Will Apple ever release a machine for gamers ?

[zenarcade]

I remember buying my second mac, the iMac 450 DV edition.

When playing Unreal Tournament, I had to lower the graphic settings. And these days, lots of kids are coming over to my son to play the assorted multiplayer games, on the household´s different G3/G4 flavours.

Theses kids, 12-15, are all impressed by OS X but putting all the true-blue-coolness aside, they want to play games !

Do any of you think that Apple will ever release a machine, directly aiming at the youngsters ( I am 33, with long hair, still rockin´ to MC5 ) and their gaming needs ?

Firaxis "Alpha Centauri" was awesome !!!

Zen

[Ebby]

One of the influences in my upgrade from a 333Mhz Beige G3 to a Dual G5 was games. Quake would run on it at about 20FPS and it was manageable, but nothing to brag about. I needed to put those PC's in their place. I think my new rig will be still be good for the next 2 years of graphic intense games. The only dissapointment is the limited selection of games available for mac. I wish more companies would tap into the power of a G5.:(

[Wrong Robot]

I don't expect apple to release a gaming machine anytime soon, but, with the promise the g5 has, I do imagine to see far improved gaming performance on consumer machines once that thing filters down the lineup

[kraig911]

The thing we need the most for mac to make some more headway into the gaming market is for microsoft to goof up direct x somewhere down the line. But thats so far off and unlikely the world will never know.

[SideShowBob]

MC5 do rock :)

As for the games it is just not worth the effort for a company like EA. They are happy to sell their licenses off and let someone else do the conversion. I think the other side of it is that the company buying the license mostly wants to wait and see how the game sells and what reviews it gets before buying the license. I use a PC at home mostly for games. I gave my G4 to my girlfriend (she only plays The Sims :) ). At work I use a Mac most of the day so I am happy with the variety I get.

Still if games came out at the same time then I would probably grab a G5 and have both platforms at home again.

Sideshow :smokey:

[Big Mac]

Game software support is like any other segment of the software industry. A certain number of developers lose no sleep over ignoring ~3% of the market. Apple has to be bold and aggressive in the pursuit of market share, or else we'll continue to slide down into the abyss.

[mrmister]

Apple will never release a gaming machine. Period.

That said, the G5 does a pretty good job--though it won't help if people aren't porting, or are poorly porting, games to the Mac.

I'd state the obvious (e.g. CONSOLE CONSOLE CONSOLE) but that just degenerates into a flame war. ;)

[concentricity]

Originally posted by mrmister
Apple will never release a gaming machine. Period.

That said, the G5 does a pretty good job--though it won't help if people aren't porting, or are poorly porting, games to the Mac.

I'd state the obvious (e.g. CONSOLE CONSOLE CONSOLE) but that just degenerates into a flame war. ;)

yeah, quite frankly, the PC gaming market is shrinking, while the console and handheld markets are growing. (see ars if you're "confused")

there's very little reason for Apple to invest substantial R&D (or anything else) in gaming initiatives. the machines they have are 'good' for gaming, and that's enough (from a business strategy standpoint). that said, i would personally love to see a killer mac gaming rig, but it won't happen.

also, it would really require ATI and/or nVidia to make a big push into the Mac market for anything to happen. what can Apple really do (beyond the incredible bandwidth etc in the G5) for gaming?

[a_greer]

macintosh is like the porsche of computers, and would porsche ever release an suv?
HELL NO! er...uuuhhh...ummmm...WHEAAA, did hell freeze over??

long 'bout this time last year the scuttlebut was itunes on windows,everybody said na it cant happen and well, hell froze over yet again in the fall

while i doubt an apple gaming rig is in the cards, ya just never know these days, anything is pnossible :)

<more to say>
i agree with some of the other posts the gameing industry is shifting to consoles, it makes sence, far less demanding requierments for (almost) equil graphics because a tv needs a feed at 640x480 at 29.? fps compared to most gaming pc's, 100+fps at 1024/768 even hd doesnt need that kind of power, they only need 60 fps tops :)
</more to say>

[Barto]

I doubt Apple would ever release a gaming machine. However, built-to-order is there for a reason. If you need a gaming Mac, customise a G5 with a phat graphics card, lots of RAM, buy a CRT (not a $$$ Apple display) and a Microsoft mouse.

Apple use to have a fragmented product line... Macs for TV watching, Macs for education, Macs for video editing... then Steve returned and Apple introduced BTO. Again, it is there for A REASON. :)

Barto

[Strawberry]

http://assembler.roarvgm.com/Apple_Bandai_pippin/Apple_Bandai_Pippin_Page_2/pippin.gif

Been there, done that.

[Ra]

The problem is that Apple thinks their iMacs are great gaming machines. :no:

[jade]

Actually it needs to start from a different angle: 3D animation needs to be done on Apple's which will lead to high end video cards which leads to more experience developing this stuff for the platform which leads to games. Games are played most on the platform that created them . Starts with 3D studio Max and trickles down.

[Res]

Judging form some of the replays in this thread, I'm not sure that everyone means the same thing when they say "Gaming Machine."

A good gaming machine is a computer with a real fast processor and a top of the line video card -- that's it. Some people will say it also needs a good sound card, but half of the gamers are using headphones and gain no benefit from it.

Macs used to be good for gaming, then came the whole Motorola fiasco and Macs fell behind PCs in performance. I built my first PC because, even with the best video card I could buy for it, no mac at the time was able to play Unreal tournament well.

The current G5 powermac with a radeon 9800 Pro is an ok gaming machine, but not a great one. The dual processors don't help for most games, and the G5s doesn't seem to be any better then an Athlon at the same speed when it comes to pumping out simple polygons.

Later in the year, when we get G5s around 3Ghz with whatever the best videocard is at the time, the Mac will make a great gaming machine. And in the future, if IBM can push ahead of the competition, it might even make the best.

[onlooker]

Originally posted by Res
Judging form some of the replays in this thread, I'm not sure that everyone means the same thing when they say "Gaming Machine."

A good gaming machine is a computer with a real fast processor and a top of the line video card -- that's it. Some people will say it also needs a good sound card, but half of the gamers are using headphones and gain no benefit from it.

Macs used to be good for gaming, then came the whole Motorola fiasco and Macs fell behind PCs in performance. I built my first PC because, even with the best video card I could buy for it, no mac at the time was able to play Unreal tournament well.

The current G5 powermac with a radeon 9800 Pro is an ok gaming machine, but not a great one. The dual processors don't help for most games, and the G5s doesn't seem to be any better then an Athlon at the same speed when it comes to pumping out simple polygons.

Later in the year, when we get G5s around 3Ghz with whatever the best videocard is at the time, the Mac will make a great gaming machine. And in the future, if IBM can push ahead of the competition, it might even make the best.

That's true. But I think most of who read this were under the impression he was referring to something like an Alien Ware, gaming machine, or something. I'm glad you pointed that out. With that said, the only problem after speed bumped PowerMacs is going to be what games are actually available.

UT2k4 Mac Demo is a whole lot of fun.

[XiaXin]

Originally posted by zenarcade
Do any of you think that Apple will ever release a machine, directly aiming at the youngsters ( I am 33, with long hair, still rockin´ to MC5 ) and their gaming needs ?


I am a macuser but I bought a P4/2.6 GC/Geforce4 mx 440 for gaming. I don't think Mac is a good gaming machine for cost and performance wise reasons, buying a PC for gaming will be a much better choice since PCs are now dirt cheap (sub 800 US dollars) and it games. Don't get me wrong, Macs are still better than PC in lots of aspects but as for gaming.......PCs are better.

[GreggWSmith]

There are very few games for Mac's anyway. Why bother.

[smalM]

Originally posted by onlooker
UT2k4 Mac Demo is a whole lot of fun.

Unreal really sucks on my mac (G4 1.17GHz GF4MX). Slower than on my Pentium3 (600MHz GF4MX). Hopefully the game engine of UT2004 is a better port from DirectX than the old engine - a lot of games will use thise engine.

Onlooker I hate you! Now I have to download 200MB :D

[Krassy]

Originally posted by onlooker
UT2k4 Mac Demo is a whole lot of fun.

i heard its multithreaded?

[a_greer]

Originally posted by onlooker
That's true. But I think most of who read this were under the impression he was referring to something like an Alien Ware, gaming machine, or something. I'm glad you pointed that out. With that said, the only problem after speed bumped PowerMacs is going to be what games are actually available.

UT2k4 Mac Demo is a whole lot of fun.

aleinware,you say? just bring back the b/w g3 enclosurer slap in a g5, replace the blue with a blindingly ugly neon green and wvala...an apple gaming rig

[bangstudios]

Originally posted by concentricity
yeah, quite frankly, the PC gaming market is shrinking, while the console and handheld markets are growing. (see ars if you're "confused")

there's very little reason for Apple to invest substantial R&D (or anything else) in gaming initiatives. the machines they have are 'good' for gaming, and that's enough (from a business strategy standpoint). that said, i would personally love to see a killer mac gaming rig, but it won't happen.

Y'know, maybe I'm "old before my time" (I'm 35), but I've never understood the mentality of spending thousands of dollars on a PC (or, keeping in line with this thread, a Mac) to play games on, when an XBox or PS2 costs a couple hundred bucks and does a fine job of it.

Or is it just me?

-J

[oldmacfan]

Originally posted by bangstudios
Y'know, maybe I'm "old before my time" (I'm 35), but I've never understood the mentality of spending thousands of dollars on a PC (or, keeping in line with this thread, a Mac) to play games on, when an XBox or PS2 costs a couple hundred bucks and does a fine job of it.

Or is it just me?

-J

Don't worry, it is just not you, I am 35 and have the same thoughts

[dobby]

I don't want to have to spend extra on a console and games that cost even more than PC games.
I admit you have to have top of the line CPU and GPU for a PC game to be anyware as near as good graphically as a console but thats where the dual 1.8/2.0 G5 comes in.

You forget the extra fun you have using a PC as a games machine. A console doesn't need endless patches or anitvirus software only to find you don't have the latest driver for some component. :lol:

Dobby.

[kupan787]

Originally posted by GreggWSmith
There are very few games for Mac's anyway. Why bother.

Very few? I feel there is enough. It seems as though most good games come out roughly the same time (Blizzard comes to mind), or a few months later. The only really big game I can think of that didn't make it over was Half Life. Other than that, I can't think of much (but I honestly can say I follow console gaming more than PC).

[Cake]

Originally posted by kupan787
[BThe only really big game I can think of that didn't make it over was Half Life. Other than that, I can't think of much (but I honestly can say I follow console gaming more than PC). [/B]
The original Unreal Tournament never really made it to the Mac (that Preview Release doesn't count - it sucked). UT2K4 has made it and it's really fun, but I'm getting ready to build the Uber gaming rig (Athlon 64), simply because I can and because I enjoy tweaking the heck out of it.

Building PeeCee's has taught me a lot about the Windows side of computing.
It's always interesting to figure out why a machine won't boot up when just a few hours before it was working perfectly. :D

[kupan787]

Originally posted by Cake
The original Unreal Tournament never really made it to the Mac (that Preview Release doesn't count - it sucked).

???

I have a CD right now on my desk for the original Unreal Tournament (it says "Unreal Tournament Game of the Year Edition" on it). UT2k3 was also on the mac, so I am not sure which version you refer to when you say "original"...

[onlooker]

Originally posted by a_greer
aleinware,you say? just bring back the b/w g3 enclosurer slap in a g5, replace the blue with a blindingly ugly neon green and wvala...an apple gaming rig

Keep hittin the pipe there Dopey.

Alienware area 51 gaming machine:

AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 Processor
1GB Registered DDR SDRAM PC-3200
120GB Seagate Serial ATA 8MB Cache
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
for $2,956.00 before rebates.

And that's for starters. What's that B,&W G3's graphics card supposed to accomplish with a G5 attached to it? A system meltdown?

[Cake]

Originally posted by kupan787
???

I have a CD right now on my desk for the original Unreal Tournament (it says "Unreal Tournament Game of the Year Edition" on it). UT2k3 was also on the mac, so I am not sure which version you refer to when you say "original"...

UT:GOTY is for OS9.
Ryan Gordon was supposed to continue working on the OS X port as mentioned here (http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=7722), but I guess that was dropped in favor of working on UT2K4.
The UT Preview Release (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/12059) was almost unplayable.

UT2K3 was/is a joke. The gameplay and physics were ruined in that version.
UT2K4 fixes some of those issues and is very fun, but UT is still the most fun IMO.
UT runs amazingly well on my PC. I was hoping for an OS X version that would run as well or better on the G5 that I plan on buying this coming summer.

[eddively]

One big thing you guys are all missing, I think, is the gamers I know are the most frugal when it comes to spending money on software, and hardware. They almost always would rather build their own computer and download illegal games. I got a feeling this is definitely not the market for Apple. Sometimes I wish Apple built a gaming machine, and I guess their version is the very best, most expensive G5 which is not in most gamer's budgets. This is why AlienWare is a niche company too.

[kupan787]

Originally posted by Cake
UT:GOTY is for OS9.

A comment was made of few games on the mac. When this game was released, it ran on the mac. Wether or not it was ported to OS X is a different story. Prince of Persia ran on OS 9, and I would count that as a Mac game, regardless of the fact that it doens't run on OS X.

UT2K3 was/is a joke. The gameplay and physics were ruined in that version.
UT2K4 fixes some of those issues and is very fun, but UT is still the most fun IMO.
UT runs amazingly well on my PC. I was hoping for an OS X version that would run as well or better on the G5 that I plan on buying this coming summer.

My whole point was the mac gaming market isn't as bad as people like making it out to be. Game titles come to the mac almost at the same time, or a few months later. We may not get all the games (like Deer Hunter and other bargin bin crap), but most of the good stuff does make it over.

[Cake]

Yeah, I should have clarified that I was talking about OS X in my first post.
Sorry about that.

I just don't use OS 9 for anything anymore.
I cringe when I see classic booting up, but maybe that's just me. :)

[Tuttle]

There are really three types of peecee game machines.

1) The Alienware type of machines. Prebuilt complete systems with top of the line components. Apple's G5 systems compete with these on price and performance very well.

2) The Dell/HP type of machines. Typical piece of crap x86 box with a fast CPU. Apple gets killed here. For the price of these machines, around $1000, Apple really only has G4 iMacs to try to compete.

3) The heap of x86 components type of machines. There is a vast number of gamers who don't have a lot of money to buy entire new systems every six months to a year but do have enough to pick up a new and fast motherboard for a couple hundred bucks. There has been the CPU upgrade options for various Apple machines, but they are usually poor in price/performance compared to x86 motherboard market.

Game machines of type 1) are good for Keynotes and bragging rights, but the number of people who buy these type of machines is tiny in the overall game market.

Game machines of type 2), the much debate 'Apple beige box' would be a massive boost to Apple gaming. But of course there are major issues with these type of machines destroying Apple's iMac market.

Game machines of type 3) will never happen until some fundamental change takes place in the Mac market such as companies selling Apple clones again or Apple selling just motherboards.

I am pretty impressed with the number of games being released for the Mac right now, but I don't see it as an upward trend. The structure of the Mac market puts a pretty low limit on the number of games that are possible to be released on the Mac. A few simultaneous releases a year plus a good number of ports of top selling peecee titles.

[kupan787]

The thing that I wonder is what percent of the PC market is really gaming geared? People always say the small 3% mac market vs 97% windows market. But of that 97%, there are a lot of servers and office pcs, that wont ever see a game installed on them. And not all of the remaining PCs are for games (both my roommates have PCs, but only one ever places games). Yes I know that the sales are probably higher, but I wonder what % of the PC market purchases games vs what % of the mac market. This would probably be impossible to figure out (since how can you know the current installed base of either platform...)

[mmmpie]

It costs money to release a game ( writing, marketing, boxing etc ) and the projected sales have to cover that. When a game is written with a port in mind those costs are lower ( simultaneous release, shared box ). Unfortunately most producers dont consider concurrent developement ( and those that do probably see the best results ).
A good example of the economics of producing a game is Neverwinter Nights, which had a BeOS port for most of its development. But with a dwindling potential market, there is no way they will release it.

This is not affected by Apple having a gaming rig. Macs might not be the hottest gaming machines on the planet, but then nor are most PC's ( with crap built in intel graphics ). I think the key is support. Apple dont appear to provide a lot of support for game developers. Microsoft and Intel and AMD do. Apple could do a lot to improve the state of gaming on the Mac, but things like letting MS buy Bungie ( Apple should have ) just show that they arent that interested.

Ironically, Apple is often accused of competing with their 3rd party devs, but in the one arena where there is lots of space for everyone, they dont play. Apple could run a game dev business, much like Nintendo does. A few killer 1st party titles, which really get interest in the industry up, attracting 3rd party devs. Good sales by Apple would attract more companies. Once you get the ball roling it will get better. Apple has often been on the verge of beating the game blues, but then screw it up.

[kupan787]

Originally posted by mmmpie
Ironically, Apple is often accused of competing with their 3rd party devs, but in the one arena where there is lots of space for everyone, they dont play. Apple could run a game dev business, much like Nintendo does. A few killer 1st party titles, which really get interest in the industry up, attracting 3rd party devs. Good sales by Apple would attract more companies. Once you get the ball roling it will get better. Apple has often been on the verge of beating the game blues, but then screw it up.

For awhile Apple was mainting a GameSprocket API (back in the OS 9 days). There was input, network, sound, and one other. I don't think that they support them anymore. What I think would be a good thing would be for Apple to resurrect this project. Then perhaps if they could coax microsoft to port over Direct3D, I think it might be easier to convince devs to do simultaneous releases, one box, one disk, etc. Then costs are minimal and they can target 100% of the market...

[Big Mac]

This very same debate is going on over at AI's sister forum, MacNN. Many have made the assertion that PC gaming is illogical since cheap consoles are great for gaming. That is indeed true - they are great for gaming - but not for the same types of games. Computers are better suited for certain types of games, and computer games will often provide superior graphics. Some are prepared to spend significant cash on gaming computers, and if they have the ability to do so, they have every right. I still maintain, however, that those who care about Mac gaming should rightfully be concerned about market share. Until we retain more of it, third parties won't respect the platform and we'll continue to get the short shrift.

[DrBoar]

While the FPS genere is well covered in the Mac with most major titles exept HalfLife and CounterStrike some areas are totaly lost since a decade. WWII flight sims:

On the PC side Microsoft is on its third generation of sims (plus all the expansion packs) and then MS has competition from several other companies as well.

On the Mac side we have nothing of value for ofline gaming since Hellcats in 1990 or so the time when the Quadra 700 and its 25 MHz 68040 was the hottest stuff and Jurasic Park was the movie of the year:no:

With the patetic G4 era drawing to a close, there is hope for the mac again, especially if Apple keep the graphic cards in the G5 iMacs in good shape:)

[dviant]

I'm not sure what the premise of this thread is. Seems like the orginal post seems to assert that PC users have access to fast cheap gaming rigs. Well they do sorta, but not because they are specifically "gaming rigs", just because building your own with budget parts is cheaper. And like everything else, cheap doesn't always mean good.

If you were a gamer you really shouldn't have even thought about buying that iMac 450 with its paltry 8mb Rage card (i think thats what those have). Serious PC gamers will spend oodles on the fastest processor and latest greatest video card, so don't confuse a REAL gaming rig with a budget computer, they are two completely different things. If you want a real gaming machine you'll be buying top of the line, fastest processor and fastest vid card you can afford. Be it on the PC side or Mac side. PC's just happen to be cheaper in general.

The main problem on the Mac side is that our video card choices are limited and generally expensive if we want something good. Buying though Apple is costly, but so is 3rd party when our only choice is whatever ATI wants to give us. I don't see that as Apple's fault necessarily so much as the Mac market not being deemed big enough to support new players. 3dfx tried, but were devoured by nVidia before it really got going.Why we don't see any 3rd party boards for nVidia I don't know. Some people simply buy compatible PC cards and flash the firmware (with mixed success).

The misnomer about there not being any games on the Mac is completely unfounded. There are a ton of good games on the Mac, and for OS X specifically. Sure theres some games that don't get ported, but we get most of the good popular ones. I think the Mac gaming community just keeps growing as well. Macgamefiles.com shows 31,000+ downloads for the new UTK4 demo since its release last friday. Not bad. Hopefully people in the gaming and video card industry are taking notice.

[Amorph]

There are a whole lot of variables in play here.

First, market size will overcome any technical obstacle. There are so many excuses offered for the lack of Mac ports - or their lateness - because the market is small. There are two components to this: If you hardly play games at all (like me) then you're part of the problem. If you only play cracked games then you're also part of the problem. Game publishers track piracy closely, and whether or not they're right to assume that every pirated copy represents a lost sale, they do. At any rate, it's indisputable that, from the point of view of the game developers and publishers, only people who pay for the games count as the market.

Second, the "gaming machine" actually pulls any computer maker at least two ways. Hard-core gamers prefer lots of configuration choices and rapid refresh cycles; game developers prefer consoles and console-like hardware, because it represents a known, fixed target that they can optimize for (this is why PCs often need far more horsepower than consoles do to play the same game at the same settings). Casual gamers - the overwhelming majority - use what they have.

Assuming that the problem lies in hardware (which is not something I necessarily accept, except for a few prominent bandwidth limitations in the G4 architecture), which way should Apple go? Their own design preferences tend toward console-like machines, and certainly if they want to minimize the trouble required to create a Mac port of a game they should stay this course. They won't win the hard-core crowd this way, though. Is the PowerMac enough? I don't know. I don't know any hard-core gamers. I, too, am 35. ;)

[dviant]

I'm 33 and could have been termed a "hardcore" gamer over the past couple years. Ran a Quake 3 clan that played a variety of mods competitivey in various ladders and tournaments. One of our guys was even on the winning CTF team (he plays a different mod for us) at Quakecon last year. :D

Consoles aren't even on the radar when it comes to competitive online FPS games like Quake 3, UT2K3, Counterstrike, BF1941 etc. When you start talking about config tweaks, 3rd party game mods, input options and sheer graphics power of a PC, the console gets left in the dust.

