[ReeceTarbert]

Quote:

---

I disagree with some of you guys. Carmack's attitude notwithstanding, he's right about at least one thing - Apple doesn't care about gaming.

---

For what it's worth, I agree... with you! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
No point getting mad at developers being unhappy about the lack of support from Apple or Mr. Jobs himself. If you care about games you can't deny the situation is bleak: either you wait months for a port, which may or may not happen at all, or are presented with games relying on a technology like Cider to run -- as we're not even deemed worthy of a proper port.

Quote:

---

As an iPhone owner, I would love to have some decent games on it. I would also love to play a game like Crysis in OS X

---

Well, don't hold your breath. When it comes to graphics, not even the most recent iMacs have enough juice to run modern games properly, and by properly I mean at very least 1280x1024 (but games look their best at 1600x1200 and up) with most of the eye candy turned on ... at more than 10 frames per second.
And, for the record, I'm no hardcore gamer. My gaming rig is considered "upper mid-range" by this week's standards, I only play 3 or 4 major titles a year -- and I get bored with them rather quickly too. Still, when it comes to my occasional fix of gaming, I know what not to use.

[pixelcruncher]

Carmack is one of the ONLY game developers that supports the Mac and tries to bring game technology to the Mac OS rather than through emulation/bootcamp. Apple just announced a deal with ID:

Quote:

---

Similarly, ID Software's co-founder and technical director John Carmack pledged more support for Leopard. The company, known for its Quake, Doom, and Wolfenstein titles, is now looking for additional players on the Mac OS.
"Since many developers at ID have made the switch to the Mac for their personal use, we decided it was time to bring our core game technology to OS X," Carmack said.
To show ID Software's support for Apple, Carmack demonstrated its next-generation gaming technology called Tech 5.
While shown for the first time running in real time on a Mac, Tech 5 also supports the Xbox 360 and Playstation3 console platforms as well as the PC. ID Software said it plans to show off the completed project in July at the E3 conference.

---

http://www.informati...cleID=199903258
Apple and ID obviously want to be in business together, so why all the Carmack hate? Just because he wants people with an iPhone to be able to play a few games? Yeah, those are the WORST type of people, the ones who actually invest time, money, and resources in producing software for Apple products.

[zarmanto]

Quote:

---

It's interesting that this discussion dates from the WWDC and Apple has subsequently announced that there will be an SDK for the iPhone and iTouch. So, perhaps Carmack does influence Apple.

---

While your conclusion may (or may not) be correct, I feel that you might well be speculating based upon a faulty premise. First, take note that (from what I understand) the iPhone SDK was first hinted at during WWDC '07. The date of this Carmack interview isn't explicitly stated in the article... but with minimal legwork, we can extrapolate that it was just a bit more recently than June's WWDC. Here are a couple of brief quotes from the original article:

Quote:

---

id's announcement that Rage was coming to Macs was a huge deal.

---

The referenced announcement was made in August.

Quote:

---

We were in a fairly heated argument at the last WWDC [Worldwide Developers Conf.] and we've had a few follow-ups.

---

This statement implies an ongoing debate between Carmack and Jobs' over gaming on the iPhone -- which he seems to characterize as unproductive. I would speculate based upon all of this that as of the date of the interview, the SDK did not offer what Carmack believes he needs to develop games on the iPhone.
Of course, this would all be so much simpler to map out if Carmack himself were to just chime in... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[hagen]

Quote:

---

When it comes to graphics, not even the most recent iMacs have enough juice to run modern games properly, and by properly I mean at very least 1280x1024 (but games look their best at 1600x1200 and up) with most of the eye candy turned on ... at more than 10 frames per second.

