Real gamers have a 360 or PS3. In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more; many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years. Where is Halo 3 for the PC? Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
That's Sony and Microsoft's fault and you know it.
Quote:
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
If by consoles you mean a standardized hardware platform, I agree. But Valve won't leave the mouse+keyboard behind. There's so much that the DualShock is incapable of...
... unless their controller is like the Razer Hydra/ PS Move-with-two-analog-sticks, of course.
Quote:
On this page, the Fermi 540M gets almost the same as the 6630M:
That's Sony and Microsoft's fault and you know it.
I'd say it's more to do with the natural progression of gaming. PC gaming was big back in the 90s as it kicked off the whole FPS genre. Then came the PC game piracy, the compatibility problems and the console's dual-analog sticks made the keyboard/mouse irrelevant.
From that point, publishers could target limited platforms reliably, target a good gaming audience and it's been just fine so far. Sony and Microsoft have pushed it along but it was going that way anyway. Something like the Kinect could never have been as successful on a PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
Valve won't leave the mouse+keyboard behind. There's so much that the DualShock is incapable of...
I think they'll leave it behind unofficially. They're not going to expect people to play with a keyboard/mouse on the sofa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
Considering how the 640M is cool/small enough for Acer to put it in an upcoming ultrabook, I disagree.
Notice how the specs for the unnamed "not really ultra" ultrabook are close to MBA's...
The marketing image is comparing a 640M with the HD3000 (Sandy Bridge). Ivy Bridge HD4000 is much faster. If you compare the 640M with the 6630M:
Metro 2033 got 18FPS on HD3000 and the 640M got 36FPS. The HD4000 will be 50-100% faster than the HD3000. The 640M will still be faster but it will be cheaper and cooler to use the HD4000 with negligible performance drop.
Apple still needs to work on those drivers, the same games on the same Apple machine run like a card a whole generation older compared to a Windows bootcamp install.
Especially for more intense games on higher resolution panels, they need to step up video driver development.
Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in niche markets apart from AppleTV and even with that there only seems to be some half-hearted attempt with hardware. If Apple doesn't even bother to update the MacPro anymore then you know they're not making any money from it. Apple is only interested in making lots of money from the least number of products in its lineup. Any product that doesn't probably ends up on the short list. The poor iPod Touch is being so neglected along with the rest of the iPods. Forget a gaming machine. Windows has all those third-party gaming board makers that design such gorgeous motherboards and they're always kept up-to-date. Apple doesn't make any cutting-edge motherboards like that.
Apple only builds middle-of-the-road consumer products where it can make the most money from the targeted consumer base. Hard-core gamers are of no interest to Apple because they represent such a tiny percentage of consumers. Tim Cook must have gotten lost to end up at Valve. Apple could probably develop the finest gaming hardware ever, but it's just not cost effective enough for Apple. Better that Apple continues to stay where the most money is to be made and the largest amount of consumers to be served. That practice alone will keep Apple successful.
Real gamers have a 360 or PS3. In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more; many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years. Where is Halo 3 for the PC? Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
By 'real gamers', you mean people who buy boxes, put two GPUs in SLI, fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer. But they will proceed to post screenshots online to prove that their $1000+ 2012 PC is superior to a $250 console using 7 year old hardware.
If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant.
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
On this page, the Fermi 540M gets almost the same as the 6630M:
Mac gaming has come a long way. It's a sign of the times that Tim is at Valve's HQ.
It could be for an Apple console. (? Perhaps the ATV will morph into quite the Swan with a quad core and Rogue gpu. It would be tiny. Cool. Make an M% product look like a honking clumsy ass product. At £99, a PS3 class graphics beast for such a low price would be very good. Then you've got what I think is more likely...an iPad 4 (with Airplay?) using either a quad core or faster dual core with Rogue class gpu and you have a console with built in screen that makes a DS look like Chicken feed.) It could just be for more services for the ATV. It could be for Apple to get some tips about how to handle the game market. To buy Steam? Valve?
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
HL2 was a landmark release for the Mac. Valve. Steam. The subsequent tide of games for the Mac. Between steam and iOS. The gaming auro of Mac has got a bit of a boost. I never thought the ageing game City of Heroes would be available for the Mac. But Transgamer's Cider engine helped out there. A bit rocky with the earlier patches with random quits but these days far more stable and faster. It's an old game but I like it. Plays great at 1900 by 1200. (But not in Ultra mode...my 8800gs has it's limits...)
HL2 plays great in native res on the iMac. I rate it as the best FPS of all time. It's a great narrative release that shames the shallowness of Id's shoot bot games. HL2, a real landmark for Mac gaming. Sure, years late. But Valve are finally at the table. And why not? 5 million Macs a quarter sold, an installed base that must sit at 70 million+ and counting. iOS tidal wave/Tsunami incoming. Who wouldn't want to be part of the action? Valve would be foolish not to. Look at Epic getting into iOS gaming. 30 million+ iPhones and 10+ iPads per quarter is big business to turn down. And the growth is going through the roof...and what? Valve want to be tied to the small number of people who buy SLI gpu, overclocked CPU rigs in honking ass towers? Sure, that must be a 'big' market. 'Serious gamers.' Sure. *Stifles a laugh. *(400£ alone for a gpu. Puh-lease. Then the cost for the rig etc.) For visuals that are barely distinguishable from 7+ year old consoles like the PS3?
Gaming has gone over to the casual gaming crowd. The days of you being a weirdo because played squiggles on a C64 are over. Between the DS, Nintendo, M$, Sony...Apple's iOS. Gaming is very 'grown up' and acceptable.
Regardless of the ATV next release, I think Apple has gaming sewn up with the next iPad release. Quad core and Rogue pumped through a tv at retina resolutions?
It's back to the same problem the Pro is facing. Power is being democratised and for now there's 'good enough' power. Most computers are no longer struggling with internet, video or gaming. Absolute power is not necessary for the mainstream...who have all the power that they need for now.
Gaming/computer hardware will evolve. Sure.
But right now? Most of the hardware and software experience is 'good enough.' Especially for the 'casual' crowd.
It's back to being about the games. And that doesn't always mean 'better graphics.'
Game concept. Playability. Narrative.
Diversity. With decent hardware. (It will be a while before we reach another significant cusp of Graphical greatness for it to matter greatly...) For now what we have is 'good enough' for 'now.'
You can have all of those without SLI.
I remember the C64 era well. Boulderdash Construction Kit vs RDS vs IMpossible Mission vs Paradroid vs Elite vs...Sentinel vs Pitstop II vs Epic Games vs...Spy vs Spy vs Iridis Alpha vs Blagger vs Batalyx vs Drop Zone vs...Nodes of Yesod vs...and zillions more. I enjoyed everyone of them.
Why log onto my iMac to web browse when I can do it on my retina screen iPad far more comfortably. It's a game changer. Pun intended.
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
[/QUOTE]
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Regarding the HD4000 in the next 13" pro, again, it goes back to the graph I posted. Identical GPUs perform worse under macs because the video drivers are not tuned for every last bit of performance, and afaik are not under AMDs and Nvidias control as Apple insists on writing them. That makes them more stable, but lower performance. So that "good enough" HD4000 becomes something closer to the HD3000 on Windows performance.
Besides, a dGPU is one big thing the 13" pro could do that the 13" air would not have, I'd still like to see it and would snap one up in an instant. Like I've said many times, removing the ODD like rumored gives them much more space in there to work with, in addition to being thinner it would be capable of housing higher TDP parts and battery to offset them.
Especially with the retina display macbook pro rumours, why would you not want a better discreet card rather than the integrated Intel one?
For the record, under Windows, its still below the GT440, or the AMD A8 APU.
I take your point about the Open GL performance 'problem' and laggardly OS X driver performance.
I remember the bench back when which showed the SAME card a full 100% behind the Windows equivalent. That was simply unacceptable.
For the record, I still think Apple have some way to go in including decent gpus in their computer range.
Open GL drivers.
iMac gpu side grades.
The mini going from discrete to integrated crappics.
Lack of a 'Blue and White G3 class Tower' in the iMac's price range. ie the 'X-Mac.'
Mac Pro (Hardly a gaming machine at that price! Out of date gpus, now two generations old. And the included ones hardly cutting edge at launch..)
No Sli.
No dual GPU.
Consumer integrated graphics. (Didn't the Macbook once have a dedicated gpu once upon a time? it's been that long I've almost forgotten.)
But it's not all bad.
The iMac does have a 'top end' gpu now which is 'only' 50% slower than the absolute top end Nvidia card as noted by Marvin. I never thought I'd see the day the iMac had a decent card like the 6970M with 2 gigs(!) of Vram! (and the link has it playing Battlefield and the fantasy type game smoothly enough. So it should for about 2 grand... ) Still think a PS3 and a 50 inch plasma for £900 is wayyyyyyy better value. Mac or PC. For the 'serious' gamer.
Integrated performance from Intel is being dragged kicking and screaming irrevocably forwards due to pressure from AMD and Nv's solutions.
