[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=JakeB wrote:}
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{quote}

Good point Jake, why would you need games for the Mac if you can just load up Windows, well there are a lot of us whom don't want to run or otherwise don't like Windows and want games specifically for the Mac. The problem lies in that until Apple does something to cater to gamers, there probably never will be any more than what we already get. You won't see any big name "first run" titles on the Mac, you'll be lucky if you still see "after thoughts" on it. Apple dove into the Intel market but, only half-assed, as far as gamers go. With so many options out there for Apple to consider, they are completely shrugging off it's most promising crowd, the ones who'll go out of their way to spend $100's if not $1000's on a system or it's parts, to get that edge on the competition. The Mac platform is great for gaming, if it weren't for the hardware it's run on. Granted there could be some tweaks made to OpenGL as well but, that's on OpenGL not Apple. Okay so the programmers have to actually learn to code on it, rather than using DirectX, DirectX isn't the best instruction set out there for gaming by far, it's just the easiest to code for. With Apple's "Core" API, things could get easier on the Mac but, then there's no real following for it to be improved when the hardware isn't there to give them the incentive. The mid-range graphics of the new iMacs isn't enough for people to want to code for it, it does however make playing those new Vista only games better, (if you can get past the driver problems and the fact it's Vista,) it doesn't however really give you a viable gamers platform.

Apple would have to do some minor changes to it's iMac roundup to achieve this, such as making it easier to swap out components, giving people more options to "better", (I use this word loosely,) components, and provide an improved API, (or at least invest in someone who can,) and change their attitudes towards the gaming market in general. Unfortunately, it looks as if as long as Steve is in charge, this will not happen, at least not anytime soon. He want's everyone to believe that there's only a tiny percentage of the market that likes to play games, when that market is in fact large enough that every major player in it has something that caters to the gamers specifically, otherwise they wouldn't be doing as well as they are now.

[Wilddragon]

I used to naively consider myself a "gamer" for no more reason than that I spent many hours playing games on my Apple. Now, however, I have discovered that, since I don't care for games that require the reflexes and hand/eye coordination of a 15-year-old, I'm not really a gamer at all.
Does it really make any sense to optimize a $2000+ computer for games which will always run better on a $500 console? If I wanted that kind of game, I'd buy a console.
Is the market for games that require thought rather than quick reflexes really so small? Rather than whine about how the Mac isn't a console, how about promoting games that are too intellectually demanding to ever appeal to the console market?

[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=pln 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 ...{quote}

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.{quote}

Actually the statistics I'm basing my facts on are the ammount of people that not only purchase games but, also the ammount of people that fill up contest sites and other arenas. If you do the math on how many "big name" game titles that are sold, (which are much more numerous than just 10,) divide that by platform, (allowing for the percentage of people who MAY have more than one platform and copy of the game for each platform,) then subtract the number of people who only bought that certain title, (and/or it's subsequent "updates",) since games have shown up on the PC, yes, I can easily see that that number is well into the billions. Just because a gamer today doesn't stay a gamer tomorrow, doesn't make them less of one and also doesn't mean that the person today that doesn't play games won't tomorrow either. Okay so the gamer market is maybe 1-2% of the total users of computers, that's still far from insignificant, the same can be said for race car drivers, why make exotic automobiles for them when they only make up 1-2% or less of the total market? And yes, those cars they are driving are exotics, you're not going to go to your local Ford dealership and get one, they are one-off's. That's also like saying, "Well, only 1-2% of the total users will only use it for "serious" audio/video production, so why bother?"

Also, if you add up those thousands of companies that are producing the millions of parts that are being sold for billions of dollars each year, those parts must be going somewhere and being purchased by someone, it's surely not the average Jane that only needs a computer to read her emails on, or the business person that only needs it to do websites or some other mediocre job.

