1. Games sell for $48-$70. game companies get $33-$45. guess where the rest goes?
2. That's called: "I'll take the high road and you'll take the low road. and I'll get there before ye!"
3. And what did Sony have when they started?
4. Oh yeah? I think Jet Set Radio Future, Project Gotham Racing, Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee and Max Payne. amongst others. are pretty darned good too.
im talking about games for only the xbox(i know some of those are xbox only, but not all), besides, some of those are availible in other games( all i looked at where screenshots)
Why not a Nintendo GameCube in a G4? Instead of a zip bay have some sort of decoder box, or a PCI card, and use the super drive to play the Game Cube minidisks. USB controllers. That kind of partnering makes more sense to me. I mean, not everyone wants to play games in their living room.
The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.
hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.
<strong>They produced a number of games for the Saturn and for the SuperNES, actually. The point is, however, that the Playstation was released in 1995. You cannot seriously believe that the console market is substantially the same as it was seven years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. only Sony is Nintendo, Microsoft is Sony, Nintendo is Sega and Sega is 3DO .
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>Yes, that's right. G4s cost very little. That's why a dual G4 machine costs $3000.
Wait, let's be fair. Let's cut out the hard drive, etc. from that. Let's say $1500.
Oh, and 1 GHz chips are overkill for a game console. Let's say we drop the price by two-thirds.
That's $500 for a box containing just two G4s.
... not counting the significant engineering costs of developing a machine which can use three processors...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aw why that's silly. if you can buy three 400Mhz G4s for <a href="http://eshop.macsales.com/Item_DealMac.cfm?ID=4279&Item=OWCZ4400MA"; target="_blank">about $500</a>(Including profit margins, retail markup and _very_ low volumes). and there's a $350 difference(With everything other than CPUs equaled out) between Apple's 800Mhz and 933Mhz models(And different clock speed CPUs cost near precisely the same to produce). a single 1Ghz G4 couldn't possibly cost $750.
I'd guesstimate that Apple is probably paying. oh say? $300 a pop right now. and that's at a very low volume(Just Apple's top-end professional systems). Assuming that Apple was buying at an immense volume discount, design costs and fab setup had been payed off, Motorola had gotten production capacity ready to handle a good 5-10 million units and Motorola was also buying from it's suppliers at an equally large bulk discount. Apple could probably buy 1Ghz G4s at about $120 per chip.
And with top range Sound blasters going for around $200 as well as the best GeForces going for about $350. plus other support chips whose functions that could easily be handed off to the CPUs. comparing the cost of them to dedicated chipsets just pounds this in further. I think Apple could make awesome ultra-high volume system for about $550(Production cost).
<strong>It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales. If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is because Apple doesn't seriously push games. they should include one or more sampler DVDs(Preferably the double sided double layered 18GB kind) with each new Mac sold. each disc loaded to the brim with demos of games, educational titles and other third party consumer software. included with these demos would be links to the appropriate pages in various stores, on the developer's online company store and maybe even direct, in-game(Or other software ) Apple Store-style "" buttons(The ultimate in impulse buying :eek: !).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>To attract gamers, you need to engineer a gaming machine. I realize profit margins are relatively tight on the iMac, but Apple could make a few very small changes to make a good gaming machine. For starters, look at the X-Box. It's basically a P3 700mhz with a Geforce3+ on it. A low end iMac with a 700mhz G4 beats the X-Box processor wise, but Apple needs to put a good graphics chip on it. The Geforce2MX is barely acceptable by todays standards. A Geforce 4MX would be a considerable improvement at an affordable cost. Of course, if Apple really wanted to build a good gaming machine, it would through in a Geforce 4 Ti.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Give it a rest already. the current iMacs(Heck. in their day. even the Rage 128 ones) can handle nearly any game you throw at them with ease. and are clearly ready for the games of the future too. aside from the Macintosh's absolutely pathetic audio capabilities(16/48? stereophonic!? Apple doesn't even support <a href="http://www.openal.org/home/"; target="_blank">OpenAL</a>!?!?!?). I honestly can't think of anything Apple could do hardware-wise.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thing would get pounded in a second by the market. if Apple wants to poke at the console market. they'd need to make a serious, difficult to top, unique and competitive effort like what I outlined. as Falcon said:
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I don't think that there is much debate here. In order to succesfully navigate the console waters Apple would need to be totally and utterly comitted to the project. They would have to be willing to spend billions of dollars to get the project off the ground. There is no halfway. The risks would be great. But the rewards greater.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>One final note - I do agree with the notion that Apple needs to make sure unique A list games come to the Mac. I'll also agree that as long as the hardware is adequate, this may be the single most important factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Until then, Mac gamers will always be 6 months behind what everyone else is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Idealy. it would be like in the golden days. when the 320x240 graphics with synthetic sounds. on that _other_ platform just couldn't hold a candle to the Macintosh(Especially once the 8-bit color, stereophonic Mac II arrived). and plus most cutting edge games(MS Flight simulator, Colony, SimCity, Vette!, Deja vu and on and on. ah. the good old days?) were actually Mac first back then(Without the part where Apple was suicidally trying to eliminate games on the Mac of course:-)).
What definition of "game" are you using? If it doesn't include casual gamers, it's not relevant. I know there aren't many people interested in playing the "hard-core" games on iMacs - or Macs, for that matter. There's not much Apple can do to change that, except to grab enough marketshare that it makes sense to (co)develop for their hardware platform. Also, the hard-core gamers are now a minority, and a diminishing one.
The games that tend to do really well don't necessarily have hardware requirements that rule out an iMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, the few games that have done extremely well do not require extreme hardware. For example, The Sims is now the best selling game of all time (over 6 million copies). Before that, Myst held that title. Also, games like Starcraft, etc. don't have huge requirements. Still, regardless of what category you put them in, these games are very much the exception to the rule. People don't buy consoles to play Scrabble or Monopoly. The vast majority of todays games (hardcore or not) require significant graphics power.
Anyway, the iMac did well as a consumer machine, but did not help the Mac gaming market in the least bit according to the Mac game developers and publishers.
[quote]"Maybe they were happy with the games that shipped on the iMac? Who knows. At any rate, the iMac is not going to cut into the PC gaming market very much - that crowd is looking for an entirely different sort of machine."<hr></blockquote>
Though I think games like Bugdom are cute for kids, I hardly think iMac buyers were content to just play the bundