[Macworld]

Post your comments for Improved iMac graphics won't matter to gamers here

[mrbach]

So now the 8800 is a mid-range card?
These articles lost their credibility years ago. There is this pretentious breed of gamer that equates having the most expensive video card with having a decent frame rate. Nonsense.
I just picked up an 8600 XFX card for my PC for $60 after rebate to play a DirectX 10 game, BioShock. It doesn't run that badly on my P4 3 Gz system.
Grand Theft Auto SA runs on my iMac 2.16 very nicely and fills the 24 inch screen. Of course, it has a lowly Nvidia 7600 in it.
Seriously, once you get past 40 or 50 fps, it doesn't make a difference to the average user, and articles like this are simply disingenuous. Since the dawn of video card critics, my card has always been listed as entry level. When I bought my new 8600 for $60, it replaced an ATI X800 that I had paid $300 for only 2 years ago. The X800 is now described as something suitable for "general use". Funny, I bought it to play Half Life and it did extremely well.
Playing Need for Speed Carbon or Tombraider Anniversary on my lowly, ancient 24 inch iMac, seems fun, so maybe, just maybe, games on a Mac are not that unreasonable!

[Wyeast]

One of the most significant things Apple could do to aid gaming on the Mac is to make OpenGL perform as well on comparable hardware as DX9 does on Windows.

I love Macs and hate Windows. But DX9 runs faster than OpenGL, which handicaps even good Mac hardware, and reduces the credibility of the Mac as a gaming platform.

So better drivers in general and better OpenGL performance would go a long way toward attracting more developers and gamers.

[Adammiller]

I don't think that the graphics cards were intended for gamers at all. The computer gaming market is nothing compared the the motion graphics, film and design market that embraces the Mac platform. Apple caters to these industries and the result is a huge amount of professionals who use Macs at work and then drive home to their personal Mac everyday. Around 90% of the film, interactive and motion industry is Mac based and its a huge industry so I would say that the graphics cards were intended them... probably not a few people playing DOOM.

[montgomery_burns]

I wonder if it can play Guitar Hero 3 with all graphics settings at maximum without lagging.

[dean_o]

I've been playing Tomb Raider Anniversary on my 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo Mini and enjoying it immensely.

I had to modify the default settings bit, and I'm sure it would be even better on a Mac Pro with a 30" Cinema display, but good grief! It's not worth spending $5000 just to get better frame rates in Tomb Raider. I'm an adult with a job, mortgage, car payment, insurance, etc. I have other demands on my time and money.


I guess I don't understand what a "gamer" is. I always thought a gamer was anyone who regularly played computer games. From the article, it seems that a gamer is really someone for whom gaming is their #1 leisure activity into which they invest the majority of their free time and money. Why anyone who fits that definition is playing on personal computer is mystery to me. If you're at that level of involvement what you need is a high-end gaming console attached to to the 42" HD television in your living room.

This article is talking about a very small group of hard-core enthusiasts. The iMac looks to me like plenty of machine for the typical game player who has interests other than "gaming."

[DisabledTrucker]

The problem is that the good games that come out for the Mac have already been out far too long on other platforms for people to want to shell out the extra money to get them to play them on their Macs. The iMac line could do with a way to upgrade the graphics, add more drives, maybe even exchange processors and add more memory. Until then, they aren't going to be very well suited for most gamers, especially those who play against others in the online realm. You'll only find it fun until you get blasted away a half dozen times in less than 3 seconds by the same person who's running a system that's much, much, much faster than the current Macs. Mac Pro's are totally unsuited for gaming, so don't even go there.

I'll have to disagree though that the screens aren't fast enough or good enough and that gamers want to use CRT's for that, I for one gave up my CRT a long time ago. Any screen that is capable of at least a 8ns response time is generally good enough, though the faster ones seem to do better with tearing. Though the glossy screens are harder on the eyes, especially in well lit environments. When in BootCamp running Windows XP and playing Need For Speed:Most Wanted, I noticed no tearing at all on my 24" iMac w/nVidia 7600-GT graphics, (late 2006 model.) It was plenty fast enough for me playing against the machine but, it's not something I would use to play online against other players with. Had I been able to plop in the 3.06GHz processor then, a much better graphics card, and maybe a faster hard drive, I may have considered it but, not at it's current specs.

