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

Unreal Tournament 2003 Mac OS X

It also doesn't help that Doom will probably not run on any Mac. And even if the new dual IBM 970 chips are put into the high-end Macs, and single 970's into the iMacs and eMacs, there's still one problem: only 3-4% of the market is Apple's; out of this 3% Apple Market, less than 2-3% of Mac owners will have computers fast enough to run the game; less than 10% of people who own Macs intend to play games on it, since most people who buy Macs don't actually expect games to be much of an option on this platform (plus, we're including businesses); and out of this small crop of Mac gamers, we can assume that 20% of them will even want this game. Performing some simple mathematics, we get:

Computer Market = (0.03)(0.03)(0.10)(0.20)=0.000018=0.0018%


There's the problem. This is much less than 0.01% of the market who would even consider buying this game. Don't be picky. Charity or not, Mac gamers are lucky to even have this game.
 
I too would admittedly feel better if the PB12 which I'm pondering to buy this spring would sport a 1GHz CPU and not run on just 867MHz. It shouldn't matter for a lot of stuff I do (heck, I was fine with BeOS on a dual Celeron 333MHz just 2,5 years ago) but somehow it makes people, me included, feel better to have a higher MHz count associated with an expensive purchase.
 
The problem is. . .

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Totaly agree here.
Let's step over the psycological 1GHz barrier.
I don't believe that Moto can't give Apple enough G4's running at 1GHz.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think all the processors are playing catch-up to each other. The G3 (although it might be already reaching speeds of 1GHz+) can't be released at more than 900Mhz because it would cut into the eMac, the other "super-el-cheapo" mac. Likewise, the eMac can't be pushed farther, or it would take a chunk out of the iMac sales, for people who don't need to pay 300 dollars more for a positionable LCD. The iMac can't be raised, because it would indulge in the potential profit of the PowerBooks and PowerMacs, for people who want a powerful G4, but don't need dual processors or even more importantly, don't want to pay 2,000+ for a large screen. The PowerBooks can't go up for the same reason that the iMacs can't (I'm almost finished). And finally, the PowerMac G4's are halted at 1.25 for stability and cooling issues. It's like a food chain, and the PowerMac is the main reason that it's not progressing. So, let's just hope that Steve wasn't lying when he talked about some good happenings in the desktop area too.:D
 
Originally posted by Abstract
It also doesn't help that Doom will probably not run on any Mac. And even if the new dual IBM 970 chips are put into the high-end Macs, and single 970's into the iMacs and eMacs, there's still one problem: only 3-4% of the market is Apple's; out of this 3% Apple Market, less than 2-3% of Mac owners will have computers fast enough to run the game; less than 10% of people who own Macs intend to play games on it, since most people who buy Macs don't actually expect games to be much of an option on this platform (plus, we're including businesses); and out of this small crop of Mac gamers, we can assume that 20% of them will even want this game. Performing some simple mathematics, we get:

Computer Market = (0.03)(0.03)(0.10)(0.20)=0.000018=0.0018%


There's the problem. This is much less than 0.01% of the market who would even consider buying this game. Don't be picky. Charity or not, Mac gamers are lucky to even have this game.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else see something wrong with the 'simple mathematics' here?

Your maths suggest that of the 5 million Mac users running OS X only 90 of them would buy Doom III. Is that what you meant?

i_b_joshua
 
no, because you started at 5 million OS X users while he talked about the Entire Computermarket. Got it? good.
 
Let's all remeber our wallets are the most powerful tool for influencing game publishers to port to our platform ... avoid piracy of this one ok ;)
 
Even if Apple comes out with IBM's new chip at the end of this year, how many software programs are going to use the 64 bit function of the chip? I'm guessing about 6. Photoshop, Apple's iApps, and hopefully Maya, being that they already have a unix(Irix) Maya that is 64 bit. Other than that, everyone will still have to put up with the old 32 bit coded software that we have now. Meaning, we'll receive very little speed boost from IBM's new chip, over the current crop of G4's. Especially if Apple doesn't intend to have DP units with IBM's new chips.
Click to expand...

