or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Interview: "no evidence" Apple understands gaming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interview: "no evidence" Apple understands gaming - Page 3

post #81 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I know many people whose lives are entrenched in WoW. Some to the point of losing girlfriends and leading to divorces. Is it really that addictive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by camimac View Post

I don't know about WoW, but my past addiction to Football Manager did more harm to my personal life than getting addicted to dope...

Yes, game addiction is a disease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

At least with support groups for drug addiction, such as cocaine ( I went with a friend for support), there were lots of hot, thin women with money.

I don't follow though. Are you suggesting that people get addicted so they can meet others at support groups? That's the only reasonable interpretation to your response that I can conjure, but that is clearly absurd. Even suggesting that people can choose what they get addicted to is shaky. Getting your impressions of a group from a parody is silly too. Should people get what they know about Mac users from Penny Arcade's early strips?
post #82 of 193
It's hardly astonishing that a lot of Mac users don't seem to be interested in games, but are using stuff Apple is strong at every day. That's probably because you chose the Mac because you knew it was strong at what you needed to get done.
Had you been interested in games, you probably wouldn't have chosen the Mac.
Thus, the apparent lack of Mac gamers is more of a proof of Apple's weakness in gaming, rather than Apple being right about not caring about games. Games is and has been a huge market for at least 15 years and Apple has failed to realize that so far. And that might very well be also due to the fact Steve hates games. Problem is, Steve isn't everyone.
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #83 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't follow though. Are you suggesting that people get addicted so they can meet others at support groups? That's the only reasonable interpretation to your response that I can conjure, but that is clearly absurd. Even suggesting that people can choose what they get addicted to is shaky. Getting your impressions of a group from a parody is silly too. Should people get what they know about Mac users from Penny Arcade's early strips?

I believe he was trying to be funny, but maybe the joke got lost on you...
Got to have some humour...
post #84 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by camimac View Post

I believe he was trying to be funny, but maybe the joke got lost on you...
Got to have some humour...

That may be true. Sometimes it's hard to tell tone with text.
post #85 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by camimac View Post

If Apple would release a smaller, lower spec Mac Pro with some decent graphics and drivers then it would become the fastest selling Mac in Apple's history.

/agree


Even if apple aren't chasing native game development, they should at least have the decency to put decent gpu's in their systems so we can bootcamp and play.

I've always enjoyed games, all the way from Atari 2600, ZX81, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amiga 500 and then finally onto a windows PC. Recently i tried the x-box 360. Before that the ps2 and psp (and yes, i do actually have a social life and a proper job etc).

The problem is, i really like the mac's os. I have a mac mini and it's great for email, web browsing, iPhoto and so forth. I even recommended the previous (white) iMac to my folks when they wanted their first computer. I set it up for them, played WoW natively under mac os on it, booted to windows and played some decent windows games on it. All-in, i was sold, mac was the way to go for me.

I was holding out to buy the new iMac for myself and then along came the crappy GPU inside it - will i be booting to windows and running crysis, bioshock, half life 2 at native 24'' (or even 20'') resolution of the iMac...? Erm, no!

So here i am wanting a decent game-capable desktop pc that also can do work, social and entertainment things. The problem is nothing sold by apple for a reasonable price is any good for gaming. Sure i could buy a ££$$ mac tower, but it's overkill - i don't need quad core & ecc memory at ridiculous prices. I don't want a two year old graphics card that is stupidly expensive and underpowered by today's standards.

So what are my options? Buy a cheap Dell or spend a small fortune on a mac pro, upgrade the gpu and still have less gaming / upgrade flexibility than the dell? I know which machine i would rather have. Apple just have to make it...
post #86 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That may be true. Sometimes it's hard to tell tone with text.

I did join a friend at a CA support group. And yes the girls were pretty hot. But the rest was being silly.

We really need more punctuation to denote different tones in our speech. But until that happens I'll try to be a better writer.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #87 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

We really need more punctuation to denote different tones in our speech. But until that happens I'll try to be a better writer.

