not only that, it's blatantly not finished (the port that is - it says stuff like 'goto windows control panel to change input langauge'... completely not funny).

I can run this game probably better on my linux boxen via WINE - if this is what takes 12 months to port over to mac, I'd hate to see a hack-job of it.

Finally, as a last stab in the back it costs $50. $50 for a year old PC game, with a bad port is not my idea of a good deal.

I _really_ hope the Apple crew will see the light and start getting developers signed up so we can have some native games not ****ty quality ports. Games == more highend hardware sales.

[end rant]

[Doraemon]

1. If you wanna play games, get a PC.
2. Judging the entire Mac gaming industry because one game didn't meet your expectations is unfair.
3. I doubt that you problems with your router are really fault of the game. Re-check your routers manual.
4. Mac - PC LAN: Ensembled Studios's games all have that problem (Age of Empires 2, too). The PC version uses DirectPlay, which is unavailable for the Mac. Why? Because it's part of Microsoft's DirectX package. Can you really blame the Mac for Microsoft not releasing DirectX for Mac?
5. Yes, Mac games are rather expensive. But the market is small and if companies like MacSoft or Aspyr want to survive, they have to charge a little bit more. As I said before, if you want to use your computer for gaming, get a PC.
6. Apple starting to develope Mac games themselves is just utter nonesense.

[aldo]

1. If you wanna play games, get a PC.

I have a PC. I expect OSX to also work well with games, too.

2. Judging the entire Mac gaming industry because one game didn't meet your expectations is unfair.

Well, I've tried a few Mac games out, and Warcraft 3 is a dang good port. However, UT 2003 doesn't work on my powerbook, which is better specced than my second PC - UT2k3 works fine on that.

3. I doubt that you problems with your router are really fault of the game. Re-check your routers manual.

Well everyone online behind a router can't get it to work, so I'm unwhilling to spend hours monitoring packets and seeing where they are going.

4. Mac - PC LAN: Ensembled Studios's games all have that problem (Age of Empires 2, too). The PC version uses DirectPlay, which is unavailable for the Mac. Why? Because it's part of Microsoft's DirectX package. Can you really blame the Mac for Microsoft not releasing DirectX for Mac?

Well, it wouldn't be too much work to hack a 'samba' style port of it. It works half way there - the Mac can see PC hosted games, but not join them. I think the porters (new use of old word?) have just been lazy - DirectPlay is the least complex of all the Direct* components.

5. Yes, Mac games are rather expensive. But the market is small and if companies like MacSoft or Aspyr want to survive, they have to charge a little bit more. As I said before, if you want to use your computer for gaming, get a PC.

You are contradicting yourself... people port games to the mac, so people must play them. Apple advertises it heavily in the iBook section of their website.

6. Apple starting to develope Mac games themselves is just utter nonesense.

No, I mean getting developers signed up to publish them through Apple (the Mac version of it at least). Apple would provide support for OSX programming, and some sort of extras for Mac people, Like MS insists for XBox ports (extra levels, skins, weapons etc).

Also, when I think about it, Apple producing games themselves really isn't that bad idea. Apple is obviously wanting to go after the 'cool' crowd with the iPod, so why not make a kickass game only for the Mac? I'm sure if it was good enough it would get a hellofalot of intrest from the PC gaming users, just like iTunes is now - infact I only looked seriously at purchasing my iBook due to iTunes.

[Squire]

I have a PC for that. Actually, the only games I've tried on the Mac are Marble Blast, Otto Matic, and Deimos Rising. so I have no idea how it performs with other games. PCs are so cheap nowadays that having 2 computers isn't as ridiculous as it might once have been.

Anyway, good luck on future games.

Squire

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by aldo
1. If you wanna play games, get a PC.

I have a PC. I expect OSX to also work well with games, too.

The simple fact is that, like it or not, Macs are not made to cater to the gamer market. The professional market is much larger - Pro Users care about Final Cut, Shake, Photoshop, etc. etc. not how many fps they can get in UT2003. Macs are not for gamers - if games are someone's priority over using your computer for real work, then they should get a PC or get a PS2 XBox, etc. Computers are cheap enough nowadays that you can have both. I'm not syaing I like it either, but that's the way it is. Personally, I don't have time to play games, so this doesn't impact me directly.

Originally posted by aldo
Also, when I think about it, Apple producing games themselves really isn't that bad idea. Apple is obviously wanting to go after the 'cool' crowd with the iPod, so why not make a kickass game only for the Mac? I'm sure if it was good enough it would get a hellofalot of intrest from the PC gaming users, just like iTunes is now - infact I only looked seriously at purchasing my iBook due to iTunes.

I like this idea of luring more users to the Mac, but the problem here again is that Macs don't cater to the game market. You can make an exclusive game just for Mac, to tempt people to switch over, but then once they do, what do they do? All the other games are released welll after PC release dates, and Macs don't have as many games out there, just as you said yourself. A good idea, but I'm not sure if it would work.....

[yamabushi]

Consoles manage to compete against each other just fine with a few different key games for each platform. The rest of the games on a console platform are filler to add variety but individual titles among those games draw very few users since they are shown in advertisements less often. I don't see why it can't be the same for Mac and PC. PCs are like the PS2 in that a huge number of titles are available. Macs no longer have a large base of their own games so don't have anything special to offer. The hardware and OS features available create an environment for games that is at least as good as what you see on the PC side, it's jsut not what developers are used to.

As far as price goes, getting your Mac up to decent specs could cost a few hundred dollars which is the same amount that a budget PC would cost. So what's the difference? The only reason to get a PC for games is to have access to additional titles. I am not going to spend over a thousand dollars on a PC for gaming just to play a few titles. If I just want more titles I could buy all three major consoles instead for the same price. If you already have a PC to play games, fine. It doesn't make sense to me to buy a new one just to play games though.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by aldo

Well, I've tried a few Mac games out, and Warcraft 3 is a dang good port. However, UT 2003 doesn't work on my powerbook, which is better specced than my second PC - UT2k3 works fine on that.


doesn't work as in 'won't run' or 'runs too slowly' ? What kind of Powerbook do you have ?
UT2003 runs fine on my 12"Pb (1Ghz), not as smooth as on my PC, but still quite enjoyable when I turn down details a bit.