Also consider real-time strategy games. Some of these can be pretty complex and the crappy "effective resolution" (its not measured in pixels really but thinkg sub 64 x480) of a TV simply isn't detailed enough to view properly. HD should look better, but I'd be willing to bet most console games are not optimized for higher resolutions.

Consoles do have their place, some games work well for them, but not all. As far as Apple possibly entering the market, remember that consoles don't make money. The games do. Although in some ways the Apple experience would make sense in the console world, unless Apple is ready to be a content producer for a Mac console, it ain't gonna happen.

[dviant]

Originally posted by kupan787
.... Then perhaps if they could coax microsoft to port over Direct3D, I think it might be easier to convince devs to do simultaneous releases, one box, one disk, etc. Then costs are minimal and they can target 100% of the market...

Suuuure.. lets let Microsoft dictate the gaming standard for the Mac! That's a horrible idea, man. :no:

Sure it'd speed up ports but then Apple would be under MS's thumb and subject to licensing and any dirty trick they decided to do to a "Mac Direct3d" to make it sub-par. Not good.

They need to stick with open standards like OpenGL for graphics and OpenAL for sound. These are much much better choices for them in the long run. Apparently they are missing a nice snap-together input package but hopefully that'll get resolved. I think most Mac developers probably already have their own home-grown input methods at this point, but it'd be a nice thing for new programmers in the Mac gaming market.

[mattyj]

Games run well on macs. For example, UT2k3 runs far better on my Dual 1Ghz DDR GF4Ti thna my friends Dual 1Ghz PIII GF4Ti. Absolutely thrashes it.Same goes for Halo performance.

[dudesahippy]

i think that the console point is a good one, but the multiplayer sucks, xbox live is outrageously expensive. more than dsl

[willywalloo]

Apple produces fine machines for gaming: Apple produces one of the best "gaming" machines out there.

G5's have a huge RAM ceiling of 8 GB(with ready support for PT (petabytes, or 1000 TeraBytes) is it?)(edit: i calculate 1,800 PtB), ATi 9800 card upgrade, with more video options coming soon, SATA standard, RAID is a viable option for load times, Dual G5's...geeze what more could you want?

Right now, as it stands, my 1.6Ghz single does really well with all of the games released today. Halo runs smoother than I have ever seen a FPS run. (way to go for MacSoft for porting such a good game well) Games tested: Indiana Jones, UT2003, UT2004, Quake3, UT, UT Game of the Year, more..

As for UT (the game right after Unreal), you couldn't get higher frame rates ... the OS X version upgrade on versiontracker.com provides all you need to get it working in Jag or Panther.

The most cost-effective way to game still is console. FPS, RPG, Action, Side Scroller...the console wins. Top graphics, and FPS controls, they do not. The computer wins here, but remember that this comes with high costs, as generally the computer is made for the software, and not the other way around.

-walloo.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by onlooker
Keep hittin the pipe there Dopey.

Alienware area 51 gaming machine:

AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 Processor
1GB Registered DDR SDRAM PC-3200
120GB Seagate Serial ATA 8MB Cache
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
for $2,956.00 before rebates.

And that's for starters. What's that B,&W G3's graphics card supposed to accomplish with a G5 attached to it? A system meltdown?
my point was simly in regard to the encloser, not the specs, but obviously what i meant was, as i said slap in a g5, which also implies all the essentails, beefeir power supply, g5 mobo, fast ram, sata hdd, superdrive and so on and so on,
what kind of fool would actualy suggest putting a g5 in a g3 mainboard????

[mmmpie]

I dont think an Apple console is the answer, and I dont think Apple's machines are all that bad. My 'gaming' PC is Duron 850 with an ATI Radeon DDR.

Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!? Im aware of a third party extension for game pads. Thats a pretty sad state of affairs. Is there any official support for 3d positional sound? Most people use headphones, so not having 5.1 out isnt a big issue. OpenAL is _a_ solution, but how hard are Apple pushing it?

Do Apple even have a game development evangelist anymore?
Why dont the Apple stores carry a really strong line of games? The Honolulu store is weak weak weak. There are games out there.
Why dont the Apple stores show off game playing power?

Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy. Its easy for them to say "Just get a console", but it really ignores the problem. And worse, so much interesting software dev is done for games, puching the envelope. Well that envelope aint getting pushed on the Mac.

I think that Apples string game support in the OS 8/9 days comes from not Steve. Its gone. Mourn its passing. Get a console and a PC.

Personally, I run a Mac and PC using VNC and win2vnc to keep the keyboard clutter down.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by mmmpie
Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!?

HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.

It's lower level than Game Sprockets.

Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy.

Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back. Companies like id Software came on board in no small part because Steve reached out to them and asked them what they wanted (we have John Carmack to thank for Apple's decision to implement a complete, robust, system-standard OpenGL implementation, for instance).

Apple's game developer resources start here (http://developer.apple.com/games/), and they include useful things like a cross-platform networking API.

If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were - but the ultimate arbiter of the number of games we get, and their quality, and their release dates relative to the PC rlease dates, is the size of the Mac gamiing market.

[mmmpie]

HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.

And this highlights the sort of problems game devs face - if you go to Apple's game dev page the link to HID documentation is a 404, handy.


Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back.


But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.


If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were.

But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac. This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software. Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot. The key is follow through. If they do it ONCE, then it will fail, it has to go on for YEARS to attract snowballing attention.

I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by mmmpie
But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.

Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?

But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac.

In other words, the Mac market is not relatively small for all software.

Maya is basically UNIX workstation software, and Apple is the #1 UNIX(-like) vendor in volume by leaps and bounds. That, and a full-blown OpenGL implementation (which is the main reason to buy a high-end 3D card, incidentally, at least on the PC side), are what convinced Alias to jump: Apple looks big to a company whose bread and butter is SGI.

