Valve's Portal 2 Confirmed for Mac

iMarcusx

macrumors member
Mar 7, 2010
42
0
0
So honest ... I think I'm going to cry.



Diablo is awesome. I'm dying to try Diablo III. I use CrossOver Games for that. No Windows for me. I had enough of them.
Diablo iii will run natively. You can run diablo 1 using crossover? Mind showing me how?
 

magpie maniac

macrumors 6502
Aug 24, 2007
308
123
0
i just don't get the people voting negative, if you don't like games on mac, then don't install it but let us other TF2 fanatics enjoy these wonderful news ...
I've always been puzzled by that, too. We could read an article about how every iPad purchase includes a free $1,000 gift card to the Apple Store and some troll would hit the negative link. Must be glass-half-empty sort of people. I don't get it.
 

iMarcusx

macrumors member
Mar 7, 2010
42
0
0
I've always been puzzled by that, too. We could read an article about how every iPad purchase includes a free $1,000 gift card to the Apple Store and some troll would hit the negative link. Must be glass-half-empty sort of people. I don't get it.
You hit the nail on the head.
 

palebluedot

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2008
715
77
0
This would have been bigger news 1-2 years ago during the Vista debacle. Windows 7 has given MS the momentum again in the gaming arena.

And just what Apple machine would one game on? For the price of a Mac Pro one can get a killer top of the line Windows gaming machine with much more advanced specifications and money left over for many games. And I'm not going to torture my all-in-one iMac with this. It might melt. :eek:
/yawn. People keep throwing arguments at this. You realize that I game at FULL RES/FULL SPECS on my Early 08 C2D Nvidia 8600 (OLD!) Macbook Pro on Source games? It's not like you need a Alienware to play TF2. It's not Crysis.

So machines one could game on:
Macbook Pro (with discrete GPUs)
iMac
Mac Pro

Machines one couldn't game on:
Macbook or Macbook Pro w/out discrete GPU
Mac Mini
Apple TV

I agree with the first part of your point. W7 is making gaming on Windows enjoyable again (although I still use XP SP3) and one can easily build an amazing gaming rig not using Apple's POS outdated GPU hardware even on their new models. That said... you wont "melt an iMac" by gaming... that's what I disagree with you on. Gaming isn't that bad on your machine. My Macbook Pro has been doing it nightly for 5+ hours just fine.
 

doctoree

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2008
406
0
0
Secret lair/ Earthmiddlepoint
The point is to show the developers that there is a actual demand for these games on the Mac platform. That way they put more resources in to the Mac versions thereby eliminating the "3/4 framerate" you speak of. Mac games tend to be pokier than their Windows counterparts not because of OS X, but because they were afterthought ports.

I really don't get anyone here talking about this not being a great bit of news. It's like someone announced that their computer will be getting more functionality, and they're pissed.
I have some interesting results to share with you. When I changed from Win to the Mac I installed Windows XP 32bit on the Snow Leopard Mac through BootCamp. I ran a couple of Benchmarks with the 32bit Version of Geekbench and OSX had significantly better results, I forgot the exact numbers but it was roughly 2900 Points under XP and the same Test in OSX was about 3500 Points. My typography class was my first contact with OSX and the school was equipped with very old 400 MHZ Macs and I was always amazed at how fast and reliable these computers ran with only 400 MHZ. So, long story short: Coded properly, native OSX Games can run significantly faster than their native Win versions.
 

ksgant

macrumors 6502a
Jan 12, 2006
600
50
0
Chicago
The hardware options are still very lacking. Valve on OS X still leaves out every other Windows application you've ever encountered.

I personally refuse to play games under OS X.
Then what's the point in even having a Mac? If you're gaming a lot and always running Windows 7 or whatever under bootcamp...what's the point?

I buy a Mac because I want to run OS X, NOT because of the hardware. Yes, I understand that you can run OS X on PC's with various hacks...but I don't want a hack. I want my OS to be up-to-date. I want the latest security and bug fixes. I don't want to always be 2 or 3 updates behind just because they haven't made a work-around hack yet for Hackintosh.

So I bought a Mac to run OS X...and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend this money and then turn around and run Windows when I want to just sit down to a casual game. Plus, I would hate the constant rebooting just do jump around. Screw that.

I personally refuse to run Windows when I have OS X.
 

MMX

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2010
125
0
0
Manchester
Then what's the point in even having a Mac? If you're gaming a lot and always running Windows 7 or whatever under bootcamp...what's the point?

I buy a Mac because I want to run OS X, NOT because of the hardware. Yes, I understand that you can run OS X on PC's with various hacks...but I don't want a hack. I want my OS to be up-to-date. I want the latest security and bug fixes. I don't want to always be 2 or 3 updates behind just because they haven't made a work-around hack yet for Hackintosh.

So I bought a Mac to run OS X...and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend this money and then turn around and run Windows when I want to just sit down to a casual game. Plus, I would hate the constant rebooting just do jump around. Screw that.