As mentioned previously, until Apple does something, gaming on the Mac platform is going to be limited to outdated titles or boring old flash games. Sure there aren't all that many choices for video cards on the Apples of today, then again the two video card makers aren't going to waste their time building the fastest and best graphics cards for the platform until they are upgradable by the consumer as they don't feel the need to have to be competitive on the platform. So long as Apple sticks with the laptop motherboards in it's iMac lineup, it's processor choices are going to be limited as well. I'm sure there are many gamers out there that would be willing to compromise the silence factor for a slightly larger, (thicker,) iMac that includes a fan or two, (they can be large fans to assist in the quiet factor,) and the extra buck to add the few extra screws to make them accessible.

As far as using a Mid Range Tower for a Mac, they used to have the cube, if they were to release that today designed to look like an Apple, people would probably snap it up and create a gaming rig out of it that could be a worthy competitor to where the bigger name titles will do well enough that they could come to the Mac at the same time as they're released elsewhere. Given that they're not limited and sealed like the rest of the Mac lineup save the Mac Pro.

[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=dean_o wrote:}
This article is talking about a very small group of hard-core enthusiasts. The iMac looks to me like plenty of machine for the typical game player who has interests other than "gaming."
{quote}

Very small group of hard-core enthusiasts huh? That very small group is over millions, if not billions, of people, and some of them actually make money off of it as well. Granted maybe not as much as someone with a career but, then again $10K, plus endorsements, plus whatever else, isn't nothing to sneeze at either. Granted, for the "mainstream crowd", the iMac is plenty of machine for people whom have interests other than gaming but, it's at the bottom of the line for doing that. Most "gamers" don't just play the random java game or play The Sims Online, they play the hard-core action titles such as DOOM, F.E.A.R, Gears of War, etc. and are as interested in it as some are with their NASCAR, Football, Basketball, or other sport, and are more than willing to drop $3+K in a system that's worthy to keep them on top of their game. Those XBOX's and PS3's are nothing more than toys to them.

[Peter Cohen]

mrbach said:

So now the 8800 is a mid-range card?

These articles lost their credibility years ago.

I think we can do without the casual insults.

The 8800 is not a card. GeForce 8800 describes an entire product line.

The 8800GS is a most assuredly mid-range chip. It's based on the same core G92 chip architecture that the 8800GT uses, but with fewer stream processors, fewer texture units and a smaller number of raster operators. The bottom line is that the 8800GS is not as capable as beefier chips. And let's not even get into the GeForce 9000 series.

Nvidia's own designation gives the mid-range placement away: that "GS" designates it such.

Regardless, you miss the whole point of my editorial: That whatever graphics Apple puts in the iMac won't matter if no one is buying games, or if no one is making them.

[Peter Cohen]

Adammiller said:

I don't think that the graphics cards were intended for gamers at all. The computer gaming market is nothing compared the the motion graphics, film and design market that embraces the Mac platform.

Point taken, but if that's the case, why does the GeForce 8800GT card I have in my Mac Pro still stink for applications like Motion?

[blecch]

Unfortunately this is true: a good set of cross-platform games along with great system exclusives is what makes a game platform. This is what you have on the PS3/Xbox360/Wii/PSP/DS, and it's what you have on the PC.

That being said, I'd settle for just more cross-platform games and a good set of lower-budget exclusives on the Mac.

Apple could really do a lot to spur development of good Mac-exclusive games, by investing in game studios and bankrolling the development of Mac-exclusive games. It could also take a page out of Sony's book by rolling unique games on the iPhone/iPod and then migrating them up to the Mac as well.