Will that matter to the public? I think not as long as it says1.8GHz or more
 
Originally posted by alset
Did anyone see this at MacWorld? I'd love to hear some reports on it.

Dan
Click to expand...

Yeah I was there and it looked pretty trick
Also the 9700 will be in an 4x or 8x agp slot. Looks like I'll have to buy a new tower instead of my gigabit ethernet;)
 
shabby math

It also doesn't help that Doom will probably not run on any Mac. And even if the new dual IBM 970 chips are put into the high-end Macs, and single 970's into the iMacs and eMacs, there's still one problem: only 3-4% of the market is Apple's; out of this 3% Apple Market, less than 2-3% of Mac owners will have computers fast enough to run the game; less than 10% of people who own Macs intend to play games on it, since most people who buy Macs don't actually expect games to be much of an option on this platform (plus, we're including businesses); and out of this small crop of Mac gamers, we can assume that 20% of them will even want this game. Performing some simple mathematics, we get:

Computer Market = (0.03)(0.03)(0.10)(0.20)=0.000018=0.0018%


There's the problem. This is much less than 0.01% of the market who would even consider buying this game. Don't be picky. Charity or not, Mac gamers are lucky to even have this game.
Click to expand...

Well, the way the math was presented the final result would be about 3000 buyers.

Of course, practically everything that was said was based on opinion, and not based in actual fact. The actual market share of mac users is not a definite fact. That 2-3% figure comes from total computer units sold in all markets (business and consumer and other) in the past year, so I don't put too much weight in that figure.
Okay, first, there will obviously be more OS X users by the time this game arrives. Second, we don't know what the system requirements for the game will be. Maybe it will be dual processor aware like Quake 3 was... in fact, you can almost bet on it. Go to Barefeats.com and check out how macs did compared to PC's in Quake 3 tests. You'll probably be suprised. Oh, and less than 10% of people who own macs use them for games... come on! How many of you out there really don't have at least one game title purchased? Even if it's not everyone, I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 10%. And last, no one knows what the demand will be for this game, of course, becuase it hasn't been released yet!

Don't be so negative.
 
Re: shabby math

Originally posted by Performfreak


Well, the way the math was presented the final result would be about 3000 buyers.

Of course, practically everything that was said was based on opinion, and not based in actual fact. The actual market share of mac users is not a definite fact. That 2-3% figure comes from total computer units sold in all markets (business and consumer and other) in the past year, so I don't put too much weight in that figure.
Okay, first, there will obviously be more OS X users by the time this game arrives. Second, we don't know what the system requirements for the game will be. Maybe it will be dual processor aware like Quake 3 was... in fact, you can almost bet on it. Go to Barefeats.com and check out how macs did compared to PC's in Quake 3 tests. You'll probably be suprised. Oh, and less than 10% of people who own macs use them for games... come on! How many of you out there really don't have at least one game title purchased? Even if it's not everyone, I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 10%. And last, no one knows what the demand will be for this game, of course, becuase it hasn't been released yet!

Don't be so negative.
Click to expand...

thanks Performfreak!

Of course I see my calculation was entirely incorrect thies (I forgot to miss off the first .03). Thanks.

But what Performfreak says is actually what I was thinking - if not writing. The original equation was based on too many (negative) assumptions.

i_b_joshua
 
i kind of wish epic had skipped the ut2k3 port and just gone ahead with porting unrealII (if they're even going to do that) so that we could get it some time close to it's pc release. the performance problem is a big issue. going with moto has left apple in a hole where they can't upgrade anything without canibalizing sales of the pro line. there's also the problem with graphics card manufacturers. osx has the best opengl implementation of any system but graphic intensive apps still run more slowly. why? crappy drivers.

it really just a bad cycle; graphics/processor manufacturers treat the mac as an afterthought, so it can't run high-end apps, so the user base does not grow, so companies treat it as an afterthought, so it can't run high end apps, so the user base does not grow, so it can't...
 
