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

EA Ships Four Games for Mac, Two to Come

koobcamuk said:
I hate gaming on laptops and PCs. Get a console.
Click to expand...

Because you hate gaming on PCs, you think the answer is "get a console"? Maybe you should wake up and realize that many people would rather game on PCs/Macs. The answer is not "get a console"; that's silly and shortsighted and not realistic at all. The answer is for Apple to do something about the situation. At this point it's so ridiculous that one suspects they are being deliberately stubborn about it for no good reason.

--Eric
 
Eric5h5 said:
Because you hate gaming on PCs, you think the answer is "get a console"? Maybe you should wake up and realize that many people would rather game on PCs/Macs. The answer is not "get a console"; that's silly and shortsighted and not realistic at all. The answer is for Apple to do something about the situation. At this point it's so ridiculous that one suspects they are being deliberately stubborn about it for no good reason.

--Eric
Click to expand...
Thank you. Between all the half-baked defenses of Apple and outright hostility that I so often see towards this viewpoint, it's like a breath of fresh air.
 
BRLawyer said:
Kinda worrying to know that...I acknowledge both Origin and Bullfrog made GREAT games for the Apple II and the Mac, including some of the best RPG games out there (the Ultima series, if I remember well) and also the excellent MacSyndicate...really good games.
Click to expand...

...and the companies disappeared 12½ years ago....
 
Apple sticks to integrated graphics on the MacBook to:

1.) Further differentiate the consumer and Pro product lines.

2.) Save resources by using an already integrated system.

Yes, the MacBook is the entry-level Mac notebook. But it is not low-end. Any new MacBook from Apple will cost you from $1,100 up. This is not an $800 PC laptop and should certainly be held to higher standards. The only people who seem intent on tagging the MacBook as low-end are those who think that only Macs priced over $3,000 are worthwhile.

It is shameful that a game that will run just fine on a 7 year old console cannot run on a modern dual-core MacBook. It is unbelievable that the graphics performance from the GMA 950 barely tops that of an old iBook.

Get a console? Sure, I do the majority of gaming on consoles. But I have no choice (I don't do Windoze). And consoles are better deals graphically for gaming. But I was kind of excited there for a moment when I thought I could actually play a pretty modern racing game on my Mac soon. Not so.

Gaming on the Mac is still a joke, and Apple has its good share of the blame.
 
Eric5h5 said:
To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.
--Eric
Click to expand...

Really funny thing is that my old G4 Mini can chug along decently in, say, WoW - because it has a real graphics chip :p The irony...
 
Roderick Usher said:
And that's also part of the problem - the "get a console" mantra does absolutely nothing to strengthen the Mac platform. It's basically an admission that Macs will always be subpar gaming machines, which doesn't work from a standpoint of platform advocacy. Apple's userbase should be up in arms about this, even the people that don't play games. Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the Mac wouldn't be stronger with a better game library, and graphics cards to match it?

I don't know what it would take for Apple to reconsider. Maybe if Macworld published an article titled "THE GRAPHICS GAP" in big bold letters...
Click to expand...

I agree. As for "what it would take for Apple to reconsider"... perhaps a drastic drop in Mac sales would get the message across?

It'll never happen of course. Apple well know people buy Macs principally for OS X, hardware reliability, Apple's wonderful iLife/iWork suites, etc. You want all of that, you have to live with Macs' gaming shortcomings. In other words, Apple have got dudes like you & me by the b*lls. Yes, it stinks, but Windows stinks even more so.
 
gregorsamsa said:
I agree. As for "what it would take for Apple to reconsider"... perhaps a drastic drop in Mac sales would get the message across?

It'll never happen of course. Apple well know people buy Macs principally for OS X, hardware reliability, Apple's wonderful iLife/iWork suites, etc. You want all of that, you have to live with Macs' gaming shortcomings. In other words, Apple have got dudes like you & me by the b*lls. Yes, it stinks, but Windows stinks even more so.
Click to expand...