Valve.
HL2 arriving.
Steam.
Transgamer's Cider.
iOS.
App Store.
Mac App Store.
Apple Stores.
Selling 5 million Macs per quarter.
70million-ish installed base of Macs.
Tim visiting Valve. (Building relations...)
Epic THEMSELVES appearing on the iOS stage for the iPad launch is massive. (*though it seems to have gone amiss with the Mac consciousness...)
So, yes. While gaming on the Mac isn't perfect and Apple stumbled onto portable/hand held gaming supremacy by accident (which must p*Sss off Nintendo and Sony right off... ) I'd say that things are at an all time high.
You can buy cheap again. I used to buy games for my C64 between £1.95 and £9.95.
In the modern Console/PC gaming era? Prices have been creeping upto insanity for a while now. For a while there...games were getting ridiculously priced upto £35, £45? £70? Just for a game that would be in the 2nd hand section in half a year? No thanks.
iOS has leveraged the scale of the internet. Pile 'em high. Sell 'em cheap. I can buy Angry Birds cheaply and have hours of fun. Plenty of other decent games too. They'll be set to get more powerful, catching up real fast with the current quad gpu and next year's presumed 'Rogue' class gpu. Quality at fair prices. It puts the PC 'Game' retail crowd in a pickle (weren't they seeking buyers due to losses?) and Sony/Nintendo in a bind who make alot of their money through overpriced software.
so yeah, I'll take your point that things aren't perfect on the driver side or discrete solution side with Apple's 'awkward' desktop line up perhaps.
But my argument is that things are better than they have ever been since the old Apple II days. And that current momentum seems things getting even better.
I look at Heavy Rain, LA Noir, Resident Evil 5, Assassins Creed on the PS3...even the older Heavenly Sword and count myself unimpressed with PC games...and that includes Battlefield or that fantasy thing that's getting teh hype. The latest gaming engines look like they've been around for a long time. They're pretty good, sure. But nothing that makes me think I need a SLI honking PC tower with water cooling so I can post my screen shots to prove how much better my 'fps/money buys some extra seconds...' rig is than a PS3 costing less than £300.
Sure, I thought it was great that my iMac could run the RE5 demo in boot camp. Until I pinched myself and realised I'd payed for the privilege.
They've had 'advice' from Id and Valve over the years. And they've both publically expressed their concerns re: Apple and gaming.
We'll see how Apple and gaming does under Tim. They did alright (in the end) under Steve.
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
[/QUOTE
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Heh, heh...
Outcry? I'd sure hope so. :P I'd love Apple to do it just to P*SS pc gamers RIGHT OFF! (Whether that comes to pass, perhaps not. But I'd love to be surprised. It would put Mac/iOS gaming on the Gold Throne of gaming.)
Be careful putting all your money with the dollar. It's not worth a great deal...at the moment. And with the Fed printing even more 'fiat money' out of 'fresh air' it's value going forwards doesn't look promising. Or when China calls in the debt...
Apple has to diversify to break the Mac out of the niche that it's in. It only makes sense that Tim Cook would visit Valve personally, after so many Apple reps went there and nothing ever materialized from it. Cook isn't going to disappear, like so many before him did.
Steve Jobs did not get gaming at all. He famously was against games being developed for the Mac at launch. In fact, if you applied to be a Mac developer in 1984 and told them you wanted to develop games, they tossed your application in the trash.
Apple has made many, many missteps in Mac gaming over the years. Sorry that Jobs passed away, but I can see Cook clearing away a lot of Jobs's mental blocks that were holding Apple back.
Newell is right; Apple has to get serious about Mac gaming if they are going to truly appeal to the consumer market. Apple's goal should be to have at least one A-list game from an A-list developer that is Mac-first or Mac-only every year.
I never thought the ageing game City of Heroes would be available for the Mac. But Transgamer's Cider engine helped out there. A bit rocky with the earlier patches with random quits but these days far more stable and faster. It's an old game but I like it. Plays great at 1900 by 1200. (But not in Ultra mode...my 8800gs has it's limits...)
For some reason, that reminded me that one game Valve makes is DOTA 2. This type of game simply doesn't translate to something like the XBox and PS3. Same with Starcraft. A gesture controller with a screen mapping can allow you to play games that only a mouse would otherwise allow but of course offer more control than a mouse and a wider audience than a PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Not a Mac exclusive, an iOS exclusive with a console option (this is a huge audience y'know). It could easily be for a short period of time (as in, 2-4 weeks) and then they release it on PC/Mac via Steam. Microsoft did it with Halo, Sony did it with MGS, Valve can do it with HL3.
Anyway, there might not even be a HL3 for all we know. Episode 2 was nearly 5 years ago. I doubt we'll hear much from Valve at E3 in June on the matter (again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
In the modern Console/PC gaming era? Prices have been creeping upto insanity for a while now. For a while there...games were getting ridiculously priced upto £35, £45? £70? Just for a game that would be in the 2nd hand section in half a year? No thanks.
I know, this is a major problem and one that an Apple console like the current iOS devices can solve. They already make games in episodes. It doesn't work for all games but it does for a lot of them. 3 months and you get episode 1, 3 months and you get episode 2, each episode 99c. Eventually they release the whole game so you can wait the full development cycle.
They can do Portal like Angry Birds so they just keep adding levels or in TF, keep adding hats as in-game options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
iOS has leveraged the scale of the internet. Pile 'em high. Sell 'em cheap
Exactly. Game prices are weighed up between development cost and sales volume. Somewhere they got the numbers wrong because development costs are in the tens of millions and the entire audience is in the tens of millions.
For iOS, development costs are in the hundreds of thousands and the audience is in the hundreds of millions. Even assuming that AAA game development costs will be unchanged (which it won't be as iOS is easier to target than a console), the ratio is still much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajun
Steve Jobs did not get gaming at all. He famously was against games being developed for the Mac at launch.
People change their views when different technology arises. Back in the early days, there was no gaming beyond the likes of Reversi and Breakout. There were the odd classics like Out of this World/Another World and Flashback (not the trojan) but mainly there was nothing worthwhile. GPU power today allows publishers to make games like movies that tell stories and drive you through an immersive narrative. You can't say that someone dismissing Tetris is equivalent to dismissing LA Noire.
Hard as it is to accept, Steve no longer determines what happens at the company. Scott Forstall does get gaming as do many of the current Apple leadership. They are already making gaming far more profitable than it's ever been. They can revive this entire industry and partnering with Valve is a sure way to do it.
Steam works similar to Apple's iOS App Store within iTunes, providing a market for PC video game titles and a mechanism for automatically delivering the latest software updates to players.
I love how you compare Steam to the iOS store. Steam was doing this YEARS before the iOS app store was even a glimmer in Steve Jobs' eye (Four years before the iPhone was even on the market to be exact, the iOS app store didn't even exist until 2008. A 5 year head start). Talk about delusional. Apple isn't to be made the father of every idea, Jesus Christ get off their knob for once. This is just sloppy fanboy crap. Not to mention that the update system in iTunes is ntohing more than a rolling number of available updates by default. It doesn't update anything until you tell it to, Steam updates the second it signs in. iTunes, and iOS game updates aren't comparable to Steam because Steam isn't a bloated POS "app" and it actually works. It had it's problems in the beginning but they've fixed almost all of them. iTunes? Gets more bloated, and more broken every single release they push out. Valve isn't like Apple, Apple is like Valve on game updates. Get off their knob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple's big turn around in gaming
The shift was particularly significant because less than three years earlier, in late 2007, Steam co-founder Gabe Newell had publicly complained that Apple simply didn't get gaming.
And they STILL don't get it. Games run like crap under OS X, even after Steam was released. I've never played on single game that was available in Windows that was ported to OS X and not have it run like utter shit. Even lowly console ports in Windows run better than OS X runs ported Windows games. Apple will never "get" gaming. They've shown nothing that gives any indication that they ever will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
iOS and Game Center
Apple's seemingly indifferent stance on gaming appeared to change rapidly following the release of iPhone and the new iPod touch in 2007, and in particular after the release of the App Store in early 2008.
Games became a major focus for iOS developers and accounted for a large percentage of the software Apple's new App Store began selling, threatening the business of entrenched gaming companies including Sony and Nintendo.
Apple has since added gaming-centric features to its hardware and to iOS, including Game Center. The company has since announced plans to bring Game Center to the Mac in this summer's OS X Mountain Lion
Game Center is shit. It's as pointless as Newsstand is. It serves literally no function other than to take up an icon space. Can't browse people, matchmaking is non-existant and the whole thing is completely fugly with the half pool table half card table UI going on. It's a "game" style UI that was barfed up and then smeared around. The Xbox Live app released by Microsoft is light years better than GC. Having an app with "Game" in the title doesn't mean that Apple gets or cares about gaming. There is literally nothing more useless at "gaming" tasks and game playing functions than Game Center.
