[Peter Cohen]

Greven said:

So you mean that the best iMac isn't capable of handle EVE online in "premium graphics" mode?

No Mac is capable of handling EVE Online in "premium graphics mode" because that mode isn't available for Mac users yet.

[Greven]

Yes if you play with the windows version in bootcamp or pararells?

[zeroblizzard]

Gamers can be people who play games that meet your description, or they can be hard core gamers, like you said.



However, people have more stringent requirements than you believe. A 128mb video card, no matter where it is, is not going to be very good for a person who wants to play on high settings, which is most "gamers" (the hard-core kind). I require good frame rates (30 fps), but I don't play on high settings. If I spent more money on getting a better graphics card, I wouldn't upgrade the settings to see the game better, I would just let it run faster.

Here's the thing that really ticked me off:

You really shouldn't have to buy a high-end gaming console and attach it to a 42" HDTV. You should be able to play with a machine that can do a lot more, for about the same price (two great graphics cards attached using SLI or Crossfire cost the same as a Xbox 360), on a 24" monitor. That's really what being a hard-core gamer is about. Kicking butt with maximum pwnage.

[Scrypt]

DisabledTrucker said:

>> 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.

Microsoft would love nothing more than for that to be true, but as of right now (two and a half years in) the Xbox 360 is just about at 19 million sold according to http://www.vgchartz.com.

Concerning the original article, I think it's important to establish who you are referring to with the title 'gamer.' These days it's like saying someone is an artist, but not as chic. You could say that so-and-so is a professional or tournament gamer, but anything beyond that is relative. Even casual gaming is a myth! Anyone that plays Sudoku, Mahjong or even Checkers on a regular basis, I would consider hardcore. I guess my point is that we can't just use the term 'gamer' as a blanket anymore, and if we do there has to be an understanding that being a gamer means more than spending $5000 on a system and competing nationally at Call of Duty 4.

There is an entire market of gaming enthusiasts that would never be associated with the 'hardcore' group, but that doesn't make them any less hardcore about the gaming they do. Just because someone has mastered sweep sniping in Halo, doesn't mean that they are a gamer. Nintendo wouldn't be besting their competition right now if that was the case.

As for gaming on the Mac, here's my digested theory of how the next few years will play out (in my dreams): The one thing that Apple doesn't have, that every other console maker has, is an in-house game software development team. I don't know that they need this, but I think it would help to show that they are serious about the business. Online distribution will become the primary channel for delivering games to homes, this includes the home console market (next iteration of Xbox, PS, etc.). If gaming on the iPhone/iPod Touch takes off, you will see games trickle to the other, beefier iPod, the Apple TV, which will be upgraded with the guts to support game play with Bluetooth capability for peripherals. Microsoft will be developing (which I'm sure they are at this moment) a device similar to the Phantom (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The[uPhantom[/u](game_system)]) and Sony will just keep adding hard drives to the PS3. Apple will do what Nintendo can't seem to, by implementing (innovating) a better online service than Microsoft, and at the same time, keep it clean for the kids. They have distribution and communication with iTunes and iChat, and I'm sure they have hardware prototypes all over Cupertino, all they need is a serious commitment to an exploding market.

[CPTKILLER]

Apple has the tools for a great gaming system. While I would prefer a lower cost mid tower, that is not the point. It is a corporate decision and attitude at Apple at Steve Jobs level not to enter some key marketes such as gaming and the business community. That is a shame at least from the gaming perspective.

Many of the Apple Games are so lame that they remind me of the APPLE II and ATARI 400 days. The few better ones that attempt to take advantage of the graphics capability of the current higher end Mac's generally are reruns from Windows programs that are often seen in the "Value Software" in most stores. Many of these are years old when they get ported to Apple hardware.

This issue is that Apple should consider a Gamer Developers Conference that will provide the big guys who make great games with a good tool to bring out both Windows and Apple games at the same time.