..well if apple isn't interested in getting the money I spend in gaming then I'll be happy to give 'em to sony. I'll just keep buying low end Macs and game consoles.
 
Groovey said:
Wish someone could make some kind of a game that would be fun, challenging and addictive. :) A nice game without all the candy. And once you lose the candy, the game sucks.

I need to get addicted!
Click to expand...

Well, you could go to http://www.isotope244.com/ and pick up Atomic Cannon and Machines at War. These game are totally awesome and addictive.

I buyed a MegaPack before 2 weeks and play it almost everyday for 1-2 hours. For a casual game-player like me, there game are fantastic. :)
 
BTW: yesterday i buyed a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 and 3 GB of RAM and i must say, that there is a big difference between the old PowerMac G5 and this new PC. I mean the working in Photoshop, Illustrator etc. it is so much more responsive here on this PC than on the G5... i almost can't believe it.
 
Eric5h5 said:
To clarify some things: Macbooks may be new, but they're using a really lame graphics chip (same with the Minis). Blame Apple for being a bunch of dorkwads about that. They know better.
Click to expand...

They do know better. But they don't want you to be able to use the Macbook (or Mac Mini) for anything other than web browsing / iLife / iWork. How would they sell the higher end Macs (e.g. Macbook Pros) then?

SiliconAddict said:
Umm its EA...who cares. EA is the Microsoft of the gaming industry. All EA does it gobble up small independent game shops, dumps 90% of their staff, and releases craptastic sequels that are so bug ridden they require twice the machine to even make the game run marginally well. I mean seriously. I stopped buying EA games about 7 years ago. Anything EA touches has the innovation sucked out of its marrow just before it withers and dies. Anyone remember Origin Systems? Bullfrog? How about the popular Westwood Studios? No? That's because they bought them up and killed them off in rapid succession. EA is dead to me and they should be to anyone who is remotely interested in originality and quality. they are also the Walmart of the gaming world.
Click to expand...

Well said. I still hate them for gobbling up and spitting out Air Warrior and Earth & Beyond, which were both extremely innovative and exciting for their time.

socamx said:
Apple's hardware doesn't need to catch up, drivers and game port quality need to. If the game is extremely poorly ported, it will always run bad regardless of hardware; except in the case you have the most ultimate gaming machine.
Click to expand...

You could have a point here. I can play WoW smoothly on my old Powerbook G4 with integrated NVidia Go5200, which falls over at just about any other game you throw at it.


I've often said that gaming should be left to PCs, as that's the platform the developers aim for... having said that, with Bootcamp now involved it would be kind of nice. It'd mean not having to have a separate PC just for games.
 
opeter said:
BTW: yesterday i buyed a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 and 3 GB of RAM and i must say, that there is a big difference between the old PowerMac G5 and this new PC. I mean the working in Photoshop, Illustrator etc. it is so much more responsive here on this PC than on the G5... i almost can't believe it.
Click to expand...

How much cheaper than a Mac Pro was the Conroe-based Core2 system?
 
AidenShaw said:
How much cheaper than a Mac Pro was the Conroe-based Core2 system?
Click to expand...

The whole specs of the system is that:

- ASUS p5K Motherboard
- 3 GB RAM (2x1GB, 2x512 MB) in DC
- new midi tower (Codegen, quite cheap)
- Xilence 550W ATX 2.2 PSU
- Windows Vista Business DSP

The whole bunch did cost me 560 € with taxes here in Slovenia (EU)

The other parts are left from my old PC. These parts are:
- a GeForce 7600 GT PCIe with Dual-DVI
- 2 HDs - one 150 GB WD Raptor and a 320 GB WD
- NEC 7170 DVD-RW
-floppy (you never know, when you need it :p)

these together are at 380 € (with 20% Taxes). This price is so high because of the Raptor.