Citation needed. Especially since you contradict your own argument with this later on: "If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant." Your opinion is therefor irrelevant because you dismiss a billion dollar industry because deep down you know that consoles are handicapped to help players like you get headshots in FPS games. That is a well known fact by the way, hit boxes on console games are ridiculously large in comparison to PC game hit boxes. A shitty controller is a natural handicap and has to be compensated for otherwise whiny console players wouldn't be able to get headshots with any regularity. Controllers are garbage compared to M&K and against a real steering wheel you'll get your ass kicked every time. Neither of which are very expensive at all compared to a controller. I'll keep going even though you've contradicted yourself and made things up to bolster your arguments below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more
Yes they do, just because you don't buy them doesn't mean they don't. Ignorance isn't fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years.
So they do, or they don't? Which is it? Licensing issues have alot to do with that and DRM does as well. Nothing that they PC industry as hardware makers and sellers can do anything about. You're not seeing the whole picture. Don't forget that all the console ports that take a long time to come out are utter shit when they are released. The graphics are console quality (read: shitty), they are usually riddled with bugs and the control schemes and interfaces aren't adapted to PCs and their controllers (M&K). Release a shitty product based off an already released product on a fundamentally different device and make horrible sales. You do a shitty job, and don't get compensated for it (read: low sales due to shitty work they've done) and it's PC gamins fault when no one buys it? Really grasping for straws on that one. You can't fault the victim, if they release shitty ports, and they do about 99% of the time, you can't blame the buyers for not wanting it or making future purchases. You need a better reason than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Where is Halo 3 for the PC?
Obviously you didn't know that Halo was originally going to be Mac exclusive before Microsoft bought them and used Halo as their killer release game for the original Xbox, or you chose to ignore it for the sake of your flawed arguments. Why would they cannibalize sales from one platform to another? Sell Halo 3, probably sell an Xbox too. Sell it on PC and you won't make a dime on hardware that is locked into buying games from one source, not to mention the Live subscription that goes along with making the damn thing even remotely useful. Sell a game, possibly hardware and definitely a subscription to make it all work. Good thing you aren't in charge of any major corporation with that lack of the big picture you have got going on over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
What console are the majority of those exclusive to? Sony. Why would Sony shoot themselves in the foot and sell those games on a platform they don't sell hardware for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
By 'real gamers', you mean people who buy boxes, put two GPUs in SLI, fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer. But they will proceed to post screenshots online to prove that their $1000+ 2012 PC is superior to a $250 console using 7 year old hardware.
And they're right. Not only can those PCs play games at vastly better quality visuals, they can do it at much higher framerates, they aren't upscaled like the Xbox and PS3 (almost NONE of their games run at 1920x1080 native, but you knew that right?), they can also play any video codec known to man without problems and have infinitely more uses than a console. You also get your choice of a million different controller choices and not the ones that Sony or Microsoft allow you to use out of the kindness of their hearts. Play any PC title that has seriously good textures and world design (hint, a lot of them) on maximum awesomeness at the same resolution that any console claims they do (which they actually don't do full HD) and you'll see an immediate difference. You obviously haven't played on a even half decent gaming PC or you're just too lazy to actually put in any work to enjoy yourself. My watercooled PC with an SLI setup ran for 3 years without me once having to open the case to fiddle with anything. The only reason it was opened after those three years was to upgrade it and the side went back on and I never had to touch it. One bad experience doesn't equal industry failure my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant.
Agreed. Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming. You should take your own declarations to heart. Real gamers don't own a console or a mobile gaming device, doesn't make them less of a gamer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
Again, citation needed. There are a ton of great PC games coming out (Crysis 3, Borderlands 2 to name but two big ones) and hardware sales are pretty damn good if Nvidia and ATi can afford to release $400+ video cards onto the market and make money. Valve hasn't got to do shit with consoles. They are literally raking in the money with Steam, they've already sold some of their games on consoles, and you're making things up to suit your extremely flawed argument. Since when has Valve has to do anything other than sit back and rake in cash? They are by no means in any financial trouble and how much money do you think they'd make if they released HL3 in let's say 2 years? A definitive release date in April 2014? They'd make MILLIONS day one sales. Probably close to what the big MW and BF franchises sell. You're delusional and in denial if you think Valve needs consoles to survive.
Get real dude. You're a disgruntled console player that doesn't know what they are missing out on. Just because your console holds your hand through your games and makes sure little Billy/Sally can hit the enemy with their gargantuan hit boxes doesn't mean you have the superior platform. PCs have a lot of drawbacks. Cost being the big one, but at the resolution of an HDTV a cheap gaming PC is very possible and the visuals and controls will kick the shit out of every console any day of the week. Hell, even laptops far surpass what any console can churn out visually and they are much more useful than a console. I play L4D2, Skyrim, BF3, F1 2011 and other games at real 1920x1080 on my HDTV at almost high settings in BF3/Skyrim, and absolute max on the other games on my MBP and it's buttery smooth. Played BF3 and Skyrim on my Xbox, both looked like shit compared and the controller was completely useless compared to my cheap M&K setup. That's not even a gaming PC, it's a lowly MBP running bootcamp. Consoles aren't the be all end all because they hold your hand when you play, they're just another tool to entertain yourself.
Also, I agree for the most part with HKZ, minus the overly acid bits.
And BTW HKZ, the Steam Client, Mac or Windows, is also crap.
The Steam client for Mac is crap, most definitely so, but the one for Windows has worked flawlessly for me for at least the last three years or so. The Mac version ALWAYS crashes but it's neither here nor there for me because gaming in OS X is so horrnedously bad (drivers, OpenGL performance and other things) that it doesn't matter. I can't play any games on it without severe sound issues, extremely poor performance and general crashiness. All Valve games released for OS X perform at about 30% of their Windows cousins so I don't even bother playing them in OS X, it's more enjoyable to beat my head against the wall. What issues are you having? Steam for Windows works great for me and has for years. Even moving the games from my SSD to my internal HDD (using an OWC Data Doubler) has worked flawlessly as well.
(As for the acidic tone, that's what you get when you insult a whole industry and it's customers with overly ignorant declarations based on delusion, emotion, and being completely devoid of facts. That and being so brash as to compare a service that is merely 4 years old with a service that's over twice as old. Apple didn't invent everything and isn't copied by everyone despite what AppleInsider writers steadfastly believe.)
It's just logical. Many of the best-rated games are console exclusives. Where is Red Dead Redemption for the PC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
Your opinion is therefor irrelevant because you dismiss a billion dollar industry
You're delusional and in denial if you think Valve needs consoles to survive.
Ok, that's a fair point. Valve is a very profitable company and they sell exclusively to PC buyers so my point about Valve needing consoles to survive was wrong. But publishers make more from console releases than PC releases, which leads to console exclusives and that trend isn't changing. If Valve wants to profit from games like RDR, they need a console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
Controllers are garbage compared to M&K
Just because they hold your hand when shooting doesn't make them better, just easier. You just point your mouse at things to aim, hardly realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
Sell it on PC and you won't make a dime on hardware that is locked into buying games from one source, not to mention the Live subscription that goes along with making the damn thing even remotely useful. Sell a game, possibly hardware and definitely a subscription to make it all work.
Good thing you aren't in charge of any major corporation with that lack of the big picture you have got going on over there.
So your argument for PC gaming is that companies will make significantly less money and it's good that I'm not in charge of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
Not only can those PCs play games at vastly better quality visuals, they can do it at much higher framerates, they aren't upscaled like the Xbox and PS3 (almost NONE of their games run at 1920x1080 native, but you knew that right?)
Yeah, the PC runs the games faster but they still end up looking and playing the same to the point that almost nobody cares. The only people who do are those who spend thousands on water-cooled, SLI rigs and need to justify that expense for playing games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
they can also play any video codec known to man without problems and have infinitely more uses than a console.
5x-10x the price though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
tYou obviously haven't played on a even half decent gaming PC or you're just too lazy to actually put in any work to enjoy yourself.
A wise fellow once said "Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming."
It is my opinion that Mr. Jobs never really got behind gaming for the mac going as far back as the early days of the Mac launch in 1984. I believe gaming just didn't run through Mr. Jobs veins. While Mr. Jobs did some work for Atari corp, almost the entire time he was at the helm of Apple he only barely gave it real support. The only reason Apple and Mr. Jobs embraced
gaming on iOS is because of how popular gaming became on its own for iOS, which helped market the device.
Perhaps things will change with the Mac now with Tim Cook at the helm.
It's just logical. Many of the best-rated games are console exclusives. Where is Red Dead Redemption for the PC?
