Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. Was it the iPhone 4 or 4S that Siri didn’t work on?
Was it slow 3G that prevented Facetime from being brought to the masses early?

I wait with bated breath for your response.

This, exactly this. Which I've said in this thread as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor
After the Apple-bash-fest, perhaps the VR folks should take a break to look at why their requirements are so high. We've seen that scenario over and over again in gaming for 15+ years, and it rarely ends well for anyone involved. Yes, we all acknowledge we can't get a GTX 980 Ti in a Mac, but this sort of rhetoric is not helpful.
 
After the Apple-bash-fest, perhaps the VR folks should take a break to look at why their requirements are so high. We've seen that scenario over and over again in gaming for 15+ years, and it rarely ends well for anyone involved. Yes, we all acknowledge we can't get a GTX 980 Ti in a Mac, but this sort of rhetoric is not helpful.

perhaps it's because VR is in its infancy really. Over time, I would expect that price, requirements, etc would lessen. Just like most tech.
 
After the Apple-bash-fest, perhaps the VR folks should take a break to look at why their requirements are so high. We've seen that scenario over and over again in gaming for 15+ years, and it rarely ends well for anyone involved. Yes, we all acknowledge we can't get a GTX 980 Ti in a Mac, but this sort of rhetoric is not helpful.

They're requirements are not high and they stated facts, no one has to like their facts but that's their problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig
Except it isn't. PS4 is behind the times compared to the even the mobile 960

Well I guess I'm just a settler. So because a more powerful GPU is available that instantly means that the PS4 isn't capable? I would think not.
 
Has anyone actually looked at what the games will be like? Yes, I'm sure there's a cool factor to feeling like you're in another world, but that wears off and the games are far less dynamic than your non-VR variety. Most games I've seen have you stationary, which makes sense because you can't move around. This will flop, as VR has flopped so many times in the past.
 
Well we know when Apple does it - it's to maintain the integrity of the feature. Apple makes NO sacrifices. But Oculus should. They should lessen the experience of their product to fit Apple's specs. Right?
Sorry. You’re not allowed to say things like that. You must be dehydrated. I suggest you go and get yourself a drink, how about some Kool Aid?
 
Well i grant you the the mac port of ets2 is questionable but a game from last year? As usual i formulated my question wrong, and of corse did nor gar an snswer rhat loft me any more informed :(, so I'll try again
What is your deffinision of a modern game?

going to help answer, since I'm a Bit of a gamer still :p

How well would a Mac run
  • Elite Dangerous: Horizons
  • Any of the Betas of Star Citizen
  • Dragon Age: Inquisition
  • Grand Theft Auto V
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider
  • Fallout 4
  • The Division
  • Just Cause 3
  • FarCry Primal
  • Crysis 3 (lol, had to ask
These are the biggest games that have been released over the last 365 days that push graphics. While many of these do have the capability of being run on lower end hardware by reducing quality (resolution, textures, framerates). The ideal goal of any "gaming" computer is to run on High -> Ultra settings, at native 1080p resolution.

is there a current Mac in the lineup that can do this? (legit question)
 
Well I guess I'm just a settler. So because a more powerful GPU is available that instantly means that the PS4 isn't capable? I would think not.

what you said was the PS4 will blow away PC because of it's design. It didn't blow away PC's when it was introduced three years ago and it really isn't going to now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 952863 and jedifaka
Has anyone actually looked at what the games will be like? Yes, I'm sure there's a cool factor to feeling like you're in another world, but that wears off and the games are far less dynamic than your non-VR variety. Most games I've seen have you stationary, which makes sense because you can't move around. This will flop, as VR has flopped so many times in the past.

VR isn't going to flop. And although gaming is a great use for it, it's not nearly the only. In fact, most people I know who got the Gear VR aren't interested in gaming. Watching movies on a HUGE screen - at home or on a plane, or wherever is a great use case. Attending virtual events or gaining access to places/events/etc previously unavailable to the masses. Exploring various parts of the world through immersive photos and videos.

As for games - what do you mean by "stationary" - I've seen games where you're moving around in the space.