Apple is huge in audio production, huge in content creation generally. These are markets that are much smaller than the general consumer market, and Apple's numbers in these markets are far higher than in the general consumer market. The people who write apps in these markets know this, and target the Mac.

This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software.

Of course it can work, but "can" doesn't sell anything. The software that Mac users buy tends to be high quality and well supported because there are a fair number of us in real terms. And Mac users are well heeled and they buy software because that software (and hardware) earns them money. It's a consequence of the fact that Macs are disproportionately a production platform. And guess what? If you want to find a gaming market, you don't generally look at production machines.

There aren't a lot of Mac gamers. There could be, and there are no doubt more than there were, but believe me, game developers aren't willfully withholding themselves from a burgeoning market. Most game code is at least platform-agnostic by its very nature, and DirectX is basically a bastard OpenGL, so porting isn't that hard. There's just not that much of an incentive to do it. id Software does it for the same reason they do Linux versions: Because "it's the right thing to do" in Carmack's own words, and (implicitly) because they make enough from the Windows sales to be able to do the right thing. Not everyone is id.

Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot.

Games are an easy purchase for people with money, but again, that doesn't sell games. I have money, and I've bought maybe one title every five years, on average. I could buy many more titles, but there's no reason for me to: I'd never play them. Hell, I haven't even finished Oni, and that game's how old now?

Beating MS on developer support generally is a tall order. MS developers are spoiled silly, as long as they play in the sandbox.

Console developer support, on the other hand, is classically a contradiction in terms. But the console game market dwarfs the PC game market, so developers target them anyway.

If there's a market, game publishers will come. Game developers will do what they're given the funds to do, and that includes designing the code to run and run well on Macs from the outset, and targeting OpenGL, etc. Apple support is a bonus, but most of it's pretty much in place, and the rest is coming along quickly (Xcode, etc.).

I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.

At the end of the day, markets make games financially feasible, or not. NWN was intended to be cross platform from the get-go (remember when the Mac version would be a simultaneous release, including the toolset?), so it's fairly exceptional. To the extent that it strayed, it was because the publisher wasn't willing to pay the extra cost to keep that goal alive, and they weren't willing to make that investment because they didn't believe they'd get a return on it. It really is just as simple as that.

Also, any developer who signs up for Apple's premium developer support can expect lots of help from Cupertino with whatever they need. Even little Nisus had the attention of Apple's CoreFoundation team, to improve OS X's text handling capabilities. So that isn't a problem (and Apple's annual fee is peanuts to a professional development house).

[mmmpie]

Originally posted by Amorph
Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?

Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly". The potential is there. But without real, ongoing attention it will never take off. Its like looking at a bare patch of dirt and waiting for the garden to grow on its own.

IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by mmmpie
Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly".

That's because that's the conclusion you want to hear.

Taking myself as an example, that doesn't wash. Apple can evangelize all they want. I don't play games much because I don't play games much. I'm aware of the resurgence of Mac gaming because I watched it with great interest, read interviews and .plans and whatever else I could get my hands on. But I hardly bought anything.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.

Apple's current support for games is unparalleled in the history of the Macintosh. (For that matter, their developer support generally is better than it's ever been, by leaps and bounds.) They went out, talked to developers, talked to publishers, built the support they wanted into the OS, hired people specifically to showcase games on their site, etc. I've offered evidence; you've just dismissed what you haven't ignored out of hand. If there was any anti-game attitude, believe me, I wouldn't be able to summon a shred of evidence otherwise. Nobody does a cold shoulder like Apple does.

But Apple can't make their installed base buy games. The installed base has to do that on their own. And they aren't doing it, or we'd have more games.

The bottom line, and the entire content of my message, is: If you want games for the Mac, buy them. Apple's done an incredible amount of work to get us where we are. The responsibility at this point lies entirely with the end users.

[Matsu]

Why not get a console for games?

200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.

So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.

I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.

With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.

I really have to question the logic of PC gamers.

[Res]

Originally posted by Matsu
Why not get a console for games?

200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.

So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.

I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.

With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.

I really have to question the logic of PC gamers.

Just because you don't care for PC games is no reason to question the logic of PC gamers.

A lot of PC gamers also have consoles and play both types of games. Personally, I don't care for console games -- I don't like the controls, the graphics or game-play of most of them.

I really like team based networked FPS. I also like RTS games, and combat fight simulators. All of which are a lot of fun on computers, but kind of suck on consoles. That makes me a PC/Mac gamer.

People who say "get a console" just don't seem to realize that it all comes down to taste -- people who like console games will buy them, and people who like computer games will stick with computers.

Cheaper != Better.

[onlooker]

Cheaper = Cheaper

[Matsu]

No, the kinds of games that are good on the PC, and for which the keyboard/mouse/monitor makes a difference tend by and large not to be the kinds of games that require the fastest system. Thusly, a mac is fine, as is any old PC, when it comes to sims, RTS, and puzzles. The networked FPS game is the only advantage of the computer, period.

I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.

And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.

It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.

It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.

PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.

[onlooker]

I played Tribes: Ariel Assault for the PS2 with my online hookup in multiplayer mode for a while, and it was a fantastic game. I think the developers of the new UT2k4 used some of the idea's from that game in their new game. They are a lot alike in way's that make each of them better than ut2k3. Based on my experience with Tribes AA I'd have to say that online play in multiplayer shooters isn't a problem with consoles. Unless maybe you were using dial-up, or something.