It's not logical, it's a flawed opinion. Saying the platform you play on is the only "real" gaming platform is just an opinion that you present with a strawman argument attached to it. Case in point: Where's Starcraft for consoles? Where's Diablo for consoles? Where's any other RTS for consoles? Where's actual/good Flight Sims for consoles? Where are racing games that are actual sims that have actual useful controllers for consoles? Where's World of Warcraft for consoles? Where are user-made mods that are free for consoles? Where's free add-ons that publishers give to PC gamers at on the consoles? We could go on for days about what's available on what, but it proves my point that exclusivity for some game franchises don't make one way to game the only "real" way to game. You also ignored that when games are ported from the console to the PC they are horrendously shitty ports. They are making their own bed. You can't release a half-assed product and expect people to embrace it and throw money at you. The reasons for games being ported being an abysmal failure aren't because of the PC it's being played on, it's the horrible job done on those games when they are ported. You release a shitty product, you're not gonna sell it. Basic common sense and economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Ok, that's a fair point. Valve is a very profitable company and they sell exclusively to PC buyers so my point about Valve needing consoles to survive was wrong. But publishers make more from console releases than PC releases, which leads to console exclusives and that trend isn't changing. If Valve wants to profit from games like RDR, they need a console.
Valve have denied that they are even planning a console and their current profits from Steam show that they are in no way in need of console revenue stream to stay alive, much less current. The issue of licensing is the problem, not the hardware. There's absolutely nothing stopping the RDR developers from releasing a PC version except the terms and contract they have with their publisher. You're comparing two totally different aspects of modern gaming, publishing and hardware, with one another and completely missing the issue of why games are exclusive to one platform.
Valve could branch out into console sales, be it a game or actual hardware, but you have absolutely no proof that they need to do that. It's no different than Apple needing to get into the gaming market on their laptop and desktop machines. They could but they don't need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Just because they hold your hand when shooting doesn't make them better, just easier. You just point your mouse at things to aim, hardly realistic.
So hand-holding the player using a handheld controller and taking them along for the ride makes it a "real" platform? Versus actually having to have skill in shooting an enemy rather than the huge box they have around their in-game physical body? How is that more "real" than actually hitting your target and not the handicap put in place to do the work for you? Moving a joystick is more realistic? Using a light gun with a massive hit box is more realistic? I seem to remember that the NES was very forgiving in Duck Hunt and every "gun" accessory I've seen on a console today is no different. I guess I'm not a "real" gamer because I don't have the game shooting for me. Man, that's just depressing. I'm missing out on all those "real" games playing themselves for me. (Modern Warfare, and now BF3, are nothing more than cutscenes. THAT is the cause of the console, no PC game has ever had cutscenes and non-player interaction like those two franchises.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
So your argument for PC gaming is that companies will make significantly less money and it's good that I'm not in charge of them?
No, I'm saying you don't understand the console business market. You sell a game exclusive to your underpowered, outdated console and then you rape your customer by disabling features that allow them to play the game to it's full capability (No online play without a Live subscription, no such limitation exists on the PC). DLC is the modern business practice of free user mods on the PC. Microsoft specifically bans developers from releasing free add-ons on their console. Supergiant Games tried it with Bastion, and Valve tried it with every game they've ever released on the Xbox. How is that "better" in any way? A developer wants to improve and extend the life of it's games but the console manufacturer explicitly forbids it because they want to milk you for every last penny they can. PC games only have this DLC disease because of the publishers and consoles in general, not because of the platform. DLC didn't really exist like it does today until console popularity took off. Why is their DLC? Because console manufacturers want to rape every dime they can from a customer, simple as that. I'm not saying they shouldn't, it's their hardware and their business after all, but I don't like seeing stuff like that happen. It's gotten really bad in the last few years because they've locked out portions of the game already on the disks when you buy them for extra money, or having day 1 DLC. That smacks of literally taking advantage of customer relationship to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Yeah, the PC runs the games faster but they still end up looking and playing the same to the point that almost nobody cares.
The is explicitly false. It's completely obvious you have never played a PC game or you're delusional. May I point you to http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/. There you will find hundreds of additional mods, hundreds of hours of free add-on content, many fundamental gameplay improvements and thousands changes to just one PC game available on the market. You will see absolutely none of that on any console. Just because you are ignorant of the state of PC gaming doesn't make you correct. You act as though a PC with that much power is used to do merely one thing, play games. Those PCs are useful for an infinite number of tasks and they are a master at almost all of them. Yes the hardware is biased for gaming, but one of those rigs will last years playing bigger games, higher quality games, vastly better looking games for many years. Like I said before, my water cooled PC played every game I threw at it without issue at resolutions and speeds consoles will never match. Modern consoles can't even play at speeds and resolutions that now 6 year old PC could. Not even close. Almost all consoles games are rendered at a resolution less than an HDTV and the upscaled (you do know this right? Your console isn't outputting a 1080p signal, and a lot of the time not even a 720p signal). My PC 6 years ago could play at those resolutions at far greater level of detail and I didn't even have to pay anyone $60 a year to play 64 player online deathmatch. Something consoles still can't do. One of the two biggest console franchises, Battlefield 3, started life as a free to anyone PC mod called Desert Combat made from BF 1942. It can be argued that BF3 wouldn't be what it is today without that free mod for the PC and also that Modern Warfare wouldn't be around either. (MW is universally shit as far as a game goes on every metric, console players just don't know that because all they've ever been fed in that genre is button mashing garbage.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
5x-10x the price though.
And they can do 5-10x as many tasks as well. You're comparing a limited use device with a device that isn't. Let's see you make mods to a game, host a server, encode video, do your taxes, or edit your family vacation video on your PS3 or 360. Not gonna happen. All that hardware in a gaming PC makes all of those tasks easier, more enjoyable and faster. You're comparing one aspect of a machine to a machine that does only one thing (for the most part; I know you can stream Netflix, watch DVDs/BRs and such on a console).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
the console's dual-analog sticks made the keyboard/mouse irrelevant.
When are you going to quit making things up to suit your argument? Joysitcks are great for extremely dumbed down shooters/racing games/flying games/so on on a console. They have to get around that handicap by making hitboxes huge, menus huge, and general tweaks to make it playable. The game itself has to be extensively tailored to using a far less accurate input device. Gamepads have not made the M&K irrelevant. They've only been staying right where they are used best, on a PC. I'm not saying there aren't massively entertaining games that use a controller, I own a few I wouldn't play with anything other than my controller. That doesn't mean that the controller made anything irrelevant. Play someone in a shooter or racing game with a M&K or a decent steering wheel and you'll get your ass handed to you every single time. A controller is a handicap and games are written to improve your chances and make it easier for you to play, and it some cases like a Mario game released not too long ago, play the game for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer.
That's id's issue, not the PC. Everything in Rage was dumbed down to the console level, I believe Carmack even confirmed it, and it simply didn't work on the PC. All options were stripped out of the game that PC users were used to, the game incorrectly applied settings to the engine and everyone got pissed. id made a very stupid decision to make the game for PC act like the console game and it bit them in the ass and rightly so. That was the publishers fault driven by weak ass console hardware, not the PC as a device or industry. After id was called out on this stupidity did they do what they should have from the beginning, make the game work like it's supposed to on the PC and let those gamers that can think for themselves choose their own options. You want to know why console ports don't sell of the PC? Because they won't put up with bullshit like that. If that makes them not "real" gamers then so be it, at least they won't be spoon-fed garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
A wise fellow once said "Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming."
No wait, that was you, in your last post.
And I was right. Something you don't seem to understand. Real gamers aren't limited to underpowered consoles, they play on fast PCs, phones, tablets and even games made from cardboard and plastic (boardgames, in case you missed it). There's a real world outside of Modern Warfare, you know; it's a beautiful place. You should come check it out sometime. I get what you're saying about the balance of power swinging towards consoles, even though it's an inferior experience overall. What I don't get it your misguided belief that since there are big name titles on consoles then only "real" gamers play on consoles. That's nothing more than opinion and you've said nothing in support of it because you've only made seriously flawed stretches, and about how Valve needs console sales to continue being successful. I can agree consoles are really popular and they make the industry heavyweights a lot of money, but the reasons you give in defense of your opinion range from supposition to completely false declarations. PC gamers are just as "real" gamers as anyone else, and lest you forget most big franchises that are on the consoles were PC games first. Yeah, they are on consoles now but there are some seriously awesome games on the PC that you can't get on the consoles and you're missing out. You can thank us PC gamers for the games you enjoy and we'll continue to enjoy a much better experience than you do.
OS overhead might be marginal, but their graphics drivers and general gaming perfomance running games are just horrible all around. Every Valve game I have takes at minimum a 50% hit in framerate on the exact same settings, extremely long hangs/load times, and the sound never works right. Boot into W7, get a 50% jump in performance, no hanging/long load times, and no sound issues. This isn't limited to Valve games or Cider ports either. True 3D graphics performance is awful. Something is wrong, and it's all down to Apple and OS X.
Comments
Real gamers have a 360 or PS3. In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more; many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years. Where is Halo 3 for the PC? Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
That's Sony and Microsoft's fault and you know it.
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
If by consoles you mean a standardized hardware platform, I agree. But Valve won't leave the mouse+keyboard behind. There's so much that the DualShock is incapable of...
... unless their controller is like the Razer Hydra/ PS Move-with-two-analog-sticks, of course.