I wouldn't expect any gaming revolution on OSX anytime soon. Making a killer AAA game title takes years and costs an awful lot of money, while the return is over a very short period of time. Apple would need quite a few (heavily subsidized) titles to make people switch for games, but PC's will always have an edge on latest gaming hardware... I think it is a lost battle, Apple should focus on its strengths instead.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by etoiles
but PC's will always have an edge on latest gaming hardware... I think it is a lost battle, Apple should focus on its strengths instead.

I agree - like I said before, Macs are not made to cater to the gamer market. The professional market is much larger than the gamer market anyway. Pro Users care about Final Cut, Shake, Photoshop, etc. etc. not how many fps they can get in UT2003 or what the latest game is out there. Macs are not for gamers, so if you're into playing games then buy a console (that's what they're made for!) or buy a nice Alienware system or something like that.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by hardon
post deleted by moderators

No need for the immature langauge and cussing. Watch it or else the moderator will ban you. That type of langauge is not necessary here, nor it is constructive in any way.

I don't believe anyone has ever questioned the fact that Macs have enough power to run games - they most certainly do. I believe the initial poster here was commenting on how games are simply not ported for OSX as much as he'd like to see.

If you have something constructive to say that can contribuite to this discussion, please reply. Otherwise please don't waste other people's time.

[hardon]

was that the intention of the post shard , i dont think so!!! and after reading ijon's post i dont realy care!


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49388


i apologise for the langauge if you are offended, but this sort of stuff goes down really well with the Microcrapsters of this world:mad:

[Counterfit]

Then go post on their forums. We don't need your attitude here.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by hardon
was that the intention of the post shard , i dont think so!!!

Please be more specific - was "what" the intention of the post? To what are you referring? I never said that your post had any intention, I was commenting on your immature langauge and how your post didn't contribute to our discussion.

Originally posted by hardon
and after reading ijon's post i dont realy care!

What does iJon's tragic situation have to do with this thread? Someone has a personal tragedy and this means you can start swearing and posting irrelevant information? My heart goes out to iJon as much as everyone else here, but with all due respect his situation has nothing to do with this thread or your nature of posting. Please do not use a horrible tragedy as an excuse to act like you are acting.

Originally posted by hardon
i apologise for the langauge if you are offended, but this sort of stuff goes down really well with the Microcrapsters of this world:mad:

Okay, fair enough then I guess. I didn't realize "microrapsters" need to swear and use incorect grammar and spelling excessively to get their points across. I definitely don't see many of them here on MacRumors.

[aldo]

I am defnitley NOT a windows fanboy. I hate Windows, I hate microsoft. On all of my PCs Fedora Core 1 is set to default on my grub.conf :).

When I said powerbook, I meant iBook. I don't know what got into me there :(.

My ibook is a 800mhz G3, 640mb RAM, Radeon 7500 32mb. While not a top spec, more than good enough for low end game of UT2k on the PC. However, it's a colmplete dog on OSX - slow as crap.

While I agree macs are not designed for gaming, I'd expect the gaming to beat at least linux...

[Dont Hurt Me]

gaming on the mac rocks, if you are ignorant enough to buy the weakest hardware- ibook and expect to play Ut2K3 or any other AAA game at decent frames then you are just ignorant on Mac gaming, Apple has a great game page check it out if you dont thinks so but please what this thread should be titled is that my ibook sucks and is to weak to play new games!;) www.apple.com/games (http://www.apple.com/games) apple gaming is getting better and better and the hardware is doing the same, back to UT2k3 or perhaps RTCW or maybe a little F1 racing...........then again Jedi Knight II??...............or perhaps a game of Medal of Honor.......................................................................................

[hardon]

i dont think 1 naughty word constitutes a bad attitude, in fact i love giving hints and tips on this forum , if i can help i will.

i thought forums are about giving my opinion, my opinion was as above.

ill apologise once more, and say nothing more on the matter :(

[~Shard~]

Latest post:

Originally posted by hardon
i dont think 1 naughty word constitutes a bad attitude, in fact i love giving hints and tips on this forum , if i can help i will.

i thought forums are about giving my opinion, my opinion was as above.

ill apologise once more, and say nothing more on the matter :(

Initial Post:

Originally posted by hardon
jesus yur full off shxit!!!!!!!!

apple's have more than enuf power too run decent games!!!! i think the thread was started a PC owning tosser who want a thread fight!

watch yur mouth


Are you the same poster? Or just schizophrenic? ;) If you would've typed up your initial post as you did with you last one, perhaps people wouldn't have had any issues with your post. And you say you love giving hints and tips? How does telling someone their full of @#$% and to "watch their mouth" constitute help and advice?

At any rate, we're getting off topic here so let's just get back to the matter at hand.

[job]

Originally posted by aldo
My ibook is a 800mhz G3, 640mb RAM, Radeon 7500 32mb. While not a top spec, more than good enough for low end game of UT2k on the PC. However, it's a colmplete dog on OSX - slow as crap.

While I agree macs are not designed for gaming, I'd expect the gaming to beat at least linux...

Sadly, your iBook is the lowest of low for current Mac games. While it may have been a price issue with regards to your purchase of an iBook, if you really wanted to game on a Mac, you should have bought a G4/G5 tower, not an iBook. The Radeon 7500 Mobility chipset is barely equivalent to the original Radeon on the desktop.

Re Linux: Linux will outperform OSX in games because of the hardware it is running on. I bet if you ran games on a 486 Linux box and compared it to running games on a G5 it would be a little different. The reverse is also true.

Right now the best gaming machine in the Mac world is the dual 2Ghz tower. While it is also the most expensive, it's also the best. If games are truely all that you want to do than you really should not have bought the iBook in the first place.

cheers.