Reading the PC based gaming magazines, this is another market that Apple chooses to ignore. Unfortunately, the gaming column should change in the major Mac Magazines to brief news releases stating which new "Hello Kitty" game is released. The review category should be often (Lame, Lamer, and Lamest). It is a very sorry sad state of affairs at Apple Corporate and has been for a long time. The problem has Steve Jobs written all over that decision.

[trip1ex]

I think better vidcards will only help sell more Macs to gamers and greater Mac sales will only help the Mac in terms of becoming a more attractive gaming platform. And that's even if gamers mostly game in XP.

Of course gaming could use a push from Apple.

Also worth noting is pcgaming is at a crossroads and seems to be changing as we speak. It seems to be moving away from games that push cutting edge system requirements. More of those games are going to consoles first and foremost where sales have generally been alot higher.

There's 3 games coming out that are going to be free and have low system requirements. It's going to be interesting to see how those games do. Battlefield Heroes, Mythos and Quake (Zero) are the three.

One reason Blizzard has done well on the pc and Mac (at least imo) is they make their games with modest system requirements so more people can play them outta the box without a heavy upgrade. With consoles getting more of the big flashy games and graphics becoming "good enough" in many cases, I see the pc becoming home of games with more modest system requirements. This can only help the Mac as far as gaming goes.

[Peter Cohen]

Yes with regards to Boot Camp, no with regards to Parallels.

[kinkykoder]

I bought the fastest 3.06 iMac specifically so I could play PC games via bootcamp (and any decent Mac games that come out). The reason I did this, is I don't like using Windows other than for work. I also don't want an ugly PC box in my lounge, where I relax.

I'm sure there must be many people like me. In my case, Apple is successfully selling hardware for gaming, even if Mac developers don't deliver the goods. I also think, as VMware and Parallels' 3D support improves, more people will use Windows on the Mac virtually - just as a gaming shell.

Crysis, HL2, Grid, UT3 all run brilliantly, so I'm more than happy.

Surely Mac gaming is 10x better than it was 5 years ago? I'd also suggest that the iPhone gaming market will drive more game development on OS X.

[Peter Cohen]

kinkykoder said:

Surely Mac gaming is 10x better than it was 5 years ago?

Based on volume, no. There's been a precipitous drop in the number of A-list game titles that have been released or are in development for the Mac.

Quote

I'd also suggest that the iPhone gaming market will drive more game development on OS X.

This is my hope as well, but let's not discount some of the potential pitfalls of iPhone to Mac conversion work -- smaller, more casual games with less content and less compelling graphics than a Mac is capable of generating. It's also a very different market with different distribution channels -- some iPhone developers may be very reluctant to take a chance on the Mac market compared with getting products ready for the App Store.

[kinkykoder]

[quote name='Peter Cohen']
>

kinkykoder said:

> Surely Mac gaming is 10x better than it was 5 years ago?

Based on volume, no. There's been a precipitous drop in the number of A-list game titles that have been released or are in development for the Mac.

I agree. I was really referring to the end-user point of view. I can (and did) buy a Mac that also plays PC games well.

If developers released some decent Mac native games, people would buy them. It's just they are mostly, if not all poor ports. The opportunity really is there for Mac game developers! I just don't understand why developers don't exploit the Mac market.

Quote

> I'd also suggest that the iPhone gaming market will drive more game development on OS X.

This is my hope as well, but let's not discount some of the potential pitfalls of iPhone to Mac conversion work -- smaller, more casual games with less content and less compelling graphics than a Mac is capable of generating. It's also a very different market with different distribution channels -- some iPhone developers may be very reluctant to take a chance on the Mac market compared with getting products ready for the App Store.

I think it's about the ongoing shift in perception - getting talented developers to look beyond the iPhone to the potential in the Mac market. Most PC developers probably have no idea that modern Macs are powerful with good graphics cards. Many may now notice because of the iPhone. The "iPhone gaming effect"... ;-)

I'm sure if I released something like Halo III as a Mac native game - I'd do pretty well out of it overnight. So why don't they??