On this page, the Fermi 540M gets almost the same as the 6630M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.41715.0.html
The HD 4000 will get pretty close to this and will run better/cooler. Perhaps you mean the kepler 640M?
Indeed, sorry.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71579.0.html
I think the HD 4000 is plenty for the 13".
Considering how the 640M is cool/small enough for Acer to put it in an upcoming ultrabook, I disagree.
Notice how the specs for the unnamed "not really ultra" ultrabook are close to MBA's...
That's Sony and Microsoft's fault and you know it.
I'd say it's more to do with the natural progression of gaming. PC gaming was big back in the 90s as it kicked off the whole FPS genre. Then came the PC game piracy, the compatibility problems and the console's dual-analog sticks made the keyboard/mouse irrelevant.
From that point, publishers could target limited platforms reliably, target a good gaming audience and it's been just fine so far. Sony and Microsoft have pushed it along but it was going that way anyway. Something like the Kinect could never have been as successful on a PC.
Valve won't leave the mouse+keyboard behind. There's so much that the DualShock is incapable of...
I think they'll leave it behind unofficially. They're not going to expect people to play with a keyboard/mouse on the sofa.
Considering how the 640M is cool/small enough for Acer to put it in an upcoming ultrabook, I disagree.
Notice how the specs for the unnamed "not really ultra" ultrabook are close to MBA's...
The marketing image is comparing a 640M with the HD3000 (Sandy Bridge). Ivy Bridge HD4000 is much faster. If you compare the 640M with the 6630M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71579.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Rad...M.43963.0.html
you can see there's still not much between them in most games. Here is a gaming test of the HD3000 vs the 640M:
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDI...h-Acer/?page=5
Metro 2033 got 18FPS on HD3000 and the 640M got 36FPS. The HD4000 will be 50-100% faster than the HD3000. The 640M will still be faster but it will be cheaper and cooler to use the HD4000 with negligible performance drop.
Especially for more intense games on higher resolution panels, they need to step up video driver development.
Apple only builds middle-of-the-road consumer products where it can make the most money from the targeted consumer base. Hard-core gamers are of no interest to Apple because they represent such a tiny percentage of consumers. Tim Cook must have gotten lost to end up at Valve. Apple could probably develop the finest gaming hardware ever, but it's just not cost effective enough for Apple. Better that Apple continues to stay where the most money is to be made and the largest amount of consumers to be served. That practice alone will keep Apple successful.
Real gamers have a 360 or PS3. In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more; many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years. Where is Halo 3 for the PC? Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
By 'real gamers', you mean people who buy boxes, put two GPUs in SLI, fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer. But they will proceed to post screenshots online to prove that their $1000+ 2012 PC is superior to a $250 console using 7 year old hardware.
If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant.
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
On this page, the Fermi 540M gets almost the same as the 6630M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.41715.0.html
The HD 4000 will get pretty close to this and will run better/cooler. Perhaps you mean the kepler 640M?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71579.0.html
I think the HD 4000 is plenty for the 13".
Mac gaming has come a long way. It's a sign of the times that Tim is at Valve's HQ.
It could be for an Apple console. (? Perhaps the ATV will morph into quite the Swan with a quad core and Rogue gpu. It would be tiny. Cool. Make an M% product look like a honking clumsy ass product. At £99, a PS3 class graphics beast for such a low price would be very good. Then you've got what I think is more likely...an iPad 4 (with Airplay?) using either a quad core or faster dual core with Rogue class gpu and you have a console with built in screen that makes a DS look like Chicken feed.) It could just be for more services for the ATV. It could be for Apple to get some tips about how to handle the game market. To buy Steam? Valve?
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
HL2 was a landmark release for the Mac. Valve. Steam. The subsequent tide of games for the Mac. Between steam and iOS. The gaming auro of Mac has got a bit of a boost. I never thought the ageing game City of Heroes would be available for the Mac. But Transgamer's Cider engine helped out there. A bit rocky with the earlier patches with random quits but these days far more stable and faster. It's an old game but I like it. Plays great at 1900 by 1200. (But not in Ultra mode...my 8800gs has it's limits...)
HL2 plays great in native res on the iMac. I rate it as the best FPS of all time. It's a great narrative release that shames the shallowness of Id's shoot bot games. HL2, a real landmark for Mac gaming. Sure, years late. But Valve are finally at the table. And why not? 5 million Macs a quarter sold, an installed base that must sit at 70 million+ and counting. iOS tidal wave/Tsunami incoming. Who wouldn't want to be part of the action? Valve would be foolish not to. Look at Epic getting into iOS gaming. 30 million+ iPhones and 10+ iPads per quarter is big business to turn down. And the growth is going through the roof...and what? Valve want to be tied to the small number of people who buy SLI gpu, overclocked CPU rigs in honking ass towers? Sure, that must be a 'big' market.
Gaming has gone over to the casual gaming crowd. The days of you being a weirdo because played squiggles on a C64 are over. Between the DS, Nintendo, M$, Sony...Apple's iOS. Gaming is very 'grown up' and acceptable.
Regardless of the ATV next release, I think Apple has gaming sewn up with the next iPad release. Quad core and Rogue pumped through a tv at retina resolutions?
Yes please.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Gaming/computer hardware will evolve. Sure.
But right now? Most of the hardware and software experience is 'good enough.' Especially for the 'casual' crowd.
It's back to being about the games. And that doesn't always mean 'better graphics.'
Game concept. Playability. Narrative.
Diversity. With decent hardware. (It will be a while before we reach another significant cusp of Graphical greatness for it to matter greatly...) For now what we have is 'good enough' for 'now.'
You can have all of those without SLI.
I remember the C64 era well. Boulderdash Construction Kit vs RDS vs IMpossible Mission vs Paradroid vs Elite vs...Sentinel vs Pitstop II vs Epic Games vs...Spy vs Spy vs Iridis Alpha vs Blagger vs Batalyx vs Drop Zone vs...Nodes of Yesod vs...and zillions more. I enjoyed everyone of them.
Why log onto my iMac to web browse when I can do it on my retina screen iPad far more comfortably. It's a game changer. Pun intended.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
[/QUOTE]
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Regarding the HD4000 in the next 13" pro, again, it goes back to the graph I posted. Identical GPUs perform worse under macs because the video drivers are not tuned for every last bit of performance, and afaik are not under AMDs and Nvidias control as Apple insists on writing them. That makes them more stable, but lower performance. So that "good enough" HD4000 becomes something closer to the HD3000 on Windows performance.
Besides, a dGPU is one big thing the 13" pro could do that the 13" air would not have, I'd still like to see it and would snap one up in an instant. Like I've said many times, removing the ODD like rumored gives them much more space in there to work with, in addition to being thinner it would be capable of housing higher TDP parts and battery to offset them.
Especially with the retina display macbook pro rumours, why would you not want a better discreet card rather than the integrated Intel one?
For the record, under Windows, its still below the GT440, or the AMD A8 APU.
I remember the bench back when which showed the SAME card a full 100% behind the Windows equivalent. That was simply unacceptable.
For the record, I still think Apple have some way to go in including decent gpus in their computer range.
Open GL drivers.
iMac gpu side grades.
The mini going from discrete to integrated crappics.
Lack of a 'Blue and White G3 class Tower' in the iMac's price range. ie the 'X-Mac.'
Mac Pro (Hardly a gaming machine at that price! Out of date gpus, now two generations old. And the included ones hardly cutting edge at launch..)
No Sli.
No dual GPU.
Consumer integrated graphics. (Didn't the Macbook once have a dedicated gpu once upon a time? it's been that long I've almost forgotten.)
But it's not all bad.
The iMac does have a 'top end' gpu now which is 'only' 50% slower than the absolute top end Nvidia card as noted by Marvin. I never thought I'd see the day the iMac had a decent card like the 6970M with 2 gigs(!) of Vram! (and the link has it playing Battlefield and the fantasy type game smoothly enough. So it should for about 2 grand...
Integrated performance from Intel is being dragged kicking and screaming irrevocably forwards due to pressure from AMD and Nv's solutions.
Valve.
HL2 arriving.
Steam.
Transgamer's Cider.
iOS.
App Store.
Mac App Store.
Apple Stores.
Selling 5 million Macs per quarter.
70million-ish installed base of Macs.
Tim visiting Valve. (Building relations...)
Epic THEMSELVES appearing on the iOS stage for the iPad launch is massive. (*though it seems to have gone amiss with the Mac consciousness...)
So, yes. While gaming on the Mac isn't perfect and Apple stumbled onto portable/hand held gaming supremacy by accident (which must p*Sss off Nintendo and Sony right off...
You can buy cheap again. I used to buy games for my C64 between £1.95 and £9.95.