To become a must-have system for gamers, the Mac would ideally have at least one top-tier, must-have Mac-exclusive game on the level of Halo, Zelda, or Metal Gear Solid. However, I'd be pretty happy if it had Mac-exclusive games on the level of Patapon, LocoRoco, Geometry Wars, etc., all available through iTunes.

As far as cross-platform gaming is concerned, Apple should try to get more Mac games on Steam, GameTap, and iTunes - this will help solve the problems of fighting for shelf space and attributing Mac sales. Perhaps Steam and GameTap (or at least all of their games) should be available through iTunes. This would make Mac games a lot easier to find, try, and buy. If you look at PSN and XBLA, it's clear that making it easy and inexpensive to buy good-quality games (often cheap, good system exclusives) is a great strategy. Some of my favorite games on the PS3 are PSN titles like LocoRoco, Super Stardust HD, Everyday Shooter, etc.. I am also sorely tempted to buy expansion content (e.g. songs for Rock Band) when it is easily available for purchase/download. By the way, every new song on iTunes should have Rock Band/Guitar Hero versions, and there should be an easy way of getting the game tracks and audio tracks simultaneously.

Also, Apple should provide incentives to developers and publishers to make Mac versions available at the same time as PC versions, and at the same price - the current system of delaying six months or more and still charging launch price has got to go. If gamers can buy the same game, at launch, for the same price, they are more likely to consider a Mac version.

Right now, the Mac gaming horizon doesn't look so great; I doubt Apple will do most of these things (after all, they're making piles of money with the current non-gaming strategy.) Nonetheless, I have some hope that the iPhone/iPod will emerge as a gaming platform, and that some of the good (and Apple-exclusive) games will migrate up to the Mac and perhaps start building a Mac equivalent to PSN or XBLA through iTunes.

[dean_o]

DisabledTrucker said:

Very small group of hard-core enthusiasts huh? That very small group is over millions, if not billions, of people, and some of them actually make money off of it as well. Granted maybe not as much as someone with a career but, then again $10K, plus endorsements, plus whatever else, isn't nothing to sneeze at either.

Billions? Are you actually suggesting that over a sixth of the total population on Earth needs a high end gaming rig? That's errant nonsense.

I realize that some people do earn money playing computer games. But without some proof, I'm just not willing to believe that it's a meaningful segment of the total home computer market. Last time I looked at US Labor Statistics (actually part of my job), "professional gamer" wasn't even on the list of job titles. I doubt it's a very big part of the economy. I stand by my original characterization: "A very small group of hard-core enthusiasts."

Would it make you feel better if I changed it to "a very elite group of serious players?"

[Peter Cohen]

dean_o said:

I realize that some people do earn money playing computer games. But without some proof, I'm just not willing to believe that it's a meaningful segment of the total home computer market. Last time I looked at US Labor Statistics (actually part of my job), "professional gamer" wasn't even on the list of job titles. I doubt it's a very big part of the economy. I stand by my original characterization: "A very small group of hard-core enthusiasts."

I've never seen any numbers on how big the hardcore gaming market is, but it's certainly big enough for Dell, HP and other computer manufacturers to dedicate product line segments to. Dell has its XPS line, HP acquired Alienware and so on. Admittedly purely anecdotal, but the point is that it is a sizeable part of the enthusiast PC market.

[Adammiller]

Peter,
???? Anyone using a MacPro for motion graphics should be loving it.... im not really sure what kind of graphics your looking for here. If you really had to, you could create professional quality video and motion graphics using a macbook pro. I wasn't really referring to the program motion anyways. Motion consist of huge pre-made graphics. Anyone can see work that came from motion and tell that it came from motion because its stock and pre-made. Directors edit video on macbook pros and there are plenty of traveling artist working in after effects on macbook pros. Some people don't have the luxury of sitting behind a mac pro and most people wouldn't need to even if they could. There are only a hand-full of people who actually need a mac pro and unless your planning on working on the latest and greatest CGI, its probably overkill.