:)

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
gaming on the mac rocks, if you are ignorant enough to buy the weakest hardware- ibook and expect to play Ut2K3 or any other AAA game at decent frames then you are just ignorant on Mac gaming, Apple has a great game page check it out if you dont thinks so but please what this thread should be titled is that my ibook sucks and is to weak to play new games!

Basically you are saying that you need to buy a badass Mac to enjoy Mac gaming, and that is exactly the problem.

Play the same games on PC and Mac (same config) and see why some people here are a bit frustrated...;)

Who is to blame ? Bad ports ? Bad graphic drivers ?

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
professional market is much larger than the gamer market anyway.

Do you mind if I laugh at that statment and drop onto the floor in a state of Histaria. You cannot be serious.
Whenever you buy a graphics Card you get a bunch of games bundled with it. and every computer has a graphics card.

[bousozoku]

If you don't buy games for Macs, it certainly helps convince the developers that there is no market on Mac for games. Development money is put into spots where they money will be effective.

It's true that an 800 MHz iBook is not the best machine at playing games, but some of the ports are particularly bad, due to emulating DirectX features, rather than being written for OpenGL and Mac OS X networking. UT2003 is not well written, but if you read the requirements, it doesn't even play well with a 867 MHz 12 inch PowerBook and they say that it's not recommended.

I would suggest that, instead of telling us about it, since most of us can't do anything about it, you write the publishers and/or the developers. If they know you've purchased the game, they should be more willing to note troubles and pass them back to development. It might help this time, or it might help next time. Saying nothing to them tells them that they've done well, even when they haven't.

[Rezet]

The game that I want to see on a mac right now is Homeworld 2.
Cmon MacSoft, get ths thing over here... :D

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Do you mind if I laugh at that statment and drop onto the floor in a state of Histaria. You cannot be serious.
Whenever you buy a graphics Card you get a bunch of games bundled with it. and every computer has a graphics card.

First of all, learn how to spell "hysteria". :p Seriously though, you are correct - graphics cards come bundled with games. And every computer has a graphics card in it. Wow, that's pretty observant of you. And also that's completely irrelevant to my comment - well done on that! :rolleyes:

As I said in the statement you quoted from my post, the pro market is larger than the gamer market. I am referring to the amount of money spent on pro software as opposed to games. When you have Hollywood production studios buying multiple copies of FCP, Shake, DVD Studio Pro, etc., thousands of professionals in the graphic design industry buying copies of Photoshop and all the other Adobe products, not to mention Macromedia software, etc., and all for hundreds and thousands of dollars per copy, the gaming industry does not come close. $50 a game? $200 a console? Nice try. I have nothing against the gaming industry, or gamers, I'm just stating the facts.

The US Army is the largest purchaser of software in the world. Are they buying games, or professional software? I'll say it again, the professional market is larger than the gaming market, and this is what Apple caters towards. Virginia Tech didn't buy 1100 G5s to play massive multiplayer UT2003 with. (Although that would be cool....) :cool:

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by bousozoku
If you don't buy games for Macs, it certainly helps convince the developers that there is no market on Mac for games. Development money is put into spots where they money will be effective.

I would suggest that, instead of telling us about it, since most of us can't do anything about it, you write the publishers and/or the developers. If they know you've purchased the game, they should be more willing to note troubles and pass them back to development. It might help this time, or it might help next time. Saying nothing to them tells them that they've done well, even when they haven't.

Well put - I couldn't have said it better myself! You need to make your feedback, comments and suggestions known to the proper people or nothing will ever get done.

[scem0]

To anyone saying 'get a PC' please know that that is solving no problems.

He isn't saying 'there are no computers that play games well'. He is saying that Macs don't play games well. If he got a PC he would be a happy gaming-wise but that wouldn't solve any problems on the mac side of things.

He is completely and utterly correct. But he is also correct in saying that Apple should do something about this. Most guys I know (I'm 15, and so are most of the guys I know) hate apple. Most have never used a Mac also... :rolleyes:. Most of them are gamers, and if they ever used a Mac their opinions wouldn't change because Macs suck vs PCs when it comes to gaming. If Apple could at least compete with PCs when it comes to gaming then maybe the guys im talking about could actually consider getting a Mac.

So, aldo, everything you said was correct.

scem0

[Horrortaxi]

I might be out of the demographic for this discussion. I am old enough that most of my computer use is for practical purposes--I use a computer to get work done and I don't have much time for games. When I do get the time I turn to my PS2. My Macs are perfect for getting work done--stable, reliable, powerful, simple to use. I am fairly happy with the state of Mac gaming. I'm patient enough to wait 6 months for the Mac version of a game and I don't care about huge selection since I don't have much time to play. Games are not a priority for me.

I guess what I'm getting at is the gamer demographic doesn't seem to match the Mac demographic and I don't see a reason for Apple to try to cater to that crowd. I agree with the person saying the money is in the pro market.

What do they say? Unix for stability, Linux for development, Mac for productivity, Playstation for games, Windows for solitaire. Sounds good to me.

[Squire]

For those of you doubting ~Shard~'s comments, read this. (I bolded the most relevant info.):

Squire

(from http://www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item.asp?nid=2635)

1.30.2003 9:22:38 PM
Sales of Console and Computer Video Game Software Set New Record in 2002

by Joseph Moran

Data released by market research firm NPD Funworld indicates that total dollar sales of video game hardware, software, and accessories reached a record level $10.3 billion in 2002. The figure represents a 10% increase over the 2001 figure of $9.4 billion.

For 2002, software sales rose 21% on a dollar basis and 15% on unit basis. Unit volume of video game consoles also rose 10% last year, even as sales on a dollar basis fell from $3.7 billion to $3.5 billion as a result of significant price cuts by all three console makers last year.

NPD also noted that 15% of software revenue for consoles from August to December was for games playable online. The Playstation 2, Xbox, and GameCube all introduced online capability in that timeframe.

As expected, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City from Take-Two Interactive led all console video games in sales based on unit volume for 2002. Its predecessor Grand Theft Auto 3 was the number one seller in 2001 and occupied the number two spot this year.