In the modern Console/PC gaming era? Prices have been creeping upto insanity for a while now. For a while there...games were getting ridiculously priced upto £35, £45? £70? Just for a game that would be in the 2nd hand section in half a year? No thanks.
iOS has leveraged the scale of the internet. Pile 'em high. Sell 'em cheap. I can buy Angry Birds cheaply and have hours of fun. Plenty of other decent games too. They'll be set to get more powerful, catching up real fast with the current quad gpu and next year's presumed 'Rogue' class gpu. Quality at fair prices. It puts the PC 'Game' retail crowd in a pickle (weren't they seeking buyers due to losses?) and Sony/Nintendo in a bind who make alot of their money through overpriced software.
so yeah, I'll take your point that things aren't perfect on the driver side or discrete solution side with Apple's 'awkward' desktop line up perhaps.
But my argument is that things are better than they have ever been since the old Apple II days. And that current momentum seems things getting even better.
I look at Heavy Rain, LA Noir, Resident Evil 5, Assassins Creed on the PS3...even the older Heavenly Sword and count myself unimpressed with PC games...and that includes Battlefield or that fantasy thing that's getting teh hype. The latest gaming engines look like they've been around for a long time. They're pretty good, sure. But nothing that makes me think I need a SLI honking PC tower with water cooling so I can post my screen shots to prove how much better my 'fps/money buys some extra seconds...' rig is than a PS3 costing less than £300.
Sure, I thought it was great that my iMac could run the RE5 demo in boot camp. Until I pinched myself and realised I'd payed for the privilege.
They've had 'advice' from Id and Valve over the years. And they've both publically expressed their concerns re: Apple and gaming.
We'll see how Apple and gaming does under Tim. They did alright (in the end) under Steve.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A HL 3 exclusive? (M$ have that one coming after buying Halo exclusivity...) To go alongside any ATV '4' initiative?
[/QUOTE
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Heh, heh...
Outcry? I'd sure hope so. :P I'd love Apple to do it just to P*SS pc gamers RIGHT OFF! (Whether that comes to pass, perhaps not. But I'd love to be surprised. It would put Mac/iOS gaming on the Gold Throne of gaming.)
Be careful putting all your money with the dollar. It's not worth a great deal...at the moment. And with the Fed printing even more 'fiat money' out of 'fresh air' it's value going forwards doesn't look promising. Or when China calls in the debt...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Steve Jobs did not get gaming at all. He famously was against games being developed for the Mac at launch. In fact, if you applied to be a Mac developer in 1984 and told them you wanted to develop games, they tossed your application in the trash.
Apple has made many, many missteps in Mac gaming over the years. Sorry that Jobs passed away, but I can see Cook clearing away a lot of Jobs's mental blocks that were holding Apple back.
Newell is right; Apple has to get serious about Mac gaming if they are going to truly appeal to the consumer market. Apple's goal should be to have at least one A-list game from an A-list developer that is Mac-first or Mac-only every year.
I never thought the ageing game City of Heroes would be available for the Mac. But Transgamer's Cider engine helped out there. A bit rocky with the earlier patches with random quits but these days far more stable and faster. It's an old game but I like it. Plays great at 1900 by 1200. (But not in Ultra mode...my 8800gs has it's limits...)
For some reason, that reminded me that one game Valve makes is DOTA 2. This type of game simply doesn't translate to something like the XBox and PS3. Same with Starcraft. A gesture controller with a screen mapping can allow you to play games that only a mouse would otherwise allow but of course offer more control than a mouse and a wider audience than a PC.
The outcry from HL fans would be enormous. Valve is a company that's managed to maintain a happy fan base while other game companies get so much flack. I'd put all my money against a dollar that it will not be mac exclusive.
Not a Mac exclusive, an iOS exclusive with a console option (this is a huge audience y'know). It could easily be for a short period of time (as in, 2-4 weeks) and then they release it on PC/Mac via Steam. Microsoft did it with Halo, Sony did it with MGS, Valve can do it with HL3.
Anyway, there might not even be a HL3 for all we know. Episode 2 was nearly 5 years ago. I doubt we'll hear much from Valve at E3 in June on the matter (again).
In the modern Console/PC gaming era? Prices have been creeping upto insanity for a while now. For a while there...games were getting ridiculously priced upto £35, £45? £70? Just for a game that would be in the 2nd hand section in half a year? No thanks.
I know, this is a major problem and one that an Apple console like the current iOS devices can solve. They already make games in episodes. It doesn't work for all games but it does for a lot of them. 3 months and you get episode 1, 3 months and you get episode 2, each episode 99c. Eventually they release the whole game so you can wait the full development cycle.
They can do Portal like Angry Birds so they just keep adding levels or in TF, keep adding hats as in-game options.
iOS has leveraged the scale of the internet. Pile 'em high. Sell 'em cheap
Exactly. Game prices are weighed up between development cost and sales volume. Somewhere they got the numbers wrong because development costs are in the tens of millions and the entire audience is in the tens of millions.
For iOS, development costs are in the hundreds of thousands and the audience is in the hundreds of millions. Even assuming that AAA game development costs will be unchanged (which it won't be as iOS is easier to target than a console), the ratio is still much better.
Steve Jobs did not get gaming at all. He famously was against games being developed for the Mac at launch.
Here he is introducing a fairly popular game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrme9yWens
People change their views when different technology arises. Back in the early days, there was no gaming beyond the likes of Reversi and Breakout. There were the odd classics like Out of this World/Another World and Flashback (not the trojan) but mainly there was nothing worthwhile. GPU power today allows publishers to make games like movies that tell stories and drive you through an immersive narrative. You can't say that someone dismissing Tetris is equivalent to dismissing LA Noire.
Hard as it is to accept, Steve no longer determines what happens at the company. Scott Forstall does get gaming as do many of the current Apple leadership. They are already making gaming far more profitable than it's ever been. They can revive this entire industry and partnering with Valve is a sure way to do it.
Steam works similar to Apple's iOS App Store within iTunes, providing a market for PC video game titles and a mechanism for automatically delivering the latest software updates to players.
I love how you compare Steam to the iOS store. Steam was doing this YEARS before the iOS app store was even a glimmer in Steve Jobs' eye (Four years before the iPhone was even on the market to be exact, the iOS app store didn't even exist until 2008. A 5 year head start). Talk about delusional. Apple isn't to be made the father of every idea, Jesus Christ get off their knob for once. This is just sloppy fanboy crap. Not to mention that the update system in iTunes is ntohing more than a rolling number of available updates by default. It doesn't update anything until you tell it to, Steam updates the second it signs in. iTunes, and iOS game updates aren't comparable to Steam because Steam isn't a bloated POS "app" and it actually works. It had it's problems in the beginning but they've fixed almost all of them. iTunes? Gets more bloated, and more broken every single release they push out. Valve isn't like Apple, Apple is like Valve on game updates. Get off their knob.
Apple's big turn around in gaming
The shift was particularly significant because less than three years earlier, in late 2007, Steam co-founder Gabe Newell had publicly complained that Apple simply didn't get gaming.
And they STILL don't get it. Games run like crap under OS X, even after Steam was released. I've never played on single game that was available in Windows that was ported to OS X and not have it run like utter shit. Even lowly console ports in Windows run better than OS X runs ported Windows games. Apple will never "get" gaming. They've shown nothing that gives any indication that they ever will.
iOS and Game Center
Apple's seemingly indifferent stance on gaming appeared to change rapidly following the release of iPhone and the new iPod touch in 2007, and in particular after the release of the App Store in early 2008.
Games became a major focus for iOS developers and accounted for a large percentage of the software Apple's new App Store began selling, threatening the business of entrenched gaming companies including Sony and Nintendo.
Apple has since added gaming-centric features to its hardware and to iOS, including Game Center. The company has since announced plans to bring Game Center to the Mac in this summer's OS X Mountain Lion
Game Center is shit. It's as pointless as Newsstand is. It serves literally no function other than to take up an icon space. Can't browse people, matchmaking is non-existant and the whole thing is completely fugly with the half pool table half card table UI going on. It's a "game" style UI that was barfed up and then smeared around. The Xbox Live app released by Microsoft is light years better than GC. Having an app with "Game" in the title doesn't mean that Apple gets or cares about gaming. There is literally nothing more useless at "gaming" tasks and game playing functions than Game Center.
Real gamers have a 360 or PS3.
Citation needed. Especially since you contradict your own argument with this later on: "If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant." Your opinion is therefor irrelevant because you dismiss a billion dollar industry because deep down you know that consoles are handicapped to help players like you get headshots in FPS games. That is a well known fact by the way, hit boxes on console games are ridiculously large in comparison to PC game hit boxes. A shitty controller is a natural handicap and has to be compensated for otherwise whiny console players wouldn't be able to get headshots with any regularity. Controllers are garbage compared to M&K and against a real steering wheel you'll get your ass kicked every time. Neither of which are very expensive at all compared to a controller. I'll keep going even though you've contradicted yourself and made things up to bolster your arguments below.
In case you hadn't noticed, some developers don't even make their games for the PC any more
Yes they do, just because you don't buy them doesn't mean they don't. Ignorance isn't fact.
many delay the PC release significantly. LA Noire came out 6 months after the console version and Alan Wake (Microsoft game) took 2 years.
