Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Arrives for Mac on Steam

[Athonline]

Originally Posted by munkery

Seems strange that PCs of equal spec to those lower spec Macs are excluded.

Arbitrarily forcing users of older Windows PC hardware still capable of running the software to upgrade despite still being capable of running the software.

That seems like something only Apple would be accused of doing.

It is due to resources management. OS X is a way more light OS than Windows and it is engineered to utilise CPU/Memory at 100% as Apple does both Hardware and Software in-house, unlike Windows cause of the different OEM brands out there the OS itself isn't optimised enough.
A good example to prove this is Adobe Photoshop, in my Macbook it just runs within 5-10 secs, in a gaming top-notch (better specced) laptop of a friend of mine, needs at list 30-45secs.

Actually a Mac can last you 3-4 years of extensive usage without the need of upgrading to a newer machine, while a Windows computer will probably need an upgrade in 1-2 years if you want to continue gaming or using resources heavy applications at ease.
It is actually really funny how iHaters call Macs expensive, when similar specced computers actually cost the pretty much the same -if not for some brands a little higher! Or people complain about Apple's annual upgrade when other computer manufactures upgrade their product lines 2 times a year or games such as Crysis are badly optimised to force people into upgrading.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by theineffablebob

You don't know what you're talking about. Valve is well known for constantly updating their Source engine, adding new features and optimizing it. They actually keep from using the latest technologies in order to allow people with older computers to play their games.

Counter-Strike: Source has gotten more resource intensive because Valve keeps updating the engine over the years. They added HDR, multi-core rendering, they updated to the Orange Box engine, added detail textures, added a dynamic shadow system, etc. They slowly add these things in so, unless you only upgrade your computer every 4 years or so, chances are you'll still be able to play the game just fine.

Yeah, i just played CS from the early betas back in the 90's. Of course i do not know what i am talking about, like the fact that CS didnt run on the source engine at all, but rather ran on GoldSrc, which in itself was essentially a modified Quake engine... obviously i just made that up. What do i know.

----------

Originally Posted by Jonze

I have a LAN session coming up at work for this game. Usually for a LAN session I have to put a copy of windows on my macbook. Will I be able to run the mac version and the others run a windows version?

I would be extremely surprised if that was not the case, given that it is a MP game.

[buckyballs]

Originally Posted by jurcek86

1. This is bad performance because i achieve better one on 6yo windows machine with worst configuraction up to 250fps.
I know HD4000 is not bad at all and not awesome for gaming but squishing more then 60avg fps is just not enough for that GPU. It is rowing at lower framerate than my hardware is capable of.
2. I think i was in more betas then u will ever be and beeing a developer for at least a decade got me feeling what is bad port between win and mac OS.
3. Where i wrote that game is bad?

I know its source engine from 04 but still this is 2012 game...

Well you clearly don't know how betas work. Firstly, it's not the Source Engine for 2004. It's the Source Engine from 2012. It may have the same name, but Valve have been evolving it constantly, it's a living product. It gets continually updated. Just for example, the facial animation technology was updated for Ep1, and then again for TF2 (although it wasn't present in Ep2).

Secondly, the whole point of the beta wasn't early access. It was so Valve could gather data and refine/tweak the gameplay experience. When the actual release happened, that's them going "Ok, we're done. We think we cracked it". They're not going to chuck it out the window and add a load of new stuff because it would make the beta pointless, as they'd break the gameplay experience they worked so hard to refine.

[BlacBunny]

Originally Posted by ConCat

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.

Thanks for the heads up! , I'm starting to afraid that it won't run well on my 2011 i5 MBP, I wonder what resolution you're playing it at? any recommended settings?

[AZREOSpecialist]

Originally Posted by xVeinx

You mean I DON'T need Windows 8, Nvidia GTX 690 Quad SLI, and a $1k Intel processor to game? . Valve spends a few months building a Linux client and learns it can get better performance on Linux than on Windows. This could actually change the way Linux/OS X gaming is done in the future.