According to NPDFunworld, the top 10 console video games in 2002 were:


Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Rockstar Games (PS2)
Grand Theft Auto 3, Rockstar Games (PS2)
Madden Football 2003, Electronic Arts (PS2)
Super Mario Advance 2, Nintendo (Game Boy Advance)
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec, Sony Computer Entertainment (PS2)
Medal Honor Frontline, Electronic Arts (PS2)
Spider-Man: The Movie, Activision (PS2)
Kingdom Hearts, SquareSoft
Halo, Microsoft (Xbox)
Super Mario Sunshine, Nintendo (GameCube)



In addition, 3 of the top 10 PC software titles in 2002, three were entertainment related¡ªin the number 9 position was Warcraft III Reign of Chaos from Vivendi Universal, and two expansion packs for Electronic Arts¡¯ ¡°The Sims¡± occupied the 5 and 7 spots, respectively.

[m4rc]

I use a PC at work as the software we need is PC only - have tried running it on VPC but as it works off of the server constantly there were just too many issues.

I have my beloved POwerBook for home, and for playing Championship Manager - can't wait for 03/04 to be release on Friday, but that's beside the point.

I have my XBox for games. If I want to play any other games, I kick my son out of his room and use his PS2 or Game Cube!

As much as I would like more games on the Mac, I have to admit it is just so easy to chuck a disc into a console and play, and that is what consoles are designed for. Don't know about the States, but over here if the 3 consoles got any cheaper they would be giving them away!

Marc

[Doraemon]

>> I have a PC. I expect OSX to also work well with games, too.


>> Well, I've tried a few Mac games out, and Warcraft 3 is a dang good port. However, UT 2003 doesn't work on my powerbook, which is better specced than my second PC - UT2k3 works fine on that.

True. UT2k3 is a pretty sloppy port. But take Q3A, for instance.

>> Well everyone online behind a router can't get it to work, so I'm unwhilling to spend hours monitoring packets and seeing where they are going.

I don't have Age of Mythology, but I have Age of Empires II and it always worked behind my Vigor 2200E router. It might be a different story, but since both are developed by Ensembles Studios and MacSoft I guess it's comparable.


>> Well, it wouldn't be too much work to hack a 'samba' style port of it. It works half way there - the Mac can see PC hosted games, but not join them. I think the porters (new use of old word?) have just been lazy - DirectPlay is the least complex of all the Direct* components.

It's not a question of difficulty, but of licence.

>> You are contradicting yourself... people port games to the mac, so people must play them. Apple advertises it heavily in the iBook section of their website.

I can't see where I am comtradicting myself. The fact, that Apple advertises Mac games, doesn't mean that it's a wise choise to use your Mac for gaming. And I have explained why the games are more expensive than PC games.


>> No, I mean getting developers signed up to publish them through Apple (the Mac version of it at least). Apple would provide support for OSX programming, and some sort of extras for Mac people, Like MS insists for XBox ports (extra levels, skins, weapons etc).

Apple does that to some degree. For instance I read that Apple is helping the guys who work on the the new MacOS X port for Unreal Tournament (original), which is currently being developed.
But Apple doesn't force developers to do so. And I think that's a good thing.


>> Also, when I think about it, Apple producing games themselves really isn't that bad idea. Apple is obviously wanting to go after the 'cool' crowd with the iPod, so why not make a kickass game only for the Mac? I'm sure if it was good enough it would get a hellofalot of intrest from the PC gaming users, just like iTunes is now - infact I only looked seriously at purchasing my iBook due to iTunes.

You can't compare iTMS and iPod with games.
Why would someone who wants to use this computer primarily for gaming buy a computer that cost double and performs half?
If Apple developes Mac-only games that are supposed to make PC users switch, they also need appropriate hardware. And starting to develope hardware with the aim to become a gaming platform is not a good idea. Why? Because Apple developed a gaming console (Pippin (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=misc&subpage=pippin)) before, and it was a complete failure. If you want to establish yourself in the gaming market you need lots of money (see Microsoft) or you will not stand a chance against Nintendo, Sony or MS.
Besides, I also feel that it's not a good thing when the company, which produces hardware, OS, most of the software everyone uses on a daily basis, starts developing games, too. The idea of competition and lots of different developers dies there. And as we all learned from the Windows and Linux platform, the number of independent developers make a platform successful.


Aside from that I really think it's ridiculous to complain about gaming when you have an iBook G3. Try games like UT 2k3 on a PC laptop. It won't be much fun either.
The iBook is just inappropriate for gaming. If you want gaming on a Mac, get a G5 with a Radeon 9800. I promise, you won't complain about performance! ;)

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
I might be out of the demographic for this discussion. I am old enough that most of my computer use is for practical purposes--I use a computer to get work done and I don't have much time for games. When I do get the time I turn to my PS2. My Macs are perfect for getting work done--stable, reliable, powerful, simple to use. I am fairly happy with the state of Mac gaming. I'm patient enough to wait 6 months for the Mac version of a game and I don't care about huge selection since I don't have much time to play. Games are not a priority for me.

I guess what I'm getting at is the gamer demographic doesn't seem to match the Mac demographic and I don't see a reason for Apple to try to cater to that crowd. I agree with the person saying the money is in the pro market.

Thanks, Horrortaxi, this is exactly what I was saying in my posts. I am not enough of a gamer to care about getting a game the second it is released on other systems, or having “the latest and greatest”. A game is a game, and if I have to wait 6 months to play it, so be it. As an example, I bought Starcraft a whole year and a half after it was released, and still play it, as it is one of my favorite games – I could care less if it’s old or outdated. But that’s just me – I don’t have time for games, and use my computer for real work. I have a PS2 if I ever want to play a game some time, even then I own all of 5 games for it. ;) As I said though, that’s just me.

But getting back to my point, the gaming demographic does not match the Mac demographic, and Apple realizes the money is in the Pro market, just like I stated in my previous post.

I think Horrortaxi put it best:


What do they say? Unix for stability, Linux for development, Mac for productivity, Playstation for games, Windows for solitaire. Sounds good to me.