While becoming a better writer is a good goal, I really don't blame you and I don't think you are a bad writer by any stretch of the imagination. I held no malice against you either way. Tone is very hard to put in without a silly emoticon, and those had the feel of being cheap anyway. There is no easy answer. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't.
post #88 of 193
To me (the only guy who gets to spend my money), games on a computer are like DVD players in a car. Not necessary for what I got it for. As for Apple making money off of it, I've bought over 200 Macs for business and pleasure. Frankly, I think I've been their target market more than computer gamers have.

Not saying that it's not an important part of a consumer market puzzle. Just saying that it doesn't hurt me a whit if I never see a game on a Mac.
post #89 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

Graphics card support.

I'd very much like to not having to pay for Vista or XP to run the Orange Box, thank you Mr. Jobs.

/Adrian

If you have an Intel Mac, check out Crossover. I refuse to put an XP partition on my Mac Pro. The latest version of Crossover (6.2) runs TF2 pretty well minus a few font and sound issues. Source plays almost perfect. Unfortunately, I haven't dug into HL2 enough to know how well it runs but I know folks play it using Crossover.

While I don't have a lot of time for gaming, I would love to see the Apple gaming market move up from it's anemic status.
post #90 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

For all of you that say PC gaming can be 100% replaced by a console, you're 100% wrong.

This has been debated over and over and over again.

Points for pc gaming:

A) You DON'T need a top of the line video card to play the newest games. As Crytek said in a recent interview, their specifications are made for computers 3 years old from the release date.

B) You DON'T have full control / accuracy on a console like you have a PC

C) With a console you don't have the speed of a PC for games. I'm talking about load times (my biggest complaint about consoles).

D) On RTS and FPS games Mouse + Keyboard smokes a game pad any day.

E) Mods. Some of the biggest mods I've ever seen was Urban Terror / Counter Strike. There were so many mods for Quake 3 and half-life. Impossible with consoles.

F) Communication for Multiplayer games is much easier on PCs vs consoles. Teamspeak, Ventrillo, X-Fire, Built-in communication, built-in chat communication.

I think it's beginning to be a common misconception that PC gaming is a niche market. The expansion pack to world of warcraft (burning crusades) sold over 2.4 MILLION copies in 1 day. Battlefield 2 has sold over 2.5 million copies. These are just 2 games.

PC gaming is alive and well. It will never die. Most of the innovation for consoles comes from pc gaming. It would be hard to have one without the other.

For all the people that want to switch to mac but can't because of games, it only hurts apple in the end. Why not create a small team internally in apple? Get APIs together, Listen to the developers, add at least low end graphics cards isntead of dedicated graphics cards to your lower class machines, and go from there.

/end rant

Most of those who say go buy a console have little concept of gaming. It's best to forgive their ignorance.
post #91 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I can see no evidence that Valve understands Apple.

I don't think anyone understands Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

To me (the only guy who gets to spend my money), games on a computer are like DVD players in a car. Not necessary for what I got it for. As for Apple making money off of it, I've bought over 200 Macs for business and pleasure. Frankly, I think I've been their target market more than computer gamers have.

Not saying that it's not an important part of a consumer market puzzle. Just saying that it doesn't hurt me a whit if I never see a game on a Mac.

Yes it does, the more people Apple turns away, the more it hurts all of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-News View Post

It's hardly astonishing that a lot of Mac users don't seem to be interested in games, but are using stuff Apple is strong at every day. That's probably because you chose the Mac because you knew it was strong at what you needed to get done.
Had you been interested in games, you probably wouldn't have chosen the Mac.
Thus, the apparent lack of Mac gamers is more of a proof of Apple's weakness in gaming, rather than Apple being right about not caring about games. Games is and has been a huge market for at least 15 years and Apple has failed to realize that so far. And that might very well be also due to the fact Steve hates games. Problem is, Steve isn't everyone.

That's the biggest problem. He isn't everyone but he thinks he has the right to decide for everyone. There are a few of us outside the creative fields who believe the advantages of Mac OS X outweigh Apple's quarks, but I know of many who aren't exactly sold on windows who won't buy a Mac because the entire gaming experience is mediocre at best.
post #92 of 193
I bought a Mac with the specific intention to forcefully limit my time and money spent on games. Nevertheless, I think it's bad business on Apple's part not to make more of an effort to attract gamers. Apple has a lot of appeal with young people, but lots of young people are gamers...
post #93 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I don't think anyone understands Apple.