[pln]

DisabledTrucker said:

If you do the math on how many "big name" game titles that are sold, (which are much more numerous than just 10,) divide that by platform, (allowing for the percentage of people who MAY have more than one platform and copy of the game for each platform,) then subtract the number of people who only bought that certain title, (and/or it's subsequent "updates",) since games have shown up on the PC, yes, I can easily see that that number is well into the billions...

Whoa, steady on there! Looks like you're including consoles in there. There's no contest when you talk about console vs PC vs Mac gaming. 10x more console games are sold than PC games.

But we're talking about gaming on the Mac and comparing it to gaming on the PC. PC makers can't compete with consoles, never mind Apple.

Let's look at the numbers. How many people can play other than casual games on their PCs? (Since you can easily play casual games on the Mac, forget about those.) There are only 300 million PCs less than one year old in the world. Half of those (at least) are sold to businesses. Barely 10% of the rest have high end graphics. You're down to 15 million PCs or fewer world wide with graphic cards better than the nVidia 8800GS on the high end iMac.

[DisabledTrucker]

Quote

{quote:title=Wilddragon wrote:}
I used to naively consider myself a "gamer" for no more reason than that I spent many hours playing games on my Apple. Now, however, I have discovered that, since I don't care for games that require the reflexes and hand/eye coordination of a 15-year-old, I'm not really a gamer at all.

Does it really make any sense to optimize a $2000+ computer for games which will always run better on a $500 console? If I wanted that kind of game, I'd buy a console.

Is the market for games that require thought rather than quick reflexes really so small? Rather than whine about how the Mac isn't a console, how about promoting games that are too intellectually demanding to ever appeal to the console market?{quote}

Because the intellectual games you speak of aren't the ones that sell products, the average gamer is in the 17-32 year old age group and the majority of those are the ones who drive the fads out there as well. The fad being the action games, which makes up the majority of the gaming market, those games require fast reflexes and demand a lot from their hardware as well. Especially when you get into the graphics quality of those games and the intricacies of the details put into them. My favorite games are the racing ones, this doesn't necessarily make them the top genre out there but, they also require a lot of the same requirements as the action games when it comes to the hardware necessary to bring the details out in the games. Those intellectual games you talk about, are for the "casual" gamer, which isn't what this article is about. Granted the title is a tad misleading, since it should say, "Improved iMac graphics won't matter to "Hard-Core" gamers".

Oh, and the fantasy that those consoles are much better at gaming than the computer, is ridiculous to say the least. The average "gaming rig" is many times faster than those consoles, the only thing that they have going for them is their controllers, then that's debatable depending upon the game being played. Granted for the majority of games, (being action games,) a controller may be better than the keyboard/mouse, for driving games they aren't, the wheel is a better option there, same for some of those other game genres such as MMORPG's, (WoW being one of them,) which also has a rather increasingly large following and could do with better systems for better graphics and more details with faster response times.

[dean_o]

DisabledTrucker said:

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.

Hey, I'm not making value judgements about anyone's character, here, so please don't take it personally.

I'm simply arguing that the standards in the article for a "good gaming machine" are actually quite high. I think it's worth noting that for the majority of game players -- not the professionals and not the hard-core players -- the iMac is a pretty nice machine.



I never suggested that "race car drivers" should be discounted or ignored. But surely you wouldn't say that a Dodge Charger isn't a muscle car just because a professional driver wouldn't drive one off the Dodge lot directly onto the track at Talladega, would you? The Charger is a lot of car for most drivers. In the same way, I say that just because nothing in the current Mac line-up appeals to hard-core gamers doesn't mean that latest iMac isn't a satisfying gaming machine for most game players.



Stick by that "billions" number if you want. I salute you! You're suggesting that worldwide, the number of professional gamers is comparable to the population of India. Again, without some pretty dramatic proof, your number seems like a wild exaggeration.



"Hooker" isn't tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics because it's illegal. "Professional Gamer" isn't tracked because there just aren't that many of them. Again, it isn't a value judgement. There aren't very many popes, presidents, or Dalai Lamas, either. That fact doesn't diminish those groups, but it doesn't mean a car has to be the Pope-mobile to be consider high-performance for most people, either.