Originally posted by Abstract
less than 2-3% of Mac owners will have computers fast enough to run the game;
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised that the number of Macs being able to run the game is much higher. If we get the 970 chip sometime this year, I would not be surprised if Apple sells a record number of PMs for folks who 1) need the speed 2) have been holding off any purchases until they got the speed 3) folks who have been waiting forever to brag about the speed.

That should be more than 10% :D


Of course, assuming they all are able and willing to shell $$$.
 
Neverwinter Nights was also there

Macsoft also had an almost-ready-for-prime-time build of Neverwinter Nights on display at MWSF. The guy I spoke to there said that it was effectively complete, but running on 10.2.2. Apparently some graphics changes in 10.2.3 broke their port somehow, and they're in the process of fixing it.

He said he'd be surprised if it wasn't officially announced within a month or two.
 
Little Orphan Apple

I imagine apple is working their @ss off to get those IBM processors out the door. Frankly, they're getting beaten like a redheaded stepchild when it comes to CPU growth, and wherever the blame lies, THIS IS A PROBLEM. When we have PC's going at 4ghz and Macs still haven't crossed 1.8, it's going to be a problem. The Mhz myth however true is becoming a bit tired, and Apple needs to find a different way to dispel it, like faster proccessers. :rolleyes:

Most of us barely use 20% of our processors (unless you got some pretty impressive porn :D ), but how many of us look at the speed when buying a new computer? When you have the brand new shiney 1.25ghz Apple sitting next to the 3ghz Dell, it just looks bad. I'd say thats one of the biggest challenges Apple currently has, and I think that might even be why we didnt see the speed increases at this macworld...
 
Originally posted by Performfreak


Well, the way the math was presented the final result would be about 3000 buyers.

Of course, practically everything that was said was based on opinion, and not based in actual fact. The actual market share of mac users is not a definite fact. That 2-3% figure comes from total computer units sold in all markets (business and consumer and other) in the past year, so I don't put too much weight in that figure.
Okay, first, there will obviously be more OS X users by the time this game arrives. Second, we don't know what the system requirements for the game will be. Maybe it will be dual processor aware like Quake 3 was... in fact, you can almost bet on it. Go to Barefeats.com and check out how macs did compared to PC's in Quake 3 tests. You'll probably be suprised. Oh, and less than 10% of people who own macs use them for games... come on! How many of you out there really don't have at least one game title purchased? Even if it's not everyone, I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 10%. And last, no one knows what the demand will be for this game, of course, becuase it hasn't been released yet!

Don't be so negative.
Click to expand...


Yes, but I was talking about the new Doom game because it is supposed to be one of the most cpu and graphics-intensive games ever. Also, people were talking about it before. I know that no game is as cpu-heavy as that game, and so its unfair for me to pick that particular game, but why should it be? The fact is that the 4% figure represents the entire Mac market. I included the business and education sectors, plus the home buyer into the figure, which is what the 4% market share figure is based on. And maybe you're right about the 4% figure being correct, but even if its 5%, it doesn't make much of a difference calculation-wise.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I AM trying to be realistic. Someone posted and said that with UT2k3, the PowerMacs were only getting 40 fps, which is low in my opinion. What happens when Doom comes out? Its true that the 970 may come out and take care of this "little" speed issue, but what percentage of Mac owners do you think will have a 970 machine? I assumed that 3% of Mac owners would have this type of machine, and that only a small fraction would buy this particular game. Not that people who own Macs don't play games, but its not as if the FPS style game is the type of game that everybody can enjoy. Take most women and older people out of the market, take the education and business proportion of Mac owners out of the picture, and what do you have? You'd have a small percentage of people who would buy this game. Oh, and then there's the speed issue, which takes away from most of this remaining crop of people.