Yes it does, the more people Apple turns away, the more it hurts all of us.



That's the biggest problem. He isn't everyone but he thinks he has the right to decide for everyone. There are a few of us outside the creative fields who believe the advantages of Mac OS X outweigh Apple's quarks, but I know of many who aren't exactly sold on windows who won't buy a Mac because the entire gaming experience is mediocre at best.

Agreed. At what point does a lack of PCI slots for video cards stifle the desire of ATI and Nvidia to write drivers, software whatever for OS X then affect the video cards that are indeed needed for the professional market. I'm guessing we're reaching that point. Not my area of expertise, so jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #94 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayland.ind View Post

well, it's going to be a long time before apple wakes from those fake surveys that suggest the mac platform is growing. not it is not, ilife is just not a market driver at all, every windows and linux can do what iLife does, sometimes even better. how much does the average folk spend on iLife anyhow? i just play music on itunes, and sort my photographs once every few months. my ibookG4 is prolly going to be the 1st and only mac i'll own for a long, long time.

that's because you won't need to upgrade it every year just to play the newest games...
post #95 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Boy is this guy clueless! There aren't any games for the PC or Vista either! Games on the computer are dead.

Golly... how does Blizzard manage to pull in over $1 billion a year in revenue with just one PC game in a dead market space? They must be ninjas!


Quote:
People are not playing games on the computer anymore. The consoles are far more powerful.

I'm sorry, but as someone who up until recently WORKED in the console gaming industry, I can tell you that that is a bunch of utter crap/hype. \

When a new generation of consoles first gets released, yes, they are on par with high-end PCs running monster graphics cards. But consoles exist on a 4-6 year cycle, and aren't upgradeable, performance-wise. Not long after a console is released, it is ALWAYS surpassed in performance by high end PCs, then mid-level PCs.

And by the end of a console's cycle, it's weaksauce compared to PCs, frankly. Compare what your Playstation 2 can do graphically compared to what a good PC or Mac can do. The console gets trounced.

Ya gotta stop believing the hype. Consoles are great in some ways, but they'll never completely replace PCs for gaming, simply because there's some kinds of games that the console just isn't suited or ideal for (like RTS, and to a lesser extent, FPS), and because consoles remain static (aren't significantly upgradeable) through their lifespan.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #96 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

EFI support is required to be able boot on Itanium servers & workstations, and Microsoft supported both. There is no BIOS for Itanium that I've heard about. They have not taken that knowledge to the x86 versions. Their reasoning when they said that was because there's no point to putting any man-hours into porting it when there's no hardware to use it.

To boot an Itanium server into windows (as I mentioned in my previous post), you need an EFI boot manager. HP, Intel, IBM all worked on this together. This wasn't from M$.

And M$ is only partly right. All EFI versions of the motherboards are ready to go. Waiting for M$ on this one.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #97 of 193
Quote:
Games are "one of the biggest things holding them back in the consumer space," he said. "If you look at a Macintosh right now, it does a lot of things really well compared to a Vista PC, but there are no games. Why, I don't know. If I were a Macintosh product manager, it would be pretty high on my list."

I agree. Apple and gaming are like a train wreck.

Crap open gl drivers. Non-upgradable gpu slot in the iMac, non-mortal/consumer tower that doesn't start at £1700. GPUS that aren't a year out of date. A tower line up that isn't a year out of date. Prices that aren't a year out of date.

Letting Bungie slip into M$'s hands was an act of treason. THE Mac gaming house sold out. Their choice. But it was Apple's too. Symptamatic of their gaming neglect.

Macs/Apple never about gaming? Meheh. Whither the Apple II? Or the early days of the Mac?

When Mac gaming hasn't been this healthy in a while...when Apple has been doing so much great stuff in the consumer space? Why can't they take advantage of the millions who are buying Gaming towers, Wiis, PS3s, PS2s, 360s? THat is is the consumer space. AND Apple is with the iPod/iPhone, mini, iMac in the consumer space.

They just don't seem to have a gaming strategy in place.

I'd buy BLizzard and hook up those pay per play subscribers...there's alot of them! Next I'd hunt down Id games...then I'd be after Valve.