[mrbach]

So I can't hint at an insult, when the very article insults computer users as a whole? I think the whole notion that an 8800 card or chip is mid range is absolutely ridiculous. The performance improvements over the 8600 series are marginal at best, and reviews of video cards are as credible as those of cameras (megapixel myths).

I mean, anyone who has used this cards for gaming, knows they are decent and the trivialization of a fairly recent card is just silly. So, although my intention was not to insult, I find the very notion that an 8800 in a new iMac is mid range an insult.

[ex2bot]

Forgive me if I missed it as I read through the messages, but I think one point needs to be emphasized. The 8800GS will do a nice job on today's games. They're going to be pretty, fast and enjoyable.
But in a year or so, the iMac gamer will have to change settings to lower resolutions and less detail. By a couple years or so, many of the then current games will not work adequately on that two-year-old iMac. So, as a game machine, it will only be viable with current games for 1 1/2 to 2 years.
Then it will be time to upgrade the graphics card. But there's a problem. The iMac's graphics card can't be upgraded. That's why iMacs have never been considered practical game machines by dedicated gamers who are used to upgrading their graphics card every year or two. Yes, they exist. I was one until I went Mac.
Besides, the Mac-native games I've bought have often been frustratingly buggy. And yes, the selection is poor.
So I enjoy my XBox 360.
Bot

[Wilddragon]

DisabledTrucker said:

> {quote:title=Wilddragon wrote:} I used to naively consider myself a "gamer" for no more reason than that I spent many hours playing games on my Apple. Now, however, I have discovered that, since I don't care for games that require the reflexes and hand/eye coordination of a 15-year-old, I'm not really a gamer at all.
>
> Does it really make any sense to optimize a $2000+ computer for games which will always run better on a $500 console? If I wanted that kind of game, I'd buy a console.
>
> Is the market for games that require thought rather than quick reflexes really so small? Rather than whine about how the Mac isn't a console, how about promoting games that are too intellectually demanding to ever appeal to the console market?{quote}
Because the intellectual games you speak of aren't the ones that sell products, the average gamer is in the 17-32 year old age group and the majority of those are the ones who drive the fads out there as well.

The average console gamer may be 17+, but I doubt that the average Mac gamer is either so young or so allergic to intellectual challenges. What sense does it make to plan the future of the Mac based on the market for the Xbox?

Quote

The fad being the action games, which makes up the majority of the gaming market, those games require fast reflexes and demand a lot from their hardware as well.

You have it backwards. It's not that those games require fast reflexes, It's that fast reflexes are what those games are all about.

There is certainly a market for "fast reflex" games, and consoles are aggressively targeting that market. There is also some overlap between the "fast reflex" game market and the Mac game market -- but not nearly enough overlap to justify equating the "fast reflex" game market with the Mac game market, or even the PC game market.

What makes this distinction somewhat hard to see is the fact that the console game market is currently much, much larger than the computer game market. Carelessly lump those two markets together and console data swamps computer data.
>Those intellectual games you talk about, are for the "casual" gamer, which isn't what this article is about.
I don't think so. The game I am currently enjoying, Dominions 3, comes with a 294-page printed manual. That isn't "casual" by anyone's definition.

Casual games are one challenge to the current fad of "fast reflex" games, but not the only challenge.
>Granted the title is a tad misleading, since it should say, "Improved iMac graphics won't matter to "Hard-Core" gamers".
And why do "fast reflex" games deserve the title "Hard-Core"? Let's just say that improved iMac graphics won't matter to "Fast Reflex" gamers.

On the other hand, "fast reflex" gamers may be the only gamers to whom those improved graphics will matter. Games that involve something more than fast reflexes do just fine with the old iMac graphics.

[Jarmo]

First, 8800GS is beyond any doubt a midrange card, and low midrange at that. The fact that Apple is offering 8800GS as a $120 upgrade pretty much gives away it's worth. A bit of web searching confirms that's the price the card it's selling for. Cards selling for $250 are also midrange, $500 is higher up and a couple of $500 cards working in tandem constitute high end.