If you want to play games, buy a console or a PC. Macs simply aren’t geared towards gamers, like it or not. They have their place, their specialties, and their strengths, just as PCs, consoles, PDAs, Sun boxes and Crays have. Would I like to see that change? Sure I would – I wish all the best for Apple – but that’s just simply not Apple’s focus right now. Who knows, maybe they’ll be like Sony in the future, who have moved from Home Entertainment to consoles to Computers. The iPod is a good start...

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Squire
For those of you doubting ~Shard~'s comments, read this. (I bolded the most relevant info.):
Thanks for the information Squire.

Originally posted by Squire
Data released by market research firm NPD Funworld indicates that total dollar sales of video game hardware, software, and accessories reached a record level $10.3 billion in 2002. The figure represents a 10% increase over the 2001 figure of $9.4 billion.

For 2002, software sales rose 21% on a dollar basis and 15% on unit basis. Unit volume of video game consoles also rose 10% last year, even as sales on a dollar basis fell from $3.7 billion to $3.5 billion as a result of significant price cuts by all three console makers last year.

NPD also noted that 15% of software revenue for consoles from August to December was for games playable online. The Playstation 2, Xbox, and GameCube all introduced online capability in that timeframe.



All I read from this is that video game hardware, games, accessories, etc. were up a lot in 2002. Where does this compare video game sales to all other software sales, i.e. the pro market? You see, there isn’t any comparison whatsoever, until this final statement:

Originally posted by Squire
In addition, 3 of the top 10 PC software titles in 2002, three were entertainment related¡ªin the number 9 position was Warcraft III Reign of Chaos from Vivendi Universal, and two expansion packs for Electronic Arts¡¯ ¡°The Sims¡± occupied the 5 and 7 spots, respectively.


See - the article says 30% of the top PC software titles for 2002 were games. What about the other 70%? Not game related, that’s what! And keep in mind this is only PC software, and does not include hardware, accessories, etc. for PCs or for any other platform, and does not include software for any other platform as well (i.e. Mac) – all these contribute even more to the "Pro market" (or whatever you want to call it). Plus, these games that cracked the top 10 only hit numbers 5, 7 and 9.

Thanks again for the article Squire.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by etoiles
Basically you are saying that you need to buy a badass Mac to enjoy Mac gaming, and that is exactly the problem.

Play the same games on PC and Mac (same config) and see why some people here are a bit frustrated...;)

Who is to blame ? Bad ports ? Bad graphic drivers ? who is to blame is motorola for not advancing the clock in the G4 and apple for letting it happen. i to have been frustrated with apple stuck in this position by motorola. they just came out with a 867 ibook? they were making 867 g4s 2 years ago and that is pathetic. i have recently gone to 1.33 g4 and that isnt really enough. Motorola simply sucks and gaming needs clocks- the one thing moto refuses to advance so the sooner the G5 gets in all products the better. there isnt anything wrong with the ibook except its 2 year old g4.

[aldo]

Ok, lots of good discussion going on here and I'm pleased to see at least one person that agrees with me here. I maybe shouldn't of phrased the title as it is, but thats my opinion on the current state of the gaming industry.

1. While I agree that this iBook is not a good choice for gaming, the gaming hardware (Radeon 7500) is far far superior to most PC laptops.

However, what I'm saying is that if I bundled all this hardware in this iBook into a PC, (obviously choosing a x86 CPU), and run windows (shudder) on it, I'd be able to get a much higher performance.

What I want to know, is why is this? DirectX isn't really a big challenge to leap over if you have 10 months and a copy of the source code. Most of the time developing games today is spent on level design, model and graphic design and sound. If you look at the credits of a game nowadays, only about 10-15% of the game team are actually programmers.

As for 'DirectPlay is a question of license', thats not what I mean. I mean it would probably be very easy to just make a DirectPlay daemon of some sort which would just interpert the packets that are flying back and forth. DirectPlay really is very trivial, all it does is provide a unified access to the networking hardware (and since OSX has VERY good networking support that shouldn't take 2 minutes) and also BS features that MS likes to crop up everywhere, such as one click game launching from MSN messenger. DirectPlay, simply handles the connection details. The rest of the connection just runs of plain old TCP. If they have ported the engine properly (which I'm betting is the real reason why they couldnt do this) then i bet it wouldn't take an experienced developer a week to port that over nearly perfectly.

[bousozoku]

Even if OpenPlay (networking), OpenAL (audio), OpenGL (video), and HID (input devices) technologies were used in both, Macs would still be at a disadvantage for games initially created on a PC. Since data on x86 machines is encoded backwards to the rest of computers (Apple, IBM, Sun, etc.), Macs must swap bytes to be able to read files and network transfers which were created for the PC. Faster drives have made it less of an issue, but it is still an issue.

I shouldn't have to say this ;) but two minute conversions of anything lack precision and depth. It would more than likely be a business month before DirectPlay was ported correctly to Mac OS X. OpenPlay could be used instead, on both machines.

[abhishekit]

well...with the heated (initially) discussion goin on, i would like to post my view..I have a very modest ibook..g4, 256mb ram..radeon 9200...i hv played warcraft, n nowadays i m playin medal of honor allied assault online multiplayer...and i must say i am very much impressed..
as said earlier, i was not expecting much ..but the game runs perfect...just perfect...n i think its a pretty heavy game..
so i m cool...:)
cheers

abhi

[Frohickey]

Pretty much any new game, new game as in just released for the platform, not a new game in all of the platforms will run you $50. Seems that companies have decided that $50 is one game unit. ;)

Things go down as the game ages, when you can get some down to $20 or less at the Frys or CompUSA bargain rack. But these are older games that have lost some of their luster as time went on.

As to gaming on the Mac, there are ample games on the Mac to drive you anti-social. You don't get a port of every PC game out there, but most of the ports are good ports. Remember, these are porting companies, and not the game developers themselves, so their skill in porting is related to the support they get from the game developer company.

Westlake Interactive does a pretty good job, IMHO. MacPlay does too.

G5 does rock for Mac gaming. Even some classic games are more playable on the G5. But these are older games that you might not be interested in.