That's because those PC gamers need to get over 100fps even though the human eye has a difficult time seeing the difference at anything over 60fps. To them it's not about the game or the experience, it's about a p*ssing contest over who has the highest frame rates. It's similar to what I see in the digital photography realm. People are quick to brag about their high megapixel cameras, zooming in to compare the quality of pixels from camera A to the pixels from camera B. How many of those people do you think are actually out in the field taking good photos? Exactly.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist

That's because those PC gamers need to get over 100fps even though the human eye has a difficult time seeing the difference at anything over 60fps. To them it's not about the game or the experience, it's about a p*ssing contest over who has the highest frame rates. It's similar to what I see in the digital photography realm. People are quick to brag about their high megapixel cameras, zooming in to compare the quality of pixels from camera A to the pixels from camera B. How many of those people do you think are actually out in the field taking good photos? Exactly.

to be fair, there is an advantage of getting ~128 FPS due to how the netcode works. More fps, while you wont see it, you will feel it. I'm playing on a '07 C2D PC so its not like I'm feeling it here, but if you've ever played at 100+ fps, you definitely have an advantage over others that dont.

[Gemütlichkeit]

I'm an avid CS player from 1.1 till source. I honestly have no idea what the point of this release is.. It's not on a new engine, it's CS with a few weapon change outs and face lift.

Why release a whole separate game for that? To me it just feels like they're trying to cash in on the name.

[cmvsm]

Originally Posted by battlefieldfan1

Not a troll. My 2011 17-inch macbook pro can barely run lowest settings TF2, a game which was released 5-years-ago.

Sounds like something is wrong with your rig. I'd get it checked out ASAP!

[jterp7]

Originally Posted by Athonline

It is due to resources management. OS X is a way more light OS than Windows and it is engineered to utilise CPU/Memory at 100% as Apple does both Hardware and Software in-house, unlike Windows cause of the different OEM brands out there the OS itself isn't optimised enough.
A good example to prove this is Adobe Photoshop, in my Macbook it just runs within 5-10 secs, in a gaming top-notch (better specced) laptop of a friend of mine, needs at list 30-45secs.

Actually a Mac can last you 3-4 years of extensive usage without the need of upgrading to a newer machine, while a Windows computer will probably need an upgrade in 1-2 years if you want to continue gaming or using resources heavy applications at ease.
It is actually really funny how iHaters call Macs expensive, when similar specced computers actually cost the pretty much the same -if not for some brands a little higher! Or people complain about Apple's annual upgrade when other computer manufactures upgrade their product lines 2 times a year or games such as Crysis are badly optimised to force people into upgrading.

lets not be absurd..my desktop (RIP thanks gigabyte) of 4yrs still outperformed my rMBP and it had an absolutely ancient gtx260 and q9550, which if you remove my FT02 case was built for under 1000. Unlike PCs, mac's obsolescence is more through their product releases than anything else. I still see it as a 2yr upgrade cycle, whereas my asus W3J is 6yrs today. I haven't owned the air and rMBP long enough yet but I doubt I will make it to 4yrs without having the urge.

----------

Originally Posted by gotluck

to be fair, there is an advantage of getting ~128 FPS due to how the netcode works. More fps, while you wont see it, you will feel it. I'm playing on a '07 C2D PC so its not like I'm feeling it here, but if you've ever played at 100+ fps, you definitely have an advantage over others that dont.

I wonder if he played the original CS. The AK-47s accuracy is actually affected by your FPS so 60+ is required if you don't want that sudden FPS drop to end up losing you the game.

[Technarchy]

Apple GPU's are a point of concern. If a game doesn't run well, you cant just dump the GPU and get a new one.

I hope Apple finally gets around to doing a machine with a real deal GPU so more high end, demanding games are possible on the Mac.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Apple GPU's are a point of concern. If a game doesn't run well, you cant just dump the GPU and get a new one.

I hope Apple finally gets around to doing a machine with a real deal GPU so more high end, demanding games are possible on the Mac.

I have been hearing this BS since forever now - TF2 runs fine and maxed out on my iMac; the same for L4D2 and now CS:GO.

If developers are lazy to optimize code for the Mac, it's their problem - but when someone DOES put some effort into developing a game (instead of just cyderizing the crap out of it), games on Mac perform exactly as well if not better than Windows, as BareFeats has already confirmed for some titles.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I have been hearing this BS since forever now - TF2 runs fine and maxed out on my iMac; the same for L4D2 and now CS:GO.