Apple could rock the gaming world. It's just bizzare that they aren't.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #98 of 193
I'd like to dispell 2 other rumors / points brought up...

A) The iMac's graphics cards were "downgraded".

Excluding the NVidia 7600gt (128 bit graphics card), the iMac's main card in the previous generations were ATI x1600s. ATI typically has 3-4 card numbers during a generation. 300, 600, 800, & sometimes 900. Going from weakest to strongest. NVidia is the same way. Apple went from ATI x1600 -> 2600. It was a conversion to the new graphics from AMD. (I need to stop saying ATI). Anyways, it would have been a nice upgrade but during the transition from ATI and AMD was during the x1600 -> 2600 transition. And AMD totally screwed up the new cards. The 2900 does alright compared to some NVidia 8800s. But it wasn't all it cracked up to be. Apple naturally had to go with the 2600 because that was the next generation. Why they went with AMD over Nvidia remains a question. Most believe it was contract obligations. The NVidia 7600 and 8600 pounce the AMD 2600. This is the first time I know of that the MacBookPro / Powerbook is faster graphics wise than the iMac. (MBP has NVidia 8600 mobile). So blame this one on AMD here.

B) The other rumor / misconception is: PC gamers only have high end software and that's it.

I'm what I believe you'd call the average pc gamer. While I work 6-12 hours a day @ home doing web development, I like to casually play Battlefield 2, World In Conflict, etc games at night to unwind. My main gaming pc isn't what you'd call fantastic. I DO have a core2duo e6700 (but that was only because it was given to me), but the rest of my system is subpar. NVidia 7900GS graphics card. 1gig ram. For those who don't know, BF2 has some amazingly long load times compared to other pc games. It has to render a whole world to play on. So when maps switch everyone who was playing gets to wait for it to load. I am actually in the top 5 every time a game loads. This means everybody else (usually play on 64 person maps) has a slower system than I do. Most of the people I know that play BF2 barely have an AMD Athlon 64 (single core), a 128 bit graphics card, MAYBE 1gb of ram. Basically a 500 dollar pc. You don't need the most high end pc to play games. 3 year old pcs can play games just fine. Maybe not at the top graphics. But they can play and keep up just fine.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #99 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Quote:
the need for a pc to play networked games is gone. the need for a $5,000 pc to get good 3d graphics is gone. i suppose if halo 3 were playable with my keyboard and mouse the way quake was i might try it. no, that would require a $450 console investment.

You are so way overplaying the cost of a game PC that it's not funny. If you want to look plausible in your arguments, stay away from the stupid hyperbole.


Very true, Jeff. Anyone who honestly thinks you have to spend $5000 to get good PC graphics obviously isn't a gamer, and does not know of what they speak. \


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #100 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

To boot an Itanium server into windows (as I mentioned in my previous post), you need an EFI boot manager. HP, Intel, IBM all worked on this together. This wasn't from M$.

And M$ is only partly right. All EFI versions of the motherboards are ready to go. Waiting for M$ on this one.

But if BIOS is sufficient to get the job done (it initializes the hardware, detects the boot device and loads the bootloader code from the boot sector, and provides a minimal hardware abstraction layer until everything is fully up and running and Windows' drivers are ready to take direct control of the hardware at full speed), then what is Microsoft's incentive to make the investment that would be required to write an EFI version of x86 Windows?
post #101 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

But if BIOS is sufficient to get the job done (it initializes the hardware, detects the boot device and loads the bootloader code from the boot sector, and provides a minimal hardware abstraction layer until everything is fully up and running and Windows' drivers are ready to take direct control of the hardware at full speed), then what is Microsoft's incentive to make the investment that would be required to write an EFI version of x86 Windows?

That's the thing, BIOS isn't efficient any more. With EFI you can get network connectivity and do bios updates, get drivers, fix viruses, fix windows. EFI allows more than 256 bits to the graphics card, allows full PCI speed. The BIOS can still get viruses.

Think of the EFI as a mini operating system. It's very powerful and much more useful than your standard BIOS. This is one of the big reasons Apple chose to go with EFI during the switch, (that and i'm sure Intel highly suggested it).

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #102 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

That's the thing, BIOS isn't efficient any more. With EFI you can get network connectivity and do bios updates, get drivers, fix viruses, fix windows. EFI allows more than 256 bits to the graphics card, allows full PCI speed. The BIOS can still get viruses.