So they do, or they don't? Which is it? Licensing issues have alot to do with that and DRM does as well. Nothing that they PC industry as hardware makers and sellers can do anything about. You're not seeing the whole picture. Don't forget that all the console ports that take a long time to come out are utter shit when they are released. The graphics are console quality (read: shitty), they are usually riddled with bugs and the control schemes and interfaces aren't adapted to PCs and their controllers (M&K). Release a shitty product based off an already released product on a fundamentally different device and make horrible sales. You do a shitty job, and don't get compensated for it (read: low sales due to shitty work they've done) and it's PC gamins fault when no one buys it? Really grasping for straws on that one. You can't fault the victim, if they release shitty ports, and they do about 99% of the time, you can't blame the buyers for not wanting it or making future purchases. You need a better reason than that.
Where is Halo 3 for the PC?
Obviously you didn't know that Halo was originally going to be Mac exclusive before Microsoft bought them and used Halo as their killer release game for the original Xbox, or you chose to ignore it for the sake of your flawed arguments. Why would they cannibalize sales from one platform to another? Sell Halo 3, probably sell an Xbox too. Sell it on PC and you won't make a dime on hardware that is locked into buying games from one source, not to mention the Live subscription that goes along with making the damn thing even remotely useful. Sell a game, possibly hardware and definitely a subscription to make it all work. Good thing you aren't in charge of any major corporation with that lack of the big picture you have got going on over there.
Uncharted, Gears of War 2&3, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, Resistance 3?
What console are the majority of those exclusive to? Sony. Why would Sony shoot themselves in the foot and sell those games on a platform they don't sell hardware for?
By 'real gamers', you mean people who buy boxes, put two GPUs in SLI, fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer. But they will proceed to post screenshots online to prove that their $1000+ 2012 PC is superior to a $250 console using 7 year old hardware.
And they're right. Not only can those PCs play games at vastly better quality visuals, they can do it at much higher framerates, they aren't upscaled like the Xbox and PS3 (almost NONE of their games run at 1920x1080 native, but you knew that right?), they can also play any video codec known to man without problems and have infinitely more uses than a console. You also get your choice of a million different controller choices and not the ones that Sony or Microsoft allow you to use out of the kindness of their hearts. Play any PC title that has seriously good textures and world design (hint, a lot of them) on maximum awesomeness at the same resolution that any console claims they do (which they actually don't do full HD) and you'll see an immediate difference. You obviously haven't played on a even half decent gaming PC or you're just too lazy to actually put in any work to enjoy yourself. My watercooled PC with an SLI setup ran for 3 years without me once having to open the case to fiddle with anything. The only reason it was opened after those three years was to upgrade it and the side went back on and I never had to touch it. One bad experience doesn't equal industry failure my friend.
If they dismiss 'mobile hardware' because they can get 50% faster with a GTX580 (which costs $400 on its own), so be it. Their opinion isn't relevant.
Agreed. Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming. You should take your own declarations to heart. Real gamers don't own a console or a mobile gaming device, doesn't make them less of a gamer.
PC gaming is dying and publishers are already picking up the soil to throw on top. Valve has no choice but to move to consoles because of this as they only sell PC games. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo won't let them be part of their experience so Valve has to go to their best competition - Apple.
Again, citation needed. There are a ton of great PC games coming out (Crysis 3, Borderlands 2 to name but two big ones) and hardware sales are pretty damn good if Nvidia and ATi can afford to release $400+ video cards onto the market and make money. Valve hasn't got to do shit with consoles. They are literally raking in the money with Steam, they've already sold some of their games on consoles, and you're making things up to suit your extremely flawed argument. Since when has Valve has to do anything other than sit back and rake in cash? They are by no means in any financial trouble and how much money do you think they'd make if they released HL3 in let's say 2 years? A definitive release date in April 2014? They'd make MILLIONS day one sales. Probably close to what the big MW and BF franchises sell. You're delusional and in denial if you think Valve needs consoles to survive.
Get real dude. You're a disgruntled console player that doesn't know what they are missing out on. Just because your console holds your hand through your games and makes sure little Billy/Sally can hit the enemy with their gargantuan hit boxes doesn't mean you have the superior platform. PCs have a lot of drawbacks. Cost being the big one, but at the resolution of an HDTV a cheap gaming PC is very possible and the visuals and controls will kick the shit out of every console any day of the week. Hell, even laptops far surpass what any console can churn out visually and they are much more useful than a console. I play L4D2, Skyrim, BF3, F1 2011 and other games at real 1920x1080 on my HDTV at almost high settings in BF3/Skyrim, and absolute max on the other games on my MBP and it's buttery smooth. Played BF3 and Skyrim on my Xbox, both looked like shit compared and the controller was completely useless compared to my cheap M&K setup. That's not even a gaming PC, it's a lowly MBP running bootcamp. Consoles aren't the be all end all because they hold your hand when you play, they're just another tool to entertain yourself.
Which is... nice. But that's still 2/3 of 640M... which is not expensive thermal or energy-wise, at least for the MBP.
Also, I agree for the most part with HKZ, minus the overly acid bits.
And BTW HKZ, the Steam Client, Mac or Windows, is also crap.
Also, I agree for the most part with HKZ, minus the overly acid bits.
And BTW HKZ, the Steam Client, Mac or Windows, is also crap.
The Steam client for Mac is crap, most definitely so, but the one for Windows has worked flawlessly for me for at least the last three years or so. The Mac version ALWAYS crashes but it's neither here nor there for me because gaming in OS X is so horrnedously bad (drivers, OpenGL performance and other things) that it doesn't matter. I can't play any games on it without severe sound issues, extremely poor performance and general crashiness. All Valve games released for OS X perform at about 30% of their Windows cousins so I don't even bother playing them in OS X, it's more enjoyable to beat my head against the wall. What issues are you having? Steam for Windows works great for me and has for years. Even moving the games from my SSD to my internal HDD (using an OWC Data Doubler) has worked flawlessly as well.
(As for the acidic tone, that's what you get when you insult a whole industry and it's customers with overly ignorant declarations based on delusion, emotion, and being completely devoid of facts. That and being so brash as to compare a service that is merely 4 years old with a service that's over twice as old. Apple didn't invent everything and isn't copied by everyone despite what AppleInsider writers steadfastly believe.)
Citation needed.
It's just logical. Many of the best-rated games are console exclusives. Where is Red Dead Redemption for the PC?
Your opinion is therefor irrelevant because you dismiss a billion dollar industry
You're delusional and in denial if you think Valve needs consoles to survive.
Ok, that's a fair point. Valve is a very profitable company and they sell exclusively to PC buyers so my point about Valve needing consoles to survive was wrong. But publishers make more from console releases than PC releases, which leads to console exclusives and that trend isn't changing. If Valve wants to profit from games like RDR, they need a console.
Controllers are garbage compared to M&K
Just because they hold your hand when shooting doesn't make them better, just easier. You just point your mouse at things to aim, hardly realistic.
Sell it on PC and you won't make a dime on hardware that is locked into buying games from one source, not to mention the Live subscription that goes along with making the damn thing even remotely useful. Sell a game, possibly hardware and definitely a subscription to make it all work.
Good thing you aren't in charge of any major corporation with that lack of the big picture you have got going on over there.
So your argument for PC gaming is that companies will make significantly less money and it's good that I'm not in charge of them?
Not only can those PCs play games at vastly better quality visuals, they can do it at much higher framerates, they aren't upscaled like the Xbox and PS3 (almost NONE of their games run at 1920x1080 native, but you knew that right?)
Yeah, the PC runs the games faster but they still end up looking and playing the same to the point that almost nobody cares. The only people who do are those who spend thousands on water-cooled, SLI rigs and need to justify that expense for playing games.
they can also play any video codec known to man without problems and have infinitely more uses than a console.
5x-10x the price though.
tYou obviously haven't played on a even half decent gaming PC or you're just too lazy to actually put in any work to enjoy yourself.
A wise fellow once said "Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming."
No wait, that was you, in your last post.
It is my opinion that Mr. Jobs never really got behind gaming for the mac going as far back as the early days of the Mac launch in 1984. I believe gaming just didn't run through Mr. Jobs veins. While Mr. Jobs did some work for Atari corp, almost the entire time he was at the helm of Apple he only barely gave it real support. The only reason Apple and Mr. Jobs embraced
gaming on iOS is because of how popular gaming became on its own for iOS, which helped market the device.
Perhaps things will change with the Mac now with Tim Cook at the helm.
It's just logical. Many of the best-rated games are console exclusives. Where is Red Dead Redemption for the PC?