If developers are lazy to optimize code for the Mac, it's their problem - but when someone DOES put some effort into developing a game (instead of just cyderizing the crap out of it), games on Mac perform exactly as well if not better than Windows, as BareFeats has already confirmed for some titles.

it would still be nice to be able to upgrade the graphics card

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by gotluck

it would still be nice to be able to upgrade the graphics card

Worry not, Tim Cook's xMac is coming next year

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

I have been hearing this BS since forever now - TF2 runs fine and maxed out on my iMac; the same for L4D2 and now CS:GO.

If developers are lazy to optimize code for the Mac, it's their problem - but when someone DOES put some effort into developing a game (instead of just cyderizing the crap out of it), games on Mac perform exactly as well if not better than Windows, as BareFeats has already confirmed for some titles.

TF2 and CS:GO are not even close to being high end titles.

And it doesn't address the issue of static, mid range at best GPU's that can't be updated. If one doesn't game its a nonissue. Otherwise it's cause for pause and rightly so.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by Sensation

I never liked Nightfire, it just seemed so low budget and not that great

Did you play on XBOX or PS2? The PS2 version has much worse graphics.

[mattopotamus]

Originally Posted by Gemütlichkeit

I'm an avid CS player from 1.1 till source. I honestly have no idea what the point of this release is.. It's not on a new engine, it's CS with a few weapon change outs and face lift.

Why release a whole separate game for that? To me it just feels like they're trying to cash in on the name.

well it really is a totally different game. It plays nothing like previous counter strike games.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by Dangerous Theory

How about you get your MacBook seen to by Apple. It's pretty obviously not supposed to be that bad. My 13" 2011 ran TF2 fine with lowish settings.

Unless by "can barely run" you mean "IT'S ONLY PUMPIN' OUT 113 FPS, I NEED AT LEAST 240!!"

I don't think that guy has a MacBook. He seems to think that they're worthless. Why do "pro gamerz" even want more FPS than their monitors can display anyway?

[Fandongo]

Counter-Strike and Diablo.

Two of the best series straight up abandoned for 12 years.
Let's see EA Sports take a 12 year break from their garbage instead.

[maril1111]

f yeh, i love counterstrike, ea please work on this and continue developing more on it or spend more time on it, it still has a lot of potential more than i see in your sports games.

[iMacFarlane]

Originally Posted by Sensation

Source engine looks very dated now compared to mighty Frostbite used in BF3. Sort this our please Valve!

What exactly, though, is "very dated"? The common theme on this thread is that everyone is very satisfied with the game, framerate wise. Updating Source to something on par with the Cry3 engine would mean the game would look a little better, and 5% of the people here would still be able to enjoy it.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Revelation78

The sentence itself is still correct. Better reading comprehension would do you wonders.

Says the person failing to read the sentence correctly.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

I don't think that guy has a MacBook. He seems to think that they're worthless. Why do "pro gamerz" even want more FPS than their monitors can display anyway?

For CS, it has to do with more fps = more updates from the server per second. The default is 64 per second in CS GO. So you need at least 64 FPS (vsync should usually be turned off for shooters) to take advantage of a seemless view of what the server is seeing. However, many servers raise this 'tickrate' to 101 or 128 updates per sec. Therefore the clients machine would need to be running at 101 or 128 FPS respectively to have a basically flawless connection with the server. It's really not as simple as I'm making it and there is really much more to it. There is more to FPS than simply the display and the refresh rate of the moniter, it's about the connection/netcode!

If you really want to read:
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/Tickrate

[cgk.emu]

Since when are those liberal requirements??

[el3ktro]

Has anyone tried it on a late 2010 13" MBA (1,86 GHz Core 2 Duo, GeForce 320M graphics)? I haven't played in a LONG time but for just 14€, I might buy this. Is there a demo available maybe?

[munkery]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

So CS is ruined... I am playing a fancy COD type game with CS maps... but this isn't CS by a long shot anymore.

Where is the simplicity? Where is the simpleness ?

It's ruined. They should have never even thought about graphics.. They should have kept it clean and simple... But no.. We need graphics, we need loads of **** laying around in every map, we need a moving camera when having recoil.
We need some fancy crossair, we need to change the whole buying system AGAIN!, we need to change the outfits...

PLEASE! CS is NOT about graphics and complexity...

VALVE get your **** together an give me my CSgoLite version pleas!

Urban Terror