As to Apple developing games, so far, that doesn't seem to be in the card. iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and other iLife apps are pretty much applications where there is no other competition in the Mac market. It would be a bad idea to have Apple competing against the porting houses, because with Apple's size, it can actually suck the oxygen from these smaller companies.

Publishing and distributing games on the other hand can help, though the clients of the porting houses can do that already, and are better suited to doing so. About the only ones that would benefit for Apple to publish/distribute games would be the small game developers, and most of these don't have that good of a track record for making good games.

Mac and PC multiplayer games are also hit or miss. You have the big houses like Blizzard that write their own networking code, and they make sure the Mac and the PC plays together. They also tend to come out with Mac and PC versions simultaneously. Blizzard is a GOOD company, IMO. Very good.

Others don't have the luxury. Networking code is not that easy to write, and Microsoft has taken the grunt work out of it via DirectPlay, and as others have said, this is Winders only. ;)

[robotrenegade]

I play war craft 3 and Unreal 2003 on my G5 and every runs great. ATI 9800 rocks ass!

[ComputerWizard]

Originally posted by aldo
My ibook is a 800mhz G3, 640mb RAM, Radeon 7500 32mb. While not a top spec, more than good enough for low end game of UT2k on the PC. However, it's a colmplete dog on OSX - slow as crap.


Well, maybe you should have checked the system requirements before purchasing Unreal Tournament 2003.

System Requirements:
Macintosh OSX v10.2.6 or higher, 700Mhz G4 processor or faster (except 12" powerbook manufactured in 2003) , 256MB RAM, 3GB hard disk space, 32MB ATI Radeon or Nvidia GeForce 2 or faster. Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported. 33.6 Kbps or faster modem and and internet connection are required for on-line play.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by aldo
Gaming on Mac sucks ass!


Well, what can you say to that? You just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

:rolleyes:

[Rezet]

Originally posted by ComputerWizard
Well, maybe you should have checked the system requirements before purchasing Unreal Tournament 2003.

System Requirements:
Macintosh OSX v10.2.6 or higher, 700Mhz G4 processor or faster (except 12" powerbook manufactured in 2003) , 256MB RAM, 3GB hard disk space, 32MB ATI Radeon or Nvidia GeForce 2 or faster. Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported. 33.6 Kbps or faster modem and and internet connection are required for on-line play.

I have a 1.8 G5; 1.5GB Ram and ATi 9600Pro. All settings set on highest in UT2003 and I have no problems what-so-ever. But I heard people wirh 1.25Ghz G4s bitch about UT2003 performance even on lower settings...

[ComputerWizard]

Originally posted by Rezet
I have a 1.8 G5; 1.5GB Ram and ATi 9600Pro. All settings set on highest in UT2003 and I have no problems what-so-ever. But I heard people wirh 1.25Ghz G4s bitch about UT2003 performance even on lower settings...


I have a 1.25Ghz Powerbook G4, 2GB Ram, 5400 RPM 80GB Hard Drive. Unreal Tournament 2003 runs great on it with the all of the settings set on the highest.

[Shekky_ca]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
[B]The simple fact is that, like it or not, Macs are not made to cater to the gamer market.[B]

your Not 100% true on that.

I'm a Mac Gamer I buy my mac for the simple reason for games.

PC's may have more games but The Stability of the operating systems piss me off most. I don't have the patience for a PC... Not to mention Plug n Play is way better on a mac then on a PC

Developers such as Ambrosia cater to the mac gaming market then port there games over to the PC...

I've got an old iMac and some pretty hardware sucking games like GhR and RTCW, my minimum system requirements are well below what there games ask of my computer...

Yet both games run pretty well on my computer

The Newer more powerful computers are way better then what my computer can handle so I imagine all these games could run on all these new systems, If you can configure the options right.

[Horrortaxi]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
See - the article says 30% of the top PC software titles for 2002 were games. What about the other 70%? Not game related, that’s what!

I'll bet any amount of money the other 70% looked about like this: Microsoft Windows XP Home, Microsoft Windows XP Pro, Microsoft Office XP, Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security, Turbo Tax. That's usually what the top sellers list looks like.

By the way, MOHAA/Spearhead both run great on my 700mhz iBook apart from loading maps slowly. Unreal 2003 runs fine on my 1ghz G4 with nothing turned down.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Shekky_ca
your Not 100% true on that.

I'm a Mac Gamer I buy my mac for the simple reason for games.

PC's may have more games but The Stability of the operating systems piss me off most. I don't have the patience for a PC... Not to mention Plug n Play is way better on a mac then on a PC

Developers such as Ambrosia cater to the mac gaming market then port there games over to the PC...

I've got an old iMac and some pretty hardware sucking games like GhR and RTCW, my minimum system requirements are well below what there games ask of my computer...

Yet both games run pretty well on my computer

The Newer more powerful computers are way better then what my computer can handle so I imagine all these games could run on all these new systems, If you can configure the options right.

You're absolutely right - all I meant was that Mac doesn't cater (i.e. bend over backwards) to the gamer market. Perhaps I chose the wrong words, but I definitely agree with you.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
I'll bet any amount of money the other 70% looked about like this: Microsoft Windows XP Home, Microsoft Windows XP Pro, Microsoft Office XP, Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security, Turbo Tax. That's usually what the top sellers list looks like.

Yep, exactly my thoughts too - and none of them games! Again, just proving the point...

[Rezet]

Originally posted by ComputerWizard
I have a 1.25Ghz Powerbook G4, 2GB Ram, 5400 RPM 80GB Hard Drive. Unreal Tournament 2003 runs great on it with the all of the settings set on the highest.

i dont believe you. You ar running UT2003 1280x1024x32 with all details on highest and all shadows on.. on a powerbook, and telling me its fine?
Even if it is, fine in a single player game with one bot, it wont be fine in on a big map. launch 16ppls map with 15 bots or players. In console type: "stat fps"
and tell me how many fps you get. Cuz i have this feeling you are BS me.
My G5 gets:
Min: 25
Avg: 45
Max: 90

[Counterfit]

I don't think he's running 1280x1024. Mostly because the 15" PB maxes at 1280x854.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by Counterfit
I don't think he's running 1280x1024. Mostly because the 15" PB maxes at 1280x854.

