Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Arrives for Mac on Steam
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Am I the only one that finds very little interest in playing games on a computer? Don't get me wrong, I like my PS3 and everything. I just never enjoy sitting at my computer playing games. Unless it's something like Minecraft that could really only be played on a computer.
I have a 17' 2010 MBP. It runs tf2 fine on native resolution. Stop trolling...
I don't play enough games to make a dedicated game console worth it. Besides, I've been told the console versions of most games are not as good as the computer versions with keyboards and mice. Also, my mini is a HTPC and is hooked up to my 40" sony. So it can do everything: DVR, Slingbox (eyeTV), file server, home security, and I've been thinking of setting up a vpn through it, but my bandwidth will suffer greatly unless I switch to fios.
He has stopped trolling.
It seems he was banned a few hours ago.
The game runs great on my iMac. Everything on maximum settings, and running at 60fps constantly with vsync on.
Good job.
These are the same as the Windows requirements except that the Windows version requires a way better GPU. And I really, really hate it when I try to play a game and get an error about me having the wrong kind of GPU.
Windows requirements:
Counter Strike Global Offensive system requirements (minimum)
CPU: 3GHz single-core Intel or AMD processor
RAM: 1GB for Windows XP, 2GB for Windows Vista / Windows 7
Graphics: DirectX 9 compatible 256 MB graphics card, Nvidia 8000 series or AMD 3000 series.
Operating system: Windows XP SP2
DirectX compatible sound card
6 GB of hard drive space
--
Counter Strike Global Offensive System Requirements (recommended)
CPU: Dual core Intel or AMD processor
RAM: 1GB for Windows XP, 2GB for Windows Vista/7
Graphics: DirectX 10 compatible 512 MB graphics card, Nvidia 400 series or AMD 5000 series.
Operating system: Windows 7 64-bit
DirectX compatible sound card
6 GB of hard drive space
----------
Something is wrong then. Or you are trolling. Actually, after reading what he said before, this banned guy was trolling. Battlefield (lame game) fans usually don't like Macs. And I took a quick glance at some of his other posts and saw stuff like "iSheep" and "d00dman macs suck for gaming. There's nothing sadder on the Internet than a Mac-hater on a Mac forum (except for a hacker or virus-maker).
----------
The GPU requirements are much lower. And if I actually wanted to play tasteless war games instead of trying to make some pointless Objective-C programs, I'd be all set for these. 8 x 2.8GHz cores can handle anything, and 4GB RAM is pretty good.
----------
I know, seriously! This is why I like Nintendo so much. I dislike violent shooting games not because they're inappropriate for little kids but because they're so dull, brainless, and boring. Paper Mario and Windwaker for GameCube, on the other hand, have enough action, plenty of thinking/puzzles, and are really exciting and rewarding. And Super Smash Bros Melee is one of the most strategy-based fighting games ever. Too bad there's the Wii with its nice hardware but suckish games instead of a GameCube II. Nintendo knew how to make great games with relatively bad graphics on weak hardware, the GameCube.
----------
Same here. I also play Age of Empires II and a few other games that could only be played well on a Mac. I played Team Fortress 2 a little and instantly hated using my keyboard/mouse as game controllers (and the game itself, which is pretty lame).
Last edited:
I'm running it on my 2011 MBP with the stupid intel HD3000 graphics card, 4GB ram and i5 2.4ghz and it seems to run well.
Incorrect the best gaming experience was Halo 2 when everyone made and played wacky and crazy custom games.
50-70fps on 16:10 on 1680x1050 resolution which is kinda bad performance and badly ported game to MAC from WIN
Overview of the game:
-half made (they just switched beta to t he final)
-no silencers on CTs, no mp5
-HE grenades too weak
-no sprays aka signatures
-play with friends->team matchmaking it wont lock you on same team with your friends that queue with you -> what the heck thsi is simple join same server as your friend like on CS:S...
-audio settings changed in options does not save to the config (permissions with config are not a problem)
-was hoping for 10 degrees more POV
-T models were hard to distinct from CTs in the start specially on de_dust
-love the recoil changes they did
-ak4 still one hits you
-binds using flashbang/smoke/he were removed?
Last edited:
Halo (in general) and 007 NightFire (XBOX) are the only multiplayer shooting games I like. Halo would really suck without the vehicles, but it's great with them. As for singleplayer shooting games, my favorites are Goldeneye 007 (N64), 007 NightFire (XBOX), and Agent Under Fire (XBOX). And I'm not a big James Bond fan, in case you're wondering.
----------
I really doubt you can tell the difference after 60FPS or even 50FPS. And my display can't even show anything higher than 60FPS due to the 60Hz refresh rate. As for the porting, is it a legit port or something semi-annoying in WINE?
Just so all you guys know, it runs very smoothly on my 2011 i5 MBA. I don't get how that one guy is claiming performance problems on an old MBP, even under Lion. The GPU isn't too bad to run the source engine if my HD 3K can do it.
fps
can you please tell me how many fps do you have?
For those wondering about running the game on a Macbook air. I have the summer 2012 model of the macbook air.
Specs are in my sig, it runs perfectly.
can you please tell me how many fps do you have?
Game runs pretty terribly on my 2010 MBP 13 (2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 320m). No matter what I put the settings / resolution at, I bounce back and forth from 20 to 70 FPS. This pretty much makes it unplayable, especially because it goes into the 20s when people are firing. Which is the worst possible time for the game to stutter. The fact that the settings don't affect it at all tells me that there is just something wrong with the port.. i.e. it's ******.
The matchmaking system is just bad. I'd say there's a pretty significant skill gap in the game 75% of the time (1 - 3 people way better than the rest), which shouldn't happen. As well, 75% of the time, one team absolutely crushes the other, which again, shouldn't happen. You can also change / choose teams from round to round, which generally results in the better players trying to stay together because winning is more fun. This is a bad idea in a matchmaking system.
Then the matchmaking system will throw you into a match with 100+ ping.. because the server is in Australia. Are you kidding me? So you have to quit a few times until you end up in a server nearer to you. Even if you manage that, you still might be thrown into a game where your team is losing 0-8 and you have at least 7 more rounds of domination to face.
The matchmaking system is just bad. I'd say there's a pretty significant skill gap in the game 75% of the time (1 - 3 people way better than the rest), which shouldn't happen. As well, 75% of the time, one team absolutely crushes the other, which again, shouldn't happen. You can also change / choose teams from round to round, which generally results in the better players trying to stay together because winning is more fun. This is a bad idea in a matchmaking system.
Then the matchmaking system will throw you into a match with 100+ ping.. because the server is in Australia. Are you kidding me? So you have to quit a few times until you end up in a server nearer to you. Even if you manage that, you still might be thrown into a game where your team is losing 0-8 and you have at least 7 more rounds of domination to face.
Will definitely give it a shot one I get home.
Haven't played CS since 1.5... It's definitely a cool FPS game!
Haven't played CS since 1.5... It's definitely a cool FPS game!
It is probably due to the large user base of machines with relatively weak GPU's. If the mac specs listed were higher a large number of users would be turned off buying it.
It all seems a buy cynical to me, we have seen that source titles already run slightly better under windows on the same hardware, and anyone who does actually try to run this on a 2400 series is in for a world of pain (headaches brought on by the stuttering frame rate).
Valve will know exactly what hardware the majority of their users will be running due to the statistics the Steam client sends back (if you let it)?