[Res]

Originally posted by Matsu
No, the kinds of games that are good on the PC, and for which the keyboard/mouse/monitor makes a difference tend by and large not to be the kinds of games that require the fastest system. Thusly, a mac is fine, as is any old PC, when it comes to sims, RTS, and puzzles. The networked FPS game is the only advantage of the computer, period.

This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer... :err:

For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.


I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.

And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.


I probably buy about 5 titles a year, and the games give me hundreds of hours of enjoyment per year. (UT alone brought me over 500 hours of entertainment over a three year period).

And yes, games look much better on a computer then on a TV screen, if you can't see the difference it is time to get new glasses.


It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.

It's cheeper -- I give you that.

easy to hook up to a big screen -- You can also hook your computer up to a TV screen, but who would want to? TV screens don't look nearly as nice as large computer monitor's.

Better controls -- On that you have to be kidding. The computer has keyboard and mouse, a huge selection of joysticks peddles and throttles/weapon-pods for flight simulators, specialized gaming pads and arcade controllers, plus all the yucky game-pad console type of controllers you could possibly want (most of the games I play do not work well at all with console type controllers).

simpler interface -- != better interface. Some games like UT2k3 you can tell were ported form a console game because of its cheesy interface.

sturdier -- most of us don't plan on dropping our computers. ;)

doesn't crash or require driver updates -- neither does my Mac :)



It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.

Right now the only thing I would use a console for would be an oversized paperweight -- and it is way over priced for that! :D

In future generations you might be right, but I think that it is more likely that consoles and computers will sort of merge together.


PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.

You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).

[Matsu]

Originally posted by Res
This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer... :err:

For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.

You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).

You don't get it.

For sims, RTS, and puzzels you don't need to build your own computer, any old budget machine will be just fine, as will any mac. The selection isn't so broad that you can't find satisfaction on the mac, if that's what you crave.

The only one specific genre that might require a home rolled high horsepower rig with a keyboard/mouse/high res display is the networked FPS. As for FPS, halo proves you don't need a computer to do it, but the networked part isn't exactly as open as it could be on the console systems.

yBox and PS3 will fix this, they'll have the output resolutions (HDTV/DVI-out) and network capabilities to make them suitable to all the genres, and they will come with keyboards if only because they will likely come with web browsers.

I seriously doubt 5 good FPS games come out every year. Maybe two, and even those are derivative of previous efforts. If there are 5, you can pretty much buy one and an experience thats 99% the same as what you'd have gotten from the other 3-4.

So, for now, unless FPS is that important to you, and you have problems if it is, there's no reason to build a computer just for gaming. Just buy the machine you would use for everything else (email, IM, Office, iApps, file sharing, graphic design) and it will work well for KVM centric games too. Get a console and give the controller a chance, you'll have a better system with a greater variety of games.

Those guys play UT 13 (the sequel to the sequel's roomate's cousin) on some online game server, for the 500th hour this year... they aren't going anywhere in life, except maybe Columbine.

[Res]

No Matsu, it is you that seems not to be getting it (maybe if you read my whole post instead of responding only to the first paragraph you would).

I don't like consoles and think that the are a waste of money, and I explained my reasons why. Why can't you accept that some people prefer to play games on computers rather then a consoles?

Anyway, this has gotten way off topic and you seem to be getting a little touchy. If you want to continue bashing computer gamers you should probably start a new thread in AO.

[mmmpie]

The games I _do_ play on my gamecube are good, and I dont think they would gain a lot from being on a PC ( Zelda, Super Monkey, Metroid ), but a lot of that is because they are designed for the console.

The flip side is that there are a lot of games that are designed for the very rich input of a PC ( keyboard + mouse ), and it is hard to translate that rich input to the relatively sparse input of a console. There are very few buttons on a gamepad, and an analoge stick is _not_ equivalent to a mouse ( one is relative, the other is absolute - try moving your mouse with a joystick ). The games that happen to benefit most from those inputs are the ones that currently dominate PC gaming, FPS, RTS, mouse orientated puzzles.

Now, that is not to say that these sorts of games cant be designed for consoles, Halo is a good example of a well executed console FPS. But what you will find is that the console experience is different to the PC, simply because of the design choices that are forced upon the game by the input scheme.

You put someone on the console port of a PC game up against PC gamers and see how badly they get beaten. As long as the playing field is level ( console v console ) it is fine.

For sure, a lot PC games can run on relatively lowly machines, it is just good economic sense, but "real" gamers have high end boxes so they can have all they eye candy. And that eye candy does make a difference to how well you play. Dont call gamers names because they take their hobby seriously, its just like being really into your sport, so you buy weirdo graphite thingies and wacko shoes to get a little better performance. You might not understand, because you are a casual gamer, and you might not understand the difference between games that to you seem the same ( try telling a tennis player that they should all play squash, just cos it uses a racket and a ball and is mostly the same ).

Unfortunately the Mac doesnt have a lot of games. My favourites are Counter Strike, the Total War series, and Emperor of Dune. Im sure there are more, that are very similar that I would like to, but they aint on the Mac either ( not that I have time to play any more games ).

[trailmaster308]

I don't get some people on this board. All I ever read about is "the experience of this or that is so great on the Mac and thats why I use one". Well I totally understand and I agree. But that "experience" also applies to other platforms. I have an Alienware Area 51m, PS2, PowerBook and iMac. I can say without a shadow of a doubt, no questions asked, hands down, no way in hell that any one of my systems can compare to the Alienware. Its not about cost! Its about the experience. And until you actually own one or spend about two weeks with/on a real gaming system then you DON'T know what you are talking about.

Yes Consoles are good & cheap. But the experience is much better on a kick arse gaming PC.

[Matsu]

No, the experience is not that much better. How much better would that actually be? In line with the price better? Of course not. 1500 versus 200. Better game play? Most often not the case, just the same repetitive crap.