Personally, I don't even have a Mac. I'm just studying about it, since I don't know much about computers or games. I want an iBook (or maybe a 12" Powerbook :D), but when I purchase my ibook, I know I'm going to give up the luxury of simply taking my computer case off and easily installing a new video card in order to play games. I can't even understand why I can't do this on a Mac, but I'm just under the impression that you can't do something like this easily. So when I buy a Mac, I know I'm going to give up this luxury for a machine that (hopefully) is as good as Mac owners say it is. Otherwise, I'll be coming back here pissed. :)
 
Originally posted by Abstract
Someone posted and said that with UT2k3, the PowerMacs were only getting 40 fps, which is low in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes it should be quite low in your oppinion. That figure seems way off scale. I'm guessing that it came from a prerelease version of the game seeing how it hasn't been release yet and should see drastic improvement before release or the equipment it was being tested on is subpar.

Seeing how a G4 2x1GHz can get nearly 250FPS with a G4Ti at 640x480 in QuakeIIIArena and 175FPS at 1024x768. I suspect that UT2k3 should be at the minimum half those scores. Also if the ATI9700 comes out expect very playable numbers for UT2k3.
 
Re: well

Originally posted by Steradian
the ATi radeon(sp) 9700 pro was on display at MWSF and had UT03 running pretty soild, it is disappointing to knoe that a top of the line powermac MDD was running UT03 at only 80 FPS. Thier is somemore info in this previous fourm Here
Click to expand...


Sorry, I remembered wrong. This person said 80 fps on the 1st page of this thread. To me, this also sounds fairly low. :p Imagine what Doom is going to be like.
 
Actually, 3000 copies for an average game given the other factors is not too far of the mark. I know a couple of guys who ported games to alternative OSes (ie not windows) and the above are pretty exact estimates compared to what they experienced.
 
Originally posted by Abstract
when I purchase my ibook, I know I'm going to give up the luxury of simply taking my computer case off and easily installing a new video card in order to play games. I can't even understand why I can't do this on a Mac, but I'm just under the impression that you can't do something like this easily.
Click to expand...
You know you are going to run into the same kind of problem if you buy a subnotebook from any other manufacter. Those laptops are not really optimized for an easy replacement of graphics cards, whether it is a Dell, a Toshiba, an Apple or whatever. Not being able to change your graphics card, in my opinion, has more to do with your choice of a laptop vs a desktop (ok you can't change your graphics card in a iMac G4, but that's beside the point) than Apple vs PeeCee. I agree that choosing an Apple computer also restricts your choice of graphics card, but that's old news.
Anyway, the iBook is not known to be a 'game machine'. And I am going to try playing some games on my dual 867 with geforce4ti at work to see if there is a real handicap with those machines...

NicoMan
 
Originally posted by FattyMembrane
i kind of wish epic had skipped the ut2k3 port and just gone ahead with porting unrealII
Click to expand...
I thought that UT2003 was the new name for Unreal2... Am I talking rubbish or what ?

Nicoman
 
Yes, you're talking rubbish...

UT2003 is the sequel to UT, and is therefore purely multiplayer. U2, on the other hand, is the sequel to U, which is (mainly) a single player, story-based gaming experience.

I too really hope U2 will come out pretty soon after the PC version. I'm really in for that game! I'm not too fond of multiplayer games (mostly because I lose them all the time), but I totally dig a single player shooter with a good story (like Unreal, Deus Ex, Alica, MoH:AA and the like).

Only sad thing is, I need a new computer to run all the games that come out from now. Even though I only bought a new one last year's February (15" LCD iMac with 800MHz G4), and that's not really funny, especially when you don't have the money to do so...
 
Originally posted by mangoman
Halo..... Heh. That IS a dream. :D
Click to expand...

I think I read it on one of the Bungie sites, Halo port is being done by some other company, and last I read it was more than 40% completed and should come out to the PC AND Mac this summer. I don't remember which site said it though.
 
Originally posted by Abstract


What happens when Doom comes out?
Click to expand...

If ID keeps supporting MP machines in their code, I don't think there will be a problem running the game on DP Macs. Like someone posted, QIII scores are pretty impressive as the game utilizes the two processors. If DOOM III can do that, we could probably get close to 60-70 fps, which is playable I would say.
 
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