Think of the EFI as a mini operating system. It's very powerful and much more useful than your standard BIOS. This is one of the big reasons Apple chose to go with EFI during the switch, (that and i'm sure Intel highly suggested it).

But my understanding is that all of the recent versions of Windows (basically, everything that has been based on the NT kernel) only rely on BIOS system calls for the time the computer actually spends booting up. Once Windows is actually running, BIOS software is bypassed entirely and the device drivers talk directly to the hardware registers associated with the peripherals. Windows installs its own service routines to handle interrupt requests from the hardware. BIOS cannot interfere at that level.

Heck, BIOS' standard syscalls aren't even compatible with the CPU once you've left Real (16-bit unprotected) mode.
post #103 of 193
It's ironic that just last week Steve was telling Yahoo "You have great assetsjust like Apple didand now it is all about execution" It seems Apple is the one with the execution issues as far as gaming goes.

Imagine what a different world it might be if Apple had bought Bungie. Would Halo have gone on to be the hit is today? Would Apple have let Bungie rot on the vine? Would Apple have made hardware to appeal to gamers?
post #104 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

But my understanding is that all of the recent versions of Windows (basically, everything that has been based on the NT kernel) only rely on BIOS system calls for the time the computer actually spends booting up. Once Windows is actually running, BIOS software is bypassed entirely and the device drivers talk directly to the hardware registers associated with the peripherals. Windows installs its own service routines to handle interrupt requests from the hardware. BIOS cannot interfere at that level.

Heck, BIOS' standard syscalls aren't even compatible with the CPU once you've left Real (16-bit unprotected) mode.

You're 100% correct. But you're missing the benefits of the time BEFORE the computer starts up off of the BIOS. There is a lot you can do with a computer before it actually boots. For instance recover from a system that doesn't boot up. Or get new drivers through a network. Or get simple network connectivity. There are many benefits here... too many to list. Little reading and you'll know why .

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #105 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

It's ironic that just last week Steve was telling Yahoo "You have great assetsjust like Apple didand now it is all about execution" It seems Apple is the one with the execution issues as far as gaming goes.

Imagine what a different world it might be if Apple had bought Bungie. Would Halo have gone on to be the hit is today? Would Apple have let Bungie rot on the vine? Would Apple have made hardware to appeal to gamers?

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Bung...rticle9139.htm

Speak of the devil?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #106 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


People are not playing games on the computer anymore. The consoles are far more powerful. XBox 360 and PS3 with their HD support blow away anything on a PC screen.



Please show me where the punchbowl is that contains the Kool-aid you've been drinking because it seems like it's some good stuff!!

PC games are what push the limits of gaming. The technology eventually trickles down to consoles years later. Make no mistake about it it starts there. Gears Of War would have not been possible had Epic not developed the Unreal engine for the PC platform years ago.

Consoles are definitely a better bargain because they take a bit longer to become outdated and are much cheaper. But they are not the best gaming platform at all.
post #107 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by camimac View Post

Overweight?? That's assuming you get up from your chair to eat!!!

Seriously though, I actually lost weight when I was addicted, and it was sad to find that most people don't take game addiction seriously...

Please...an addictive personality can get addicted to ANYTHING. Gaming does not promote addiction more than anything else. Far more people waste more time doing another activity thats promotes NO mental stimulation or interaction whatsoever: watching tv.

Generalizations will get you nowhere. I am a gamer and a personal trainer. To say I get out and exercise would be an understatement.
post #108 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

People are not playing games on the computer anymore.

They may not be buying so many games, but it sure seems like they are playing them longer. To me, the income Blizzard gets from WoW subscribers is staggering. I think the Sims line is one of the best selling game franchise in recent times, and that's primarily a PC game series.

Quote:
The consoles are far more powerful. XBox 360 and PS3 with their HD support blow away anything on a PC screen.

If the console is connected to a 1080p screen, then sure, I'll go along with that, though recent successes with the Wii would suggest that the broader market doesn't care so much about the technicals as long as it's fun. I can't get past it though.

Quote:
PS2 titles still outnumber any competing console or PC. I would much rather play a game on a nice large HDTV any day.