It was much-much cheaper than the Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro here where i live begins at 2150 € (the base 2.0 modell).
 
Cloudane said:
They do know better. But they don't want you to be able to use the Macbook (or Mac Mini) for anything other than web browsing / iLife / iWork. How would they sell the higher end Macs (e.g. Macbook Pros) then?
Click to expand...

Strangely, they never had a problem before...they even bragged about the G4 Minis being able to play games. All they have to do is put a low-end GPU in there, like they used to. All recent Macs should be able to play any games released for them. Maybe with the settings on low, but they should at least play and be supported. Unlike the GMA950. Then the Macbook Pros get better GPUs. You know, like it used to be with the Powerbook and iBook. Have I emphasized this point enough? ;) People have short memories....

--Eric
 
socamx said:
Someone wake me up when a respectable game company such as Epic Games, ID Software or Blizzard releases some Mac games that they put some real effort into making native. (Unreal Tournament 3, Gears of War, any Blizzard title, Doom/Quake etc....)
Click to expand...

Blizzard release most of their stuff for Mac already and id have already said that their upcoming stuff will be platform-transparent. Although obviously they expect only Mac Pro users to run it going by the fact that the tech demo looked like it was using some pretty serious GPU power.

Going to special effort to port games to the Mac is currently a waste of resources. The market that can actually run them (Mac Pro owners) and wants to run them is surely far too small to be viable.

I guess the new iMacs can run the games in say 800x600 with most of the quality settings lowered. Doesn't sound like fun to me. Honestly, the 2600Pro chipset is rubbish. Even the 2600XT is significantly better, but still sub-par.
 
stevenz said:
I guess the new iMacs can run the games in say 800x600 with most of the quality settings lowered. Doesn't sound like fun to me. Honestly, the 2600Pro chipset is rubbish. Even the 2600XT is significantly better, but still sub-par.
Click to expand...

That is stretching things a bit, don't you think? Many people have had good experiences with the iMac and decent resolutions on medium and even high settings. The iMac does use the Mobility XT chipset as proven in another thread.
 
Eric5h5 said:
Strangely, they never had a problem before...they even bragged about the G4 Minis being able to play games. All they have to do is put a low-end GPU in there, like they used to. All recent Macs should be able to play any games released for them. Maybe with the settings on low, but they should at least play and be supported. Unlike the GMA950. Then the Macbook Pros get better GPUs. You know, like it used to be with the Powerbook and iBook. Have I emphasized this point enough? ;) People have short memories....

--Eric
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like we Mac folk have to come up with reasonable-sounding excuses to justify Apple's completely irrational and ridiculous stance. The graphics cards on the iBooks weren't all that great, but at least they were real graphics cards.

Before we prided ourselves on the fact that even "non-pro" Macs had dedicated graphics cards. Now we make excuses for why they don't.

Since the Intel transition, it seems we've taken a few steps back in the graphics department. Maybe Apple does feel it would threaten the pro machines. Maybe this is an experiment or some kind of deal with Intel, or maybe Intel's promised Apple they will get low-end graphics card functionality shortly in the upcoming next generation. Who knows?

All I know is that I'm tired of all the excuses and I wish Apple would give its consumer line graphics cards worthy of the rest of the hardware.
 
I knew there was a good reason to buy one of the new iMacs... :p
I do have one of the current macbooks too. I brought one just to tie me over until the new iMacs were released.
 
What about some demo's .... Are there any available.

Why the push for gaming on a Mac. That's what Boot Camp is for...

Or just get a console. xbox 360 ftw

aussie_geek
 
Intel has released new Windows drivers for their later integrated graphics chip that enable hardware T&L and Shader Model 3.0. I know its not the same as the 950 in Macs (although why Apple uses an older chip from Intel I don't know, but none of their GPU moves seem to make sense)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OogVYWQLAhM

Since parts of the architecture are similar- I wonder if they'll work with Apple soon to get some improvements for the 950?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back