A hobby? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! That's an insult to hobbiests.

[Res]

Originally posted by Matsu
No, the experience is not that much better. How much better would that actually be? In line with the price better? Of course not. 1500 versus 200. Better game play? Most often not the case, just the same repetitive crap.

A hobby? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! That's an insult to hobbiests.

Hob·by n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure. Hobbyist: a person who pursues an activity in their spare time for pleasure.

The only thing insulting in this thread Matsu is you. You are being quite narrow-minded, obnoxious and rude.

Why can't you just accept that some people prefer computer gaming to console gaming? And why do you keep insulting computer gamers?

.

[trailmaster308]

Originally posted by Matsu
No, the experience is not that much better. How much better would that actually be? In line with the price better? Of course not. 1500 versus 200. Better game play? Most often not the case, just the same repetitive crap.

A hobby? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! That's an insult to hobbiests.

No, the experience is not that much better

Oh because you know, I see!

How much better would that actually be

Oh so you don't know?! :err:

Look, just because your allowance doesn't allow you to experience superior gaming doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Whatever, get over yourself.

[Matsu]

HAHA, I shouldn't argue with anonymous teens in an online forum, but I have a long history of mental discharge on this board.

When the topic warrants seriousness, I will supply it, this is no more deserving of seriousness than the religious discussions in AO.

If by hobby you mean diversion, fine, but it's still a stupid hobby. That isn't an insult, just an objective remark. Yes, I have the authority to declare my statements objective, in case you were wondering, by virtue of my superior intelligence, which I cast before you like the money shot in a porno.

[Derrick 61]

Originally posted by mattyj
Games run well on macs. For example, UT2k3 runs far better on my Dual 1Ghz DDR GF4Ti thna my friends Dual 1Ghz PIII GF4Ti. Absolutely thrashes it.Same goes for Halo performance.

This may be true, but look at the price difference. I think that is an issue. Your dual 1GHz was probably $2000, plus monitor. His dual P3 1 GHz was probably sub-$1000 including monitor...

No, I would NEVER buy a PoS x86 box, even of the Alienware/Falcon variety. The only way I'm ever coming off Mac is if Apple goes under!

[Indecisive PC user]

My two-pence (that's two-cents for my american friends out there!)...

Apple have a great OS for work. The new G5s are beautiful, powerful etc and would play the new generation of games quite well. But the problem is as someone has already talked about - developers just don't see Macs as a viable return on their substantial investement.

With the consoles becoming so popular, even the PC format has suffered a bit. However, being a fanatic PC gamer, consoles are crap in comparison. Don't get me wrong - I like consoles for their ease of use etc - you just put the disc in and it works - no messing about like with the PCs. But the PC games are just sooooo much better.

There was a thread a while ago about emulation of Windows on the Mac (Virtual PC) and I asked if a top of the range G5 could run a PC game using virtual PC. The answer from the forum and now Microsoft was "no" as there is no hardware 3D graphic support in VPC. Someone else here talked about Microsoft porting Direct X to the Mac. I think if that happened, then the Macs would be in business - albeit for playing PC games and not games optimised for the Mac itself. [As an aside, I think Microsoft will 'go to town' on the whole VPC software and eventually stop producing all Mac software (Internet Explorer, Office, Media Player etc etc ) and just tell the Mac community that they should run the windows versions using VPC.]

Anyway, am tired so hope this makes sense. I guess in a nutshell I am saying that:

i) There's never going to be decent, consistent and widespread support for the perceived 'small' Mac market from the big games developers.

ii) Even firmly-rooted PC gaming is going to suffer with the console revoultion (PS3, X-Box 2 etc etc)

iii) Microsoft should get 3D hardware support (directX) onto the Mac using VPC or whatever so that Mac's can access the ENTIRE PC library of software - i think this would boost MAC sales too - i'd love to be playing BF1942 on a G5 / 23' :)

[lungaretta]

Originally posted by Indecisive PC user
i) There's never going to be decent, consistent and widespread support for the perceived 'small' Mac market from the big games developers.


I refer you to the other FH thread 'XBox 2 SDK released'

[onlooker]

Back to the thread title.
March is an eventful month for Nvidia, ATI, Future Technology, and Gaming.

CeBIT is 18th - 24th of March

The Game Developers Conference is the 22nd - 26th of March.

Do you think Apple would show up at any of these with, IBM, and nVidia? I doubt it, but it's a good dream. :) This could be the triple threat. a 3GHz G5, and an nVidia NV40 based graphics card both the graphics GPU, and the Processors are Made by IBM?

Here are the assumed specs:

Summary of what we know (or think to know) about NV40 at the moment:

nVidia NV40

175 millions transistors, manufactured in 130nm by IBM

8x2 architecture, but 16 Z/Stencil-test per cycle

DirectX 9.0 architecture, supports shaders 3.0

Doubled in number compared to NV38 and more efficient pixel shaders

256 bit memory interface, supports DDR1, GDDR2, GDDR3

Internal interface is AGPx8

Exact clock-speeds: unknown; estimated 500-600 MHz core and 600-800 MHz memory

Improvements for anti-aliasing: (at least) one new mode, its sub-pixel-mask is still unknown though

Improvements for anisotropic filtering: unknown

Presentation: CeBIT or GDC, end of March

Market entry: end of April or beginning of May 2004

Official name: GeForce FX 6XXX

While first purchasable NV40 graphics cards can be expected around the end of April or the beginning of May.

Here is a link to the story I got this from. LINK (http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2004/01-27_a_english.php) :D

BTW. I'm going to use this post in 3 threads, because it's relevant in all of them.