The existing PS2 library doesn't seem to matter much to me. They look like total crap on a "nice large HDTV", even with a PS3 doing the upscaling.
post #109 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-News View Post

It's hardly astonishing that a lot of Mac users don't seem to be interested in games, but are using stuff Apple is strong at every day. That's probably because you chose the Mac because you knew it was strong at what you needed to get done.
Had you been interested in games, you probably wouldn't have chosen the Mac.
Thus, the apparent lack of Mac gamers is more of a proof of Apple's weakness in gaming, rather than Apple being right about not caring about games. Games is and has been a huge market for at least 15 years and Apple has failed to realize that so far. And that might very well be also due to the fact Steve hates games. Problem is, Steve isn't everyone.

Apple makes more money selling iPod's, which fits in with their market philosophy, than getting into the tricky world of 3-D gaming. It's a subjective call but I think it's simply too late to join that world. Gaming, as is found on the PC, is hardly the exciting new world one might think. It's the past and Apple has to think of the future. I'm not saying that there is no money in gaming, but the current approach is realy well served by the PC and consoles. I'd rather see Apple put its limited resources into more exciting things. Now if we were talking Star Trek simulation-decks that would be a different matter. My vote would be to more or less forget about 3-D gaming on the Mac.

philip
post #110 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcd View Post

My vote would be to more or less forget about 3-D gaming on the Mac.


Wow... seems like we have some circa 1989 thinking going on here. \


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #111 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You are clearly an idiot. What the heck do you know about the computer game market that someone who works in the computer game industry doesn't? If there wasn't money to be made in the computer game market, do you really think Valve, Blizzard, or EA would waste resources continuing to create games for PC's? Sorry, EA isn't making PC games just for the fun of it. If PC games weren't making money, EA would shut down that division in a heartbeat.

Perhaps you should do some research before talking out of your a**.

I have done research. Console games do sell more than PC games. Look it up yourself! Do you see any advertisements for PC gaming? Nope! XBox and PS2 and PS3 dominate the marketplace. Have you heard of Halo 3? If you are into gaming, you may have heard that it is the most popular sought-after game. By the way, did you know it is not available for the PC? Hmmm, I wonder why? Probably because most gamers have an XBox!

Blizzard. They make Warcraft, Diablo, and StarCraft. 10 year old games don't cut it. At least Valve has a long list of titles. EA. Go to their website and click on choose a platform. The PC platform is TENTH in the list, after all the consoles, including the handheld portables! EA's main business are console games, not PC games. Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.
post #112 of 193
Apple sold the most Macs ever in the last quarter and it had nothing to do with games. Most games today suck anyway, they are all the same retarded first person shooters.
post #113 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Why don't you pull your head out of your a** and produce some evidence that proves PC games sell more than console games, you f***ing loser.

A) Talking like that will get you banned.

Quote:
The consoles far outsell the PC market. EA is in business for the consoles, not PC's.

B) EA is in the business to make money. Whether that be with PC games or Console games. Ever heard of Battlefield 2? Battlfield 2 clearly dominated console sales on the pc. 2.5 million copies for the pc have been sold. Console has barely broke 1 million and that includes Xbox, xbox360, and ps2.

If EA was in the business just for consoles, why oh why did they waste any time / money producing 6 mac games this year?

Quote:
Apple sold the most Macs ever in the last quarter and it had nothing to do with games. Most games today suck anyway, they are all the same retarded first person shooters.

C) Had nothing to do with games? I and many others highly disagree. Apple is selling more macs today than 2 years ago because of 1 big change... the move to intel. Apples can finally play any windows game they want, run any windows software, and still have an OS X work environment. I know many people for years dismissed macs as a viable option because they couldn't run windows games or windows software on them. Now that they can they have taken the plunge. I uplay this value to every single person I try and get to switch. It's a big point that doesn't go unnoticed.

Apple is selling more machines than ever from many factors. Including the iPhone / iPod ripple effect. Intel movement. Frustraction from windows. Newer consumer crowd. Etc. But the biggest change out of all of those was the move to intel.