Well, on external monitor it can be even higher. But even on 1280x854... i still dont buy it.

[bousozoku]

I think that's pretty hard to believe too.

I have a dual G4/800 and I don't have the settings turned up and it works on the outdoor venues, but great is hardly the adjective I would use to describe the performance. It is quite acceptable though and with the latest patch, a bit better.

[roinoir]

while i disagree with the statement that "gaming on a mac sucks ass", i do think that it lags far behind gaming on a PC.
i also completely disagree with people dismissing this problem with "macs aren't made for gaming......", "people use macs for serious work and don't have time for games....." , " if u want to play games get a PC..." etc.
many people who use their computers mainly for "real work", also use them for many other different thing. for example, they enjoy taking a break when they have the time, (and most people do), and launch a game, preferably a "state of the art" one, the one everybody is talking about.
while this is very well possible on a PC, a mac user will have to settle for playing a 2 year old game on his break, and talk to no one about it.:)
or...let's say your not a gamer but u've just finished playing a game that u really liked, and you're delighted to find out that a sequel is in the works. only problem is : there is no plan for a mac version at this stage...... or the mac version is scheduled for Q4 of the millennium.... etc.

we all agree that macs have many advantages over PCs (or else we wouldn't be using them), but all are arguable and somewhat unclear.
the advantage of using a PC when it comes to gaming is undebatable.

apple (and other forces) have managed to keep the mac up to date with computing standards and compatibility in pretty much every other area, from network protocols to pro video and audio production. there is no reason why the mac should lag so far behind when it comes to games.

apple should definitely do something about it, but what ???

personally, i think apple should put together a kickass gaming console based on the G5 processor and OS X. a console that can run games like no other products on the market....etc. (apple is very capable of such a thing). this should get many developers on board. naturally the condole titles will be very easy to port to the mac :)

but this is just a crazy idea that will probably never happen..........

[ComputerWizard]

Originally posted by Rezet
i dont believe you. You ar running UT2003 1280x1024x32 with all details on highest and all shadows on.. on a powerbook, and telling me its fine?
Even if it is, fine in a single player game with one bot, it wont be fine in on a big map. launch 16ppls map with 15 bots or players. In console type: "stat fps"
and tell me how many fps you get. Cuz i have this feeling you are BS me.
My G5 gets:
Min: 25
Avg: 45
Max: 90
I'm serious, it does run great. Could you explain in more detail how to test the framerates on it. I will if you tell me how to.

[ComputerWizard]

Originally posted by Rezet
Well, on external monitor it can be even higher. But even on 1280x854... i still dont buy it.
I am running it at 1280x854, but the game still runs great. I have tested the frame rates in the past, although I have forgotten how to do this.

[ComputerWizard]

I found the frame rates that I tested on it a few weeks ago. I did the test that was discussed in one of the threads on this forum, although I can't find it now. These are the results of the two times that I tested unreal tournament 2003. Actually, I even had some small menu bar programs running during this test, so if I ran it again it might be a little higher.

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
MacOS 10.3.1
Unknown CPU @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9600 OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

26.129732 / 60.379517 / 211.270081 fps rand[777094225]
Score = 58.969978




UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
MacOS 10.3.1
Unknown CPU @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9600 OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

26.375835 / 60.889256 / 195.923782 fps rand[777094225]
Score = 59.405670

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by aldo
Ok, lots of good discussion going on here and I'm pleased to see at least one person that agrees with me here. I maybe shouldn't of phrased the title as it is, but thats my opinion on the current state of the gaming industry.

1. While I agree that this iBook is not a good choice for gaming, the gaming hardware (Radeon 7500) is far far superior to most PC laptops.

However, what I'm saying is that if I bundled all this hardware in this iBook into a PC, (obviously choosing a x86 CPU), and run windows (shudder) on it, I'd be able to get a much higher performance.

What I want to know, is why is this? DirectX isn't really a big challenge to leap over if you have 10 months and a copy of the source code. Most of the time developing games today is spent on level design, model and graphic design and sound. If you look at the credits of a game nowadays, only about 10-15% of the game team are actually programmers.

As for 'DirectPlay is a question of license', thats not what I mean. I mean it would probably be very easy to just make a DirectPlay daemon of some sort which would just interpert the packets that are flying back and forth. DirectPlay really is very trivial, all it does is provide a unified access to the networking hardware (and since OSX has VERY good networking support that shouldn't take 2 minutes) and also BS features that MS likes to crop up everywhere, such as one click game launching from MSN messenger. DirectPlay, simply handles the connection details. The rest of the connection just runs of plain old TCP. If they have ported the engine properly (which I'm betting is the real reason why they couldnt do this) then i bet it wouldn't take an experienced developer a week to port that over nearly perfectly.

My P4M laptop with the same RADEON 7500 runs Quake 3 at 155fps in 10*7 max detail. Plays HALO fine. UT2k3 in high detail, Mafia at max, Fleelancer at max. I think a Mac laptop should crush my PC, especially with a 9600 in it.

Maybe the devs are partly responsible for the poor ports, but economics means they only have so much time to finish. If they spend too much time making the game run better, they won't make any money in the port.

id and Blizzard games seem to run comparably on similar hardware (whether mac or PC). I guess that lends support to those that blame the devs.

I enjoyed playing the latest PC games on my PC laptop, I want to enjoy the latest Mac games on a new PowerBook.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ComputerWizard
I found the frame rates that I tested on it a few weeks ago. I did the test that was discussed in one of the threads on this forum, although I can't find it now. These are the results of the two times that I tested unreal tournament 2003. Actually, I even had some small menu bar programs running during this test, so if I ran it again it might be a little higher.