---

iMacs yes however that is not their reason for being or their price range thus the cheaper vid card. However I have a Mac Pro with 2 GB RAM and run EVERY high end game for XP at the highest resolution settings AND 1600x1200 with frame rates over 45. The only exception is Crysis which I'm running at medium settings (and it's better visually than most at maximum) and 1600x1200 and 4 AA and 24 fps. But then Crysis will humble any but the most expensive PCs ($4000+)
What games? Bioshock, Stalker, Oblivion, Splinter Cel Double Agent, Stranglehold, Call of Duty 4, Timeshift, Hellgate:London, Half Life 2 Episode 2, Portal, Battlefield 2142, FEAR and more.
Games drive the hardware replacement market not OS upgrades (except for Windows and Apple would never survive that sort of behaviour), not business application upgrades (only Photoshop for graphics companies). So for Apple to be a hardware company and not get this, beggars the mind. And why the phone market? Talk about diluting your brand. How about making the Apple TV work first? And yes I'm considering the long long view of full media integration.
But as was said earlier: it's Steve's vision, not anyone else's. If it doesn't fit for you, SD&SU (sit down and...)

[HyperMactive]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When it comes to graphics, not even the most recent iMacs have enough juice to run modern games properly, and by properly I mean at very least 1280x1024 (but games look their best at 1600x1200 and up) with most of the eye candy turned on ... at more than 10 frames per second.

---

Incorrect: I have a Mac Pro with 2 GB RAM and run EVERY high end game for XP at the highest resolution settings AND 1600x1200 with frame rates over 45.

---

The original comment regarded iMacs, and was in fact correct: iMacs just don't have enough horsepower in the video department to drive games in a semi-serious way. My iMac with the Radeon x1600 can barely handle Half-Life 2 in Boot Camp - how in the world would I play Crysis or Bioshock or UT3?

And while a Mac Pro may handle the job, you're talking about a $2,500 machine, and at that price point a Mac Pro still doesn't touch equivalently-priced PCs - Apple simply doesn't focus on good 3D cards. I don't have $3k to blow just to get mediocre performance on the new generation of games. If Apple wants to get even casual gamers on the Mac platform, they need a decent consumer-grade tower with a replaceable graphic card (and preferably something good to start with out of the box).
As far as the iPhone goes - doesn't Apple realize how huge the DS has been for Nintendo? Imagine the gaming possibilities for the beautiful multi-touch screen on the iPhone - gaming possibilities that would open up the market for the iPhone. Personally, I'd love to tap out some Elite Beat Agents (with my finger, not a stylus thanks) on my iPhone during some downtime.
Carmack is right - Apple doesn't care about gaming, and that shortsightedness is a big, big mistake.

[HyperMactive]

Quote:

---

iMacs yes however that is not their reason for being or their price range thus the cheaper vid card. However I have a Mac Pro with 2 GB RAM and run EVERY high end game for XP at the highest resolution settings AND 1600x1200 with frame rates over 45+.

---

Since you edited your original comment to recognize the previous poster was referring to iMacs...
I don't think the "reason for being" of a Mac Pro is gaming either. But there's no reason a $1,600 iMac shouldn't be able to do a half-decent job with 3D gaming. Bottom line: 3D processing in Apple's consumer line is too weak for gaming, and Apple's pro line is way too expensive (read: underpowered for the price, and the price of entry is way too high) for gaming. What happened to the days of the $1,200 PowerMac? That's what we need. Something with a reasonable cost of entry that I can upgrade the video processor to my heart's content.
Apple manages to stay on the bleeding edge with their CPU processors - why can't they do the same with their video processors?

[Arcadia]

Quote:

---

We were in a fairly heated argument at the last WWDC [Worldwide Developers Conf.] and we've had a few follow-ups.