Your comments earlier completely dismissed any credit you may have had. Whether you want to face the facts or not, PC gaming is very much alive and well. And yes there are many types of games on the PC besides FPS including but not limited to: Flight Simulations, Real Time Strategy, 3rd Person Action, Role Playing, Racing and Racing Simulators, Westerns, Mass Multiplayer Online Role Playing, Sports, the list goes on.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #114 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Have you heard of Halo 3? If you are into gaming, you may have heard that it is the most popular sought-after game. By the way, did you know it is not available for the PC? Hmmm, I wonder why? Probably because most gamers have an XBox!

Until now most people thought this had to do with Microsoft desperately needing to prop up both XBox and Vista by not releasing bestselling games for other platforms (such as their own Windows XP). Thanks for setting the record straight.
Quote:
I have done research.

Apparently not.
Quote:
Blizzard. They make Warcraft, Diablo, and StarCraft. 10 year old games don't cut it.

A game property that brings in in excess of $1 billion a year? A game that has an own TV channel in Korea and whose top players are celebrities recognized on the street? Great, show me the console games that do better.
post #115 of 193
"Macs/Apple never about gaming? Meheh. Whither the Apple II? Or the early days of the Mac?"

Because the PC couldn't get its sound act together. It didn't take long for the Amiga to become the real game machine of the day. The GS was nice but hardly a speed demon!
Early Mac's were black/white and hardly gaming systems. Just look how fast the Sierra's of the world left it.


"Apple could rock the gaming world. It's just bizzare that they aren't."

They make more money emphasizing emerging areas. Gaming is interesting but it would take a massive effort to rethink Apple's approach. For one thing open consumer systems with PCI-e slots and so on just aren't going to happen. I'd rather have silence than the fan noise required to deal with most PC's graphics' cards (and I have one).

The same crowd who want higher-end 3-D gaming on the Mac also keep talking about Mac's that have an open design. It's not in the cards. For high-end gaming get a PC/console.

philip
post #116 of 193
I disagree. It would take Apple not a huge effort to make a few things that would improve gaming a lot.
A slotted graphics card is feasible for even an iMac. A low cost, less expansive tower has been done in the past (performa line for example).
If Apple offered improved support for gaming on a software level, and increased choice in GPU selection, a lot of the problem was already solved. That is hardly more effort than launching an entire new product line, such as the iPhone.
And please, stop talking about Apple having limited resources. They have enough cash to do anything they want to.
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #117 of 193
Can someone ask Gabe when the *fuck* HL2: Episode 2 is going to come out? I'm dying here... Also Blizzard, StarCraft2 when? ARGHGHGH

Like a poster said above, upgrading and tweaking just to play a few select long (I mean, hella long) awaited titles, meh... Just not adding up for me. [see my signature below]

I'm ready to go console, except in my country (not Japan) the Wii is the most sensible contender. Nary a PS3 to be seen, sometimes not even in the official "Sony Centre"s.

I tried to install Command&Conquer: First Decade and my PC was freezing up and the nVidia 8500GT card textures kept getting corrupted. W.T.F.

Apologies for offensive language, but there was/is no other way to put it.

I shudder to think about the hoops I have to jump through to get BioShock up and running. And Halo3 for the PC when? Halo2 only Vista? Bloody hell.
post #118 of 193
If you wish to play games buy a Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360.

You'll get far more games, no hardware hassles and they aren't that expensive.

Who wants to have to buy and install expensive new graphics cards in a PC, fiddle with sound card settings etc every few months to play the games: only a very few geeks.

I only know one person who plays games on his PC and he wouldn't deny being a geek.
post #119 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

If you wish to play games buy a Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360.

You'll get far more games, no hardware hassles and they aren't that expensive.

Who wants to have to buy and install expensive new graphics cards in a PC, fiddle with sound card settings etc every few months to play the games: only a very few geeks.

I only know one person who plays games on his PC and he wouldn't deny being a geek.

Why do you people keeping post things like this?

Computer and console gaming are not the same thing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Can someone ask Gabe when the *fuck* HL2: Episode 2 is going to come out?

Next week. Oct 10th specifically.
post #120 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Why do you people keeping post things like this?

Computer and console gaming are not the same thing!

Well the Mac and Windows platforms are certainly not the same thing. Why does everyone seem to thing that the Mac platform has to ape Windows to improve?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Interview: "no evidence" Apple understands gaming