Now you don't need a $500 card to run a high end game, (unless you happen to want high resolution at high quality).
But a $500 card is also going to run a high end games coming next year while the $100 will struggle.
Of course, if you get a new iMac every year you're just fine.

Quote

{quote:title=Wilddragon wrote:}> I used to naively consider myself a "gamer" for no more reason than that I spent many hours playing games on my Apple. Now, however, I have discovered that, since I don't care for games that require the reflexes and hand/eye coordination of a 15-year-old, I'm not really a gamer at all. {quote}

Funny how I also thought myself a gamer while not playing twitch shooters.

One of the games I play on PC and maybe on the mac in future is Neverwinter Nights 2.
It's system requirements are here: http://www.aspyr.com...t/game_specs/84
Another favourite of mine is Medieval 2 Total War. About the same requirements.

It's not only the shooters. Everything but solitaire is 3D and the requirements are moving up.

Quote

{quote:title=Wilddragon wrote:}> Does it really make any sense to optimize a $2000+ computer for games which will always run better on a $500 console? If I wanted that kind of game, I'd buy a console. {quote}

No it doesn't make sense. That's why gaming on a Mac is such a poor proposition. My gaming PC, on the other hand, didn't cost more than a mac mini. And I can play good RPG's and strategy games (not available for consoles) with it.

[Jarmo]

Quote

{quote:title=JakeB wrote:}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.{quote}

I can't see how purchasing windows, installing it and boot camp, booting up in XP and installing a game, booting up in XP again every time you want to play, is in any way a simpler solution than just installing a native mac game.

Not only is using boot camp complex and awkward, but you're using windows and not a mac. You're maintaining two systems. The simple solution is admitting you're a PC user and just giving up on mac altogether. (Or playing native games)

[zensunni]

Excellent article. With the GPU upgrade, the iMac is superb for the casual gamer that doesn't expect his system to keep pace with newer games throughout its life (Macs are given, what, three years?), but the hardcore gamer will continue to look elsewhere. For the same price as an upgraded iMac, you can build your own gaming PC with a much more powerful graphics card, et al.

[zensunni]

dean_o said:

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?"

Well, I can give some anecdotal evidence. Am I a hardcore gamer? Not at all, though I've built my own gaming PC in the past and currently run Boot Camp on my MBP so that I can play some decent games (WoW is the only of my games that I can play on the Mac, and since I only subscribe to the for a couple months a year (I regularly switch between MMOs), we'll exclude it). But I certainly see the difference between running games on my MBP and a properly configured machine; I can't run any of my current games at highest settings without seeing a significant performance hit. I'm happy enough with having my settings middle-of-the-road, but I sure know people that aren't.

In my office of eight, one of us is a hardcore gamer. He regularly shells out money to upgrade the various bits in his gaming PC and would be disgusted if he wasn't able to play the latest game at the highest settings. So, 1/8 is 12.5%. Sure, we're talking a very small sample size, but that's a significant proportion in our office, at least.

And I think your statement could easily be tweaked to describe Mac users as a "very elite group". I wouldn't be surprised if our market share was less than that of hardcore gamers. But even if hardcore gamers made up just 5% of PC users, that's still a significant number and worthy of consideration (especially considering they probably spend on average more per year on their PC than non-gamers), as any Macolyte would attest to (Macs, I believe, also make up about 5% of the market).

In any event, the issues raised don't apply just to hardcore gamers. While I'm happy to play my games with settings set lower, it would still be nice to have had the option to spend a bit more and gotten an even better graphics card (I had upgraded to the best I could get).

[Pressure]

The Apple Geforce 8800 GS is actually the Geforce 8800M GTS with 64 Stream Processor Units.
The NVIDIA branded Geforce 8800 GS has a 192-bit memory bandwidth and 384MB ram.
They are not the same product despite Apple's naming of the product.