[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=dean_o wrote:}
> {quote:title=DisabledTrucker wrote:}
> 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.{quote}

>

Quote

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?"{quote}

Noone NEEDS a high end gaming rig but, the gamers are the ones who are most likely to drop the most cash into their systems, just like with a race car driver and a normal driver, should we discount the racers because they are small group and not produce any fast, exotic cars?!? Actually there's over 6.66 billion of people on the earth, as of the last census, so that would come out to less than 1/6th the population. And with the number of sales of the top games out there and players in each one that compete, I was guessing it close to that, yes. I'm sure hooker isn't on that list either, but they are out there and moreso than the very small group as you think that they are.

[blecch]

Millions of people like to play games enough to shell out hundreds of dollars for a PS3, XBox 360, or Wii - along with controllers for $40-$50 each and games that often cost $60 (or more, in the case of Rock Band or Guitar Hero.) (Of course, you also need a television, preferably a nice one if you want HD for games or movies.) Not to mention the people who are willing to pay $100-$200 for a PSP or DS along with a bunch of games for around $30 each. The Mac is not currently playing in either market, but it could.

If you look at the last generation of the console market, more than 100 million PS2's were sold, along with a bunch of Xboxes and some GameCubes. The current generation is already at more than 50 million consoles (with the Wii dominating but the PS3/XBox also doing well), along with more than 100 million handhelds ( ignoring the 2.5 billion or more cell phones, many of which are used for gaming as well as phone calls and text messages.)

There is a market of people who play and pay for games - the question is does Apple want some (more?) of those dollars, and, if so, what are they going to do about it?

[jhorvatic]

The writers opinion doesn't make sense. He doesn't like the glossy screen.
He says the graphics card is only a midrange card. This is an opinion story not based on any facts. FUD!!!!

[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=jhorvatic wrote:}
The writers opinion doesn't make sense. He doesn't like the glossy screen.
He says the graphics card is only a midrange card. This is an opinion story not based on any facts. FUD!!!!{quote}

The graphics card in question is only a midrange card, the top of line cards will set you back at least $500, not $200-300 or less. A lot of gamers don't like the glossy iMac screens, primarily for the glare factor, so this is based on facts and not fiction.

[Peter Cohen]

Adammiller said:

Peter,

???? Anyone using a MacPro for motion graphics should be loving it

They should, but the 8800GT has a pretty well-documented issue concerning rendering effects with Motion and other applications that hammer on Core Image effects. We're still waiting on drivers from Apple to fix this. Maybe in 10.5.3.

[JakeB]

I just don't understand the logic of the article.
Peter, you make clear that one can game on the Mac by using Boot Camp to install Windows XP, thus opening up a world of hundreds (thousands?) of games to Mac users, but then you suggest the real problem is there's a huge shortage of Mac games.
That's what I don't get. If I've Windows XP on my Mac, why do I NEED games to run natively on the Mac? People always choose the simplest solution, which in this case is to install XP.
If I'm a developer, where's the incentive to port my PC game over to the Mac? Seems to me NATIVE Mac gaming is going to die out in the next year or two.
Okay, I'm returning to GTA on my MacBook Pro. Keep hoping it'll show up on the Mac. Someday.
Jake

[Peter Cohen]

Thanks for being one of the few posters in this thread who's actually responding to the article's central thesis. :)

[wardoggie]

Peter, Dell acquired Alienware. HP acquired VoodooPC. However, I agree with the basic premise of your article.

[jbrougher]

Hi Peter!
I don't mean this as an insult at all, so please don't take it as anything but a (hopefully) constructive comment, but I fear that the premise of your article is...a truism, if that makes sense. The premise, as I see it, is that the true problem with Mac gaming is the dearth of Mac games, which I completely agree with--great or mediocre iMac graphics will not affect the gaming market. That being said, I do think we have to keep in mind what impact things do and do not have.
I know I'm being opaque, so I'll go with an example--if a DVD player is a great DVD player, but doesn't play Blu-ray discs, that may be, on some level, a relevant/related shortcoming, but it's also a criticism that's a tad bit unfair.
I'd love to see an article lambasting Apple and the many others who are at fault for the opportunities they've let slip by to make gaming relevant--I just think that iMac graphics aren't really the ones to blame either way.
Just my two cents, and again, I really don't mean to be incendiary or at all hurtful, so please don't take my thoughts as such.

