Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nph

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 9, 2005
1,043
212
I am looking at playing the BtS version on my MBA 2011. What would be the least resource intensive version, Steam based or stand alone?
I have noticed that Steam seems to have a few bugs in itself on the mac at least.

Any difference between Steam or stand-along version of BtS?
 

cluthz

macrumors 68040
Jun 15, 2004
3,118
4
Norway
I am looking at playing the BtS version on my MBA 2011. What would be the least resource intensive version, Steam based or stand alone?
I have noticed that Steam seems to have a few bugs in itself on the mac at least.

Any difference between Steam or stand-along version of BtS?

I don't think the standalone will do multiplayer with PC users, other than that I guess the difference won't be noticeable.
Civ 5 is very resource hungry, so large maps will be painfully slow after awhile.
I haven't played Civ 5 on my MBA, but even on my desktop long games does have a huge impact on performance.
 

nph

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 9, 2005
1,043
212
Thanks, but note that I am talking about Civ 4 not 5.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,553
You won't notice a difference. If you wait for Steam's upcoming sale you should be able
to get it for next to nothing.
 

Aspyr-Blair

macrumors 6502
Aug 20, 2012
319
35
Austin Tx
I am looking at playing the BtS version on my MBA 2011. What would be the least resource intensive version, Steam based or stand alone?
I have noticed that Steam seems to have a few bugs in itself on the mac at least.

Any difference between Steam or stand-along version of BtS?

It's been quite a while, but I'm fairly certain that the Steam build and the disc build are identical for all Civ IV versions.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.