It's not logical, it's a flawed opinion. Saying the platform you play on is the only "real" gaming platform is just an opinion that you present with a strawman argument attached to it. Case in point: Where's Starcraft for consoles? Where's Diablo for consoles? Where's any other RTS for consoles? Where's actual/good Flight Sims for consoles? Where are racing games that are actual sims that have actual useful controllers for consoles? Where's World of Warcraft for consoles? Where are user-made mods that are free for consoles? Where's free add-ons that publishers give to PC gamers at on the consoles? We could go on for days about what's available on what, but it proves my point that exclusivity for some game franchises don't make one way to game the only "real" way to game. You also ignored that when games are ported from the console to the PC they are horrendously shitty ports. They are making their own bed. You can't release a half-assed product and expect people to embrace it and throw money at you. The reasons for games being ported being an abysmal failure aren't because of the PC it's being played on, it's the horrible job done on those games when they are ported. You release a shitty product, you're not gonna sell it. Basic common sense and economics.
Ok, that's a fair point. Valve is a very profitable company and they sell exclusively to PC buyers so my point about Valve needing consoles to survive was wrong. But publishers make more from console releases than PC releases, which leads to console exclusives and that trend isn't changing. If Valve wants to profit from games like RDR, they need a console.
Valve have denied that they are even planning a console and their current profits from Steam show that they are in no way in need of console revenue stream to stay alive, much less current. The issue of licensing is the problem, not the hardware. There's absolutely nothing stopping the RDR developers from releasing a PC version except the terms and contract they have with their publisher. You're comparing two totally different aspects of modern gaming, publishing and hardware, with one another and completely missing the issue of why games are exclusive to one platform.
Valve could branch out into console sales, be it a game or actual hardware, but you have absolutely no proof that they need to do that. It's no different than Apple needing to get into the gaming market on their laptop and desktop machines. They could but they don't need to.
Just because they hold your hand when shooting doesn't make them better, just easier. You just point your mouse at things to aim, hardly realistic.
So hand-holding the player using a handheld controller and taking them along for the ride makes it a "real" platform? Versus actually having to have skill in shooting an enemy rather than the huge box they have around their in-game physical body? How is that more "real" than actually hitting your target and not the handicap put in place to do the work for you? Moving a joystick is more realistic? Using a light gun with a massive hit box is more realistic? I seem to remember that the NES was very forgiving in Duck Hunt and every "gun" accessory I've seen on a console today is no different. I guess I'm not a "real" gamer because I don't have the game shooting for me. Man, that's just depressing. I'm missing out on all those "real" games playing themselves for me. (Modern Warfare, and now BF3, are nothing more than cutscenes. THAT is the cause of the console, no PC game has ever had cutscenes and non-player interaction like those two franchises.)
So your argument for PC gaming is that companies will make significantly less money and it's good that I'm not in charge of them?
No, I'm saying you don't understand the console business market. You sell a game exclusive to your underpowered, outdated console and then you rape your customer by disabling features that allow them to play the game to it's full capability (No online play without a Live subscription, no such limitation exists on the PC). DLC is the modern business practice of free user mods on the PC. Microsoft specifically bans developers from releasing free add-ons on their console. Supergiant Games tried it with Bastion, and Valve tried it with every game they've ever released on the Xbox. How is that "better" in any way? A developer wants to improve and extend the life of it's games but the console manufacturer explicitly forbids it because they want to milk you for every last penny they can. PC games only have this DLC disease because of the publishers and consoles in general, not because of the platform. DLC didn't really exist like it does today until console popularity took off. Why is their DLC? Because console manufacturers want to rape every dime they can from a customer, simple as that. I'm not saying they shouldn't, it's their hardware and their business after all, but I don't like seeing stuff like that happen. It's gotten really bad in the last few years because they've locked out portions of the game already on the disks when you buy them for extra money, or having day 1 DLC. That smacks of literally taking advantage of customer relationship to me.
Yeah, the PC runs the games faster but they still end up looking and playing the same to the point that almost nobody cares.
The is explicitly false. It's completely obvious you have never played a PC game or you're delusional. May I point you to http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/. There you will find hundreds of additional mods, hundreds of hours of free add-on content, many fundamental gameplay improvements and thousands changes to just one PC game available on the market. You will see absolutely none of that on any console. Just because you are ignorant of the state of PC gaming doesn't make you correct. You act as though a PC with that much power is used to do merely one thing, play games. Those PCs are useful for an infinite number of tasks and they are a master at almost all of them. Yes the hardware is biased for gaming, but one of those rigs will last years playing bigger games, higher quality games, vastly better looking games for many years. Like I said before, my water cooled PC played every game I threw at it without issue at resolutions and speeds consoles will never match. Modern consoles can't even play at speeds and resolutions that now 6 year old PC could. Not even close. Almost all consoles games are rendered at a resolution less than an HDTV and the upscaled (you do know this right? Your console isn't outputting a 1080p signal, and a lot of the time not even a 720p signal). My PC 6 years ago could play at those resolutions at far greater level of detail and I didn't even have to pay anyone $60 a year to play 64 player online deathmatch. Something consoles still can't do. One of the two biggest console franchises, Battlefield 3, started life as a free to anyone PC mod called Desert Combat made from BF 1942. It can be argued that BF3 wouldn't be what it is today without that free mod for the PC and also that Modern Warfare wouldn't be around either. (MW is universally shit as far as a game goes on every metric, console players just don't know that because all they've ever been fed in that genre is button mashing garbage.)
5x-10x the price though.
And they can do 5-10x as many tasks as well. You're comparing a limited use device with a device that isn't. Let's see you make mods to a game, host a server, encode video, do your taxes, or edit your family vacation video on your PS3 or 360. Not gonna happen. All that hardware in a gaming PC makes all of those tasks easier, more enjoyable and faster. You're comparing one aspect of a machine to a machine that does only one thing (for the most part; I know you can stream Netflix, watch DVDs/BRs and such on a console).
the console's dual-analog sticks made the keyboard/mouse irrelevant.
When are you going to quit making things up to suit your argument? Joysitcks are great for extremely dumbed down shooters/racing games/flying games/so on on a console. They have to get around that handicap by making hitboxes huge, menus huge, and general tweaks to make it playable. The game itself has to be extensively tailored to using a far less accurate input device. Gamepads have not made the M&K irrelevant. They've only been staying right where they are used best, on a PC. I'm not saying there aren't massively entertaining games that use a controller, I own a few I wouldn't play with anything other than my controller. That doesn't mean that the controller made anything irrelevant. Play someone in a shooter or racing game with a M&K or a decent steering wheel and you'll get your ass handed to you every single time. A controller is a handicap and games are written to improve your chances and make it easier for you to play, and it some cases like a Mario game released not too long ago, play the game for you.
...fiddle for hours (or days if playing any of id's recent releases) with drivers and end up getting a mildly better experience than a console gamer.
That's id's issue, not the PC. Everything in Rage was dumbed down to the console level, I believe Carmack even confirmed it, and it simply didn't work on the PC. All options were stripped out of the game that PC users were used to, the game incorrectly applied settings to the engine and everyone got pissed. id made a very stupid decision to make the game for PC act like the console game and it bit them in the ass and rightly so. That was the publishers fault driven by weak ass console hardware, not the PC as a device or industry. After id was called out on this stupidity did they do what they should have from the beginning, make the game work like it's supposed to on the PC and let those gamers that can think for themselves choose their own options. You want to know why console ports don't sell of the PC? Because they won't put up with bullshit like that. If that makes them not "real" gamers then so be it, at least they won't be spoon-fed garbage.
A wise fellow once said "Gaming is gaming. If you're having fun, no matter what you're playing on, it's gaming."
No wait, that was you, in your last post.
And I was right. Something you don't seem to understand. Real gamers aren't limited to underpowered consoles, they play on fast PCs, phones, tablets and even games made from cardboard and plastic (boardgames, in case you missed it). There's a real world outside of Modern Warfare, you know; it's a beautiful place. You should come check it out sometime. I get what you're saying about the balance of power swinging towards consoles, even though it's an inferior experience overall. What I don't get it your misguided belief that since there are big name titles on consoles then only "real" gamers play on consoles. That's nothing more than opinion and you've said nothing in support of it because you've only made seriously flawed stretches, and about how Valve needs console sales to continue being successful. I can agree consoles are really popular and they make the industry heavyweights a lot of money, but the reasons you give in defense of your opinion range from supposition to completely false declarations. PC gamers are just as "real" gamers as anyone else, and lest you forget most big franchises that are on the consoles were PC games first. Yeah, they are on consoles now but there are some seriously awesome games on the PC that you can't get on the consoles and you're missing out. You can thank us PC gamers for the games you enjoy and we'll continue to enjoy a much better experience than you do.
Secret to me. OS overhead is marginal at best.
OS overhead might be marginal, but their graphics drivers and general gaming perfomance running games are just horrible all around. Every Valve game I have takes at minimum a 50% hit in framerate on the exact same settings, extremely long hangs/load times, and the sound never works right. Boot into W7, get a 50% jump in performance, no hanging/long load times, and no sound issues. This isn't limited to Valve games or Cider ports either. True 3D graphics performance is awful. Something is wrong, and it's all down to Apple and OS X.