[Peter Cohen]

JakeB said:

Okay, I'm returning to GTA on my MacBook Pro. Keep hoping it'll show up on the Mac. Someday.

You answered your own question.

[paws2k3]

hi,
seriously! won't matter to gamers - are you kidding? have you played anything on a core2duo imac with an 8800?
i bought a white 24inch imac to work on (7600gt 256), and to play games on - albeit through bootcamp for now - and it runs call of duty 4 very respectably - not at full native resolution, but pretty high with no real quality compromises.
i have another machine at home with at 8800, and it blows the 7600gt out of the water on a 30inch screen in call of duty 4, dawn of war, and company of heroes
how you can say it won't matter to gamers is beyond me! go easy on the coffee!
it may not satisfy the extreme overclockers of the pc gaming community, but for an affordable mac to sport this kind of hardware has been hitherto unheard of!
i think that this lineup of machines, at these prices are finally making the mac a realistic platform for a good gaming experience - even if it is largely through bootcamp for now.

[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=blecch wrote:}
Millions of people like to play games enough to shell out hundreds of dollars for a PS3, XBox 360, or Wii - along with controllers for $40-$50 each and games that often cost $60 (or more, in the case of Rock Band or Guitar Hero.) (Of course, you also need a television, preferably a nice one if you want HD for games or movies.) Not to mention the people who are willing to pay $100-$200 for a PSP or DS along with a bunch of games for around $30 each. The Mac is not currently playing in either market, but it could.

If you look at the last generation of the console market, more than 100 million PS2's were sold, along with a bunch of Xboxes and some GameCubes. The current generation is already at more than 50 million consoles (with the Wii dominating but the PS3/XBox also doing well), along with more than 100 million handhelds ( ignoring the 2.5 billion or more cell phones, many of which are used for gaming as well as phone calls and text messages.)

There is a market of people who play and pay for games - the question is does Apple want some (more?) of those dollars, and, if so, what are they going to do about it?{quote}

Actually the XBOX-360 sold more than 100 million in it's first year alone, and it's still selling good too, otherwise Microsoft would have updated it already. Granted since the Wii's and PS3's release, it's slacked off some, it's still just a portion of the gaming market.

I agree wholeheartedly however that there is a market for people that play games, I would argue till my dying breath that is significantly larger than Apple wants people to believe to the point that many computer manufacturers, (beyond HP and Dell,) create customized rigs just for it and do rather well at it too, take a look at some of the top names in the business, Falcon Northwest, Alienware (which was recently purchased by Dell,) CyberPower, VooDoo (which was also recently purchased if memory serves by HP,) and then let's not forget all the parts manufacturers out there that seem to think there's a worthy enough market for this that they constantly release new "extreme" parts almost on a monthly basis, oh that's right you all probably don't recognize names such as nVidia, Intel, AMD, MSI, Antec, Asus, Entec, etc.

[dean_o]

[quote name='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.

Well, when I mentioned market size, I really meant to be addressing only DisabledTrucker's comments about professional gamers. Based on absolutely no data at all, I can't believe that's a very big group. Having said that, if you're telling me that gaming machines are a profitable sector for computer manufacturers, you'll get no argument from me. But I am going to stick to my guns and argue that it's still a niche market. Again based on absolutely no facts at all, I'm going to assert that it's probably a very small niche in comparison to the total market for games.

For someone who plays a few games for an hour or two at a setting three or four times a week, I'd argue that the iMac is a pretty good game machine. That's a lot of game playing to me, but maybe I'm the one who's atypical.

I think all of this discussion about market size and hardware does overlook the most important point you make in your article. The selection of available games on the Mac is still nowhere near the Windows selection, although you have to admit, it's a quantum leap better than it was ten or fifteen years ago. The limited availability of titles makes hardware specs are almost irrelevant, anyway.

So what else is new, right? I remember hearing that same complaint n 1990 when I bought my first Mac.

[pln]

DisabledTrucker said:

Quote

Very small group of hard-core enthusiasts huh? That very small group is over millions, if not billions, of people ...

I've told you a trillion times, don't exaggerate.

The top 10 games in the US last year together sold about 6 million copies, or about one for every 50 USians. Considering most serious gamers would buy several games a year, that means less than 2% of the population are gamers in the country where more people can afford to be gamers.

I suspect you're applying your own narrow experience generally. If you're a serious gamer, a high percentage of people you know (or interested in knowing) will also be gamers.