Originally posted by pgwalsh
This thread got really funny... We have one side that wants to use the iMac to play games and the other that doesn't.. They want if for something else however they don't want it for gaming... WTF is that.
There is no reason it shouldn't be used for games... You should try to make a product that appeals to multiple segments... That may be what they're trying to do, but they fall short in the gaming segment. I don't use the Mac for gaming... I'm not a gamer, but I see why so many gamers use PC's and I see that Apple could offer a little more and get some of those customers.. Is that bad? I hope not... Are we trying too hard to be elitists.. haha sounds like it to me...
If you need 200 fps on Unreal Tournament 2003 or whatever the 1337 gamerz tool is these days, you will not get it on an iMac, and you probably won't get it on
any Mac because the software support isn't there (games tend to get ported to the Mac, not developed on the Mac). That's a fact of life.
I'd love for my Mac to toast my bagel in the morning, but I don't say the Mac is crap because it doesn't.
Gaming is a large industry, but look at the sales Dell sees to gamers: pitiful. Even with their new "XBS" line, I don't think they're going to get many gamers to buy their stuff. The gamer mentality is just not one which conforms well to pre-packaged solutions and stock models.
Who makes money off gamers? Video card makers make a huge chunk of money from PC gamers. Case manufacturers and direct motherboard sellers make a good amount of money from gamers. Game developers get a lot of revenue from gamers of course, although not many of them make a great profit from it. Dell doesn't make a ton of money from gamers. Gateway doesn't make a bunch of money from
anybody. No gamer with an ounce of self-respect would tote around a Compaq Presario or somesuch.
Why should Apple spend the resources (hardware and software) to "win" the gaming audience? They are at a distinct disadvantage historically and from a fundamental customer-relationship standpoint. It's generally not a good idea to bet the company that you can win over some market segment when all your competitors have a distinct innate advantage in that segment.
That iMac is a really good computer, but it could be better and it could appeal to a broader market. To suggest someone go buy something else cause you don't think that this computer is geared towards gaming is silly.. I thought we wanted our Mac systems to be the best and best the PC world when they can. I could be alone in this....
😛
It's called picking battles. Apple can't, at this point, be the Ultimate Computing Company Behemoth. That's MS right now, and $4.5B in the bank is nice and all, but looks pretty pathetic in a pissing contest with a company sitting on over $50B.
Too many companies with a better angle on the gaming community are already spending too much money to "win" that segment. Apple could certainly try for it, but Apple could also certainly go bankrupt in the process. It's not as easy as saying "Oh, let's put a G5 in this little iMac enclosure and a 100W video card right next to it and sell it for $300! We'll rule the WORLD!!!"
On the other hand, if you are a "casual" gamer, one who's ego isn't hung by the thin threads of your millisecond response times and who can resist the urge to slit your wrists if a game hiccups for a half second before the big battle scene, Macs are fine for gaming. They certainly have enough power and the video cards are sufficient. Which, really, is about where 90% of the PCs sold today are as well.
They just aren't and will never be a better gaming machine than the tricked-out custom-built Wintel PC or game console.