---

I'd definitely be interested in details on those exchanges, but I can't seem to find any. I see people make tons of inferences on why Jobs is so indifferent to gaming, but precious little concrete info. This is old ground, but it's absolutely worth revisiting over and over again because the problem is simply that glaring.
Most defenses of it amount to one of a few things: "That's just how it is!", or "They're making money, what could possibly be wrong?", or "I don't game, so I don't care!" We can dispense with that nonsense straight away, and I shouldn't even have to explain why.
The problem has two faces: hardware and software. In hardware, the deficiencies in Apple's product lineup practically speak for themselves - and they have implications beyond gaming. Macs suffer from two graphics gaps:
1. The unreasonable jump between what's available in their consumer-level and pro-level systems (the stratification is itself ridiculous).
2. The difference between the top-end graphics available for the Mac and the top-end graphics available for the PC. There was a post on MacRumors recently that described this very nicely. As HyperMactive pointed out, Apple is supposed to be a bleeding edge company. How does "bleeding edge" translate to mere adequacy in video hardware?
The software problem is more difficult. There are many factors on that side that influence the Mac's still-anemic gaming presence, but it's overwhelmingly clear that the market is there if Apple wants it - it's theirs alone for the taking. Even baby steps in that direction, beginning with actual developer encouragement (at both technical and marketing levels), would go a long way.
Apple and Apple's customers have everything to gain from an enhancement of priorities, and absolutely nothing to lose. "But it would spoil the elegance of - " NO. Give me a break. Extending a hand to game devs? Cheaper headless Mac? If you don't think that Apple could pull that off and maintain its all-important image, then you underestimate Apple.

[Pennywigeon]

How many people play DOOM on a blackberry?
Before this discussion gets sidetracked I think we need to refocus the attention.

Quote:

---

Carmacks focus was specifically on mobile gaming

---

In relation to Carmack and his comments I would say this. Please re-evaluate the priorities before getting bent out of shape. iPhone is a NEW product and there is NO SDK available for anyone yet. Let's wait and see what actually is in the SDK before getting bent out of shape.
I think a bigger priority SHOULD be the MAC platform and gaming more so than the iPod and iPhone product line.
Let's face it. Mac gaming on the computer lines is sparse and limited. It is getting better now with the INTEL macs but it still needs more proactive people and developers to help bring gaming more seriously to OSX.
I can see little games/apps for the iPhone/iPod lines but DOOM? Yeah um ok. And how well would that sell compared to bringing a top notch game to OSX for the computers to use?
Two different platforms. Carmack's seems to worked up on getting into the iPhone/iPod gaming market when he should focus more on the OSX market and then move into the iPhone market when it is better established.
Bungie moved away from Microsoft so lets see what they have for a comeback to the Mac. Maybe that will light the spark for more gaming on the Mac Platform.

[Arcadia]

Quote:

---

We would like Apple to become more gamer-friendly because we would like to play games in OS X. Gaming is big business, Apple should not be ignoring it or dismissing it, both for our sake and their own.

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the most important factor in the strength of any platform - Mac, iPhone, anything - is the software that is natively available for it. This includes games, and Jobs' apparent blindness to that fact does everyone a disservice.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

The referenced announcement was made in August.

---

No, it was made in June.

[palane]

Quote:

---

While your conclusion may (or may not) be correct, I feel that you might well be speculating based upon a faulty premise...

---

Well, my intent was more to take a playful jab at a previous poster (suggesting Carmack had little to no influence). You're correct that I drew a straight line between "heated words" and an SDK a few months later. I've no idea if the announced SDK will be adequate for the game developers' needs.
I have high hopes, though. My wife's Palm (then fiance) is getting a bit long in the tooth and I'm coveting her G1 Nano. I don't think it would take a lot for the Touch to be a terrific tool.
BB

[montgomery_burns]

Gaming is what pushes ATI and NVidia to keep making more advanced graphics cards-- Much more than 3D modeling or CAD. If it were not for games pushing graphics card development, then Apple's Core Image, Core Animation, Motion and Aperture would not be possible. How many NVidia Quadro cards is Apple selling these days? For the same price, two NVidia Geforce 8800 cards running in SLI outperforms a single Quadro card.

[montgomery_burns]

I remember when Steve Jobs introduced the Blue and White G3 at the Macworld keynote. He brought John Carmack on stage to demo his game running on the new Mac. Carmack then told everyone in the audience: "The first thing you'll want to do is throw away that silly one button mouse and get a 3 button mouse".

[Peter Cohen]

Too bad SLI isn't supported on the Mac. :