Billions are being poured into VR/AR from a variety of companies from OEMs to publishers/content creators, etc. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

It's not exactly the same analogy. But think of tablet computing. It existed for years. But it wasn't until the iPad came out that it took off. Now I'm not suggesting that until Apple creates a product, VR won't make it. What I'm saying is - technology and attitudes change over time. VR didn't work in the past because technology prohibited the kind of experience that would matter. That barrier is being eroded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPadCary and trifid
what you said was the PS4 will blow away PC because of it's design. It didn't blow away PC's when it was introduced three years ago and it really isn't going to now.

Kind of depends on the PC doesn't it? Plus as Apple users we know optimization goes a long way.
 
Kind of depends on the PC doesn't it? Plus as Apple users we know optimization goes a long way.

Sure, but again that's not what you said. The PS4 uses Jaguar cores and a sem-icustom CGN GPU and requires games be optimized and details turned down just to run at 1080.

Consoles by there nature are rejecting the incessant push of tech there's a reason there is now the PCMR
 
  • Like
Reactions: zone23
Really glad to see this. I've bought 5 iMacs in the last 5 years and I'm tired of dropping $3K (let's be honest, it's closer to 4K for a good iMac) on a computer and not getting a good GPU.

Also annoying that OS X is falling behind Windows with stuff like pen support. I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook Pro and when I go on business trips I only take the MacBook Pro (I don't feel like carrying 5lbs in my briefcase on the go, and I need the laptop apps) meanwhile the PC people there bring their Surfaces and get both an pen-based tablet and a laptop in one. I think the Apple stuff has better build quality but MSFT is getting better and they have the better model. I feel like one of these days Apple is going to try to ween me off OS X and force me to just use iOS. This notion infuriates me!

I'm a huge Apple fan and have bought tens of thousands of $$$ of their stuff in the past decade but lately am starting to look hard at Windows again. Windows 10 still sucks imo compared to OS X but it sucks a lot less than previous Windows.

Seriously Apple, put a decent video card on your iMacs or at least come out with something like the Razer Core (I'd love this).

I love ya Tim Cook but you gotta do more. Viva la OS X!
 
Last edited:
Hummm... so I doubt 95% of the PC users will be able to use it either. Sounds like very high-end video requirements. Not something your average PC (of any brand) is going to have.
Not really. With a PC, you can buy your own video card that meets the specs needed but with macs, you are stuck with what they choose to offer.
 
Not really. With a PC, you can buy your own video card that meets the specs needed but with macs, you are stuck with what they choose to offer.
With a hackintosh, you can choose almost any PC GPU for OS X. Nvidia provides OS X drivers, ATI has built-in drivers in OS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bladerunner2000
I recommend while you claim "pure marketting", you look at what has changed between the early dev models and the current retail version.

Dk2
1080p display (960x1080 per eye)
60 hz refresh 60-75FPS minimum requirements
6 dimensional position tracking


Rift Retail;
2160x1200 diplsay (1080x1200 per eye)
90Hz refresh (90+ FPS)
3d positional sound


So for just pure raw crunching power. the new Rift version requires 2592000 pixels per frame. 90 times a second. thats 233,280,000 pixels per second.
it must also be ablso to calculate this many pixels per second, for TWO distinct display angles. Rendering every scene twice

compared to the older display: 2073600 pixels per frame. 518400 less. that's 20% less power required, just from the display. But it's not even as simple. It's not linear. As you increase the resolutions you increase calculations required, because you increase the required texture sizes and counts. This turns into likely a 50% or closer increase in requirements

Just to further. At 60fps, the lower unit only pushes only 124416000 pixels a second. That means the retail Oc Rift is pushing 180% MORE pixels per second.

Of course if you want to stand out from the crowd. If you want to be premium. That's the first thing you'll do: up the spec, up the price. Differentiates. It's still marketing.
Don't get me wrong. I like it, like I like all premium products like Tesla or Devialet Phantom. But I won't suffer Windows for it. Maybe if one day it can run on a cool and quiet computer...
 
  • Like
Reactions: spazyFO
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.