I personally refuse to run Windows when I have OS X.
And graphics is not everything. Gameplay > Graphics. Of course it's good if you can have both, but how many of new games have both? I can play Dune for days or Myth for that matter. Crysis? :D
 

ValSalva

macrumors 68040
Jun 26, 2009
3,741
195
0
Burpelson AFB
That said... you wont "melt an iMac" by gaming... that's what I disagree with you on. Gaming isn't that bad on your machine. My Macbook Pro has been doing it nightly for 5+ hours just fine.
That's good to know. I've heard of overheating problems on these forums with the new i7 and i5 iMacs. I haven't experienced it myself but then I haven't been gaming.
 

Manic Mouse

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2006
943
0
0
You guys do all realise that "OMG uber spec" PC gaming is essentially dead, right? People play games on PS3s and 360s now, and of those that still play on PC very few have gaming rigs.

My 13" MBP will be able to handle all source games at close to max settings, because Valve realise that if they cater to the hardcore they'll be dead. Source games don't require the latest GPU to run. I played HL2 at max settings on my laptop five years ago, this MBP blows that thing out of the water.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
0
Indianapolis
You guys do all realise that "OMG uber spec" PC gaming is essentially dead, right? People play games on PS3s and 360s now, and of those that still play on PC very few have gaming rigs.

My 13" MBP will be able to handle all source games at close to max settings, because Valve realise that if they cater to the hardcore they'll be dead. Source games don't require the latest GPU to run. I played HL2 at max settings on my laptop five years ago, this MBP blows that thing out of the water.
Take a look at how popular the HD 4800 and G92 based products are on Steam.
 

commander.data

macrumors 65816
Nov 10, 2006
1,006
95
0
That means Valve ported over the source engine to Mac. Which basically means that Half life 2 has also been ported over. Even more exciting is that they are working on Episode 3, which should be released on both platforms when its ready.

Very very excited about this! The Mac has needed this for a very, very long time.
http://source.valvesoftware.com/SourceBrochure.pdf

I don't see how Portal 2 being available for Mac directly means that the Source Engine itself can natively support OS X. A direct example is the presence of Orange Box on PS3. Those Source Engine games were ported to the PS3 by EA and not Valve. The marketing material to license the Source Engine states that the Source Engine can only output code to target the PC and XBox 360 platforms, not the PS3. So individual Source Engine games being ported to OS X does not directly mean that the Source Engine itself can support OS X.

Of course, ideally I hope that the Source Engine can natively support OS X just like it does PC and XBox 360, but we'll have to see if they update their marketing materials to reflect that.

On the graphics card issue, it's a non-issue in Source Engine games. The Source Engine is very flexible and even has fallbacks to DirectX 6. Currently, the most advanced code path in the Source Engine is DirectX 9 with no DirectX 10 codepath. Valve games should play just fine on any Intel Mac with a discrete GPU. Of course, older models will need lower settings.

Where the lack of top-end GPU power is questionable is whether it'll discourage the porting of other AAA games to Mac even if Steam for Mac should be a boost for Mac gaming. Still, while Mac's don't usually have the fastest graphics cards in their generation, they are still decent and would fit the minimum or recommended requirements of most games.

And as others have said, the problem is as much driver support as hardware support. Windows drivers are more optimized than OS X drivers so performance is being left on the table. Quicker responses with driver fixes and optimization for new games like on Windows is also required to encourage developer support.
 

DocNYz

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2008
625
40
0
East Coast, USA
And graphics is not everything. Gameplay > Graphics. Of course it's good if you can have both, but how many of new games have both? I can play Dune for days or Myth for that matter. Crysis? :D
Yeah that's why I installed MYST on my iPhone and SimCity, both incredibly fun throwbacks with great gameplay and pretty much 2D graphics.
 

Manic Mouse

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2006
943
0
0
Take a look at how popular the HD 4800 and G92 based products are on Steam.
Take a look at CoD:MW2 sales figure across platforms. From Infinity Ward:

"Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market"

By smallest percentage they mean a measly 3% of the first 1.7 million copies sold in the UK.

Now realise Steam represents a subset of that 3% PC market, saying that hardcore PC gaming is "popular" looks pretty darn silly. Valve and Blizzard, the two biggest PC devs, make engines specifically made to run on a range of machines for that very reason. Very few people have gaming rigs, and as time goes on there is less and less of a reason to make one when the consoles are where devs are shooting.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
0
Indianapolis
Take a look at CoD:MW2 sales figure across platforms. From Infinity Ward:

"Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market"

By smallest percentage they mean a measly 3% of the first 1.7 million copies sold in the UK.

Now realise Steam represents a subset of that 3% PC market, saying that hardcore PC gaming is "popular" looks pretty darn silly. Valve and Blizzard, the two biggest PC devs, make engines specifically made to run on a range of machines for a reason.
I believe that Modern Warfare 2 is a bad example given the negative reputation it has garnered in PC circles if not outright boycott.

What do you define as a hardcore gamer? Would you believe that I am one?