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
MacOS 10.3.1
Unknown CPU @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9600 OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

26.129732 / 60.379517 / 211.270081 fps rand[777094225]
Score = 58.969978




UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
MacOS 10.3.1
Unknown CPU @ 1249 MHz
ATI Radeon 9600 OpenGL Engine

dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

26.375835 / 60.889256 / 195.923782 fps rand[777094225]
Score = 59.405670

These scores are terrible for a flyby. This means your botmatch scores are well under 30fps. I agree with the people that called you a liar, because I can't imagine anyone thinking less than 24fps is smooth. Your settings are high I can't figure out how the framerates would be so good.

[ComputerWizard]

Originally posted by lewdvig
These scores are terrible for a flyby. This means your botmatch scores are well under 30fps. I agree with the people that called you a liar.

I'm sorry, I must have been misinterpreting the results of the test. I was not purposely lying, I just must have misunderstood how to measure the frame-rates of the game. I still think that the game runs well enough to play it with all of the settings on the highest, and in my opinion the graphics are still amazing, as the game really does have great graphics. I understand that most people would probably not run the game on this computer with all of the settings on the highest, its just my opinion that the game runs well enough on these settings, meaning that it is good enough for me. Regardless of how bad they actually may be compared to some other, faster computers. I don't understand what you mean. What are botmatch scores, and what is a flyby?

[lewdvig]

In order to produce these scores you needed to select from a series of benchmark scripts with the name of the map and the type of play in the demo.

There are two types: flyby and botmatch

The flyby is a videocard test really, as all that happens in this demo is a flight through the map with no action or players.

Botmatch is a system test. In addition to the fly by, the demo consists of a game that is taking place between computer controlled players and all the physics are turned on. This stressed teh system pretty good. A score with a min framerate of over thirty usually means a the game runs decent. An _average_ of 30 or lower means you are watching a slide show.

I have similar hardware and I find that the game is super choppy. I don't know how you could miss it. You have a stronger stomach than me, because less than 20 fps and I get sick.

[Rezet]

Originally posted by lewdvig
In order to produce these scores you needed to select from a series of benchmark scripts with the name of the map and the type of play in the demo.

There are two types: flyby and botmatch

The flyby is a videocard test really, as all that happens in this demo is a flight through the map with no action or players.

Botmatch is a system test. In addition to the fly by, the demo consists of a game that is taking place between computer controlled players and all the physics are turned on. This stressed teh system pretty good. A score with a min framerate of over thirty usually means a the game runs decent. An _average_ of 30 or lower means you are watching a slide show.

I have similar hardware and I find that the game is super choppy. I don't know how you could miss it. Maybe you are sight impaired?

Yea, exactly. Just go ahead and launch a map that sfits 16 players. and let in about 12 bots atleast. Then in console type: stat fps
and try playing. FPS 40+ good = green. 30+ acceptable = yellow
20+ Below average = purple.
10+poor (slide show) = red.

On my G5, with 1280x1024x32 with details on NORMAL. On maps with 12 bots or so fps is about:
Min: 21
Avg: 35
Max: 58

Which is very bad and unplayable. Because like its been said earlier, once frame rate drops less than 30, u notice lag.
So I was like: either this guy got super charged Laptop that beat G5's or my G5 is slower than G4 laptop. :p


For a laptop that you have, to play normally with bots and online take my suggestion and set your settings as follows: Resolution 800x600x16
Details: World Detail: High
Textures: Normal
Character models: normal-high
Physics: normal-high

It should perform well then.

[slipper]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
The simple fact is that, like it or not, Macs are not made to cater to the gamer market.

new to this post but heres my opinion. if this quote is true, apple better start catering a little more to the gaming market. ever since ive known of apple, they have been contributing greatly to the education market from elementry education to higher education. guess what age group this is! and guess what they like to do when not studying.
Originally posted by Doraemon
1. If you wanna play games, get a PC.

IMO i have to agree with this statement which makes me disapointed. gaming is ok, not bad on macs however small thing like how the right button on the mouse is still not fully intergrated to macs well thats what i noticed when playing a few games. for instance starcraft allows me to incorporate the use of the right button on the mouse in the preferences but it still doesnt work. using the apple button for ever move slows you down when playing. i dont play much games from this is just what i noticed

[lewdvig]

And, as a 32 year old dude who grew up on Apple IIs in school I can say that those kids are likely to keep gaming after they stop studying and finish school.

I maybe spend 2-3 hours a week watching TV. Reading news online or gaming is way more interesting.

I agree, Apple should take our needs more seriously.

[Declan]

I have just switched after 19 yrs a PC user/gamer, and gaming on the Mac was my only concern but having switched i am happy to say gaming on the Mac doesn't suck its better than i thought, and ever game thats worth playing is available, ok you may need to wait a little longer but the delay seems to get shorter for ported games, and generally the compatibility with hardware is better, compared to the millions of combinations that cause PC gaming problems.
For me gaming on the Mac is great, the best games are available and its gonna get better! with the exception of Half Life, played, Half Life 2, o well i have an XBOX and PS most of the time developing games is spent designing a gaming engine/framework, thats why companies like to buy game engines of companies like ID Sofware, most of the work done.

[AppleMatt]

Just to check, everyone running UT2003 has updated with the latest patch?

AppleMatt

[lewdvig]

Yeah, it's definitely worth the download. It still does not make the game playable of my MDD. Should have just kept my dually Sawtooth.

[Squozen]

Meh... UT2k3 was fine on my 1.25Ghz PB with all settings maxed too.. granted it was only 8 bots or so, but it was very playable. I'm 30, so I'm already too old to be considered part of the target audience. :)

[ITR 81]

I'm 25 and I really don't play games any more on computers. Most of my gaming is now done on a console.

Only a few games even interest me on the PC or the Mac and most them are strat based games or simulator type game, but I could careless about the rest.

Online gaming with consoles will continue to grow next yr and I don't think it will ever stop. Most my friends have stopped using their PC for online play now and have went pretty much all console online play now.

I'll be buy a new PM next spring but the only games I'll buy for it will be strat or sim. type games. Because I plan on buying the new Nintendo console coming out next yr and going online with it.

Then the PS3 when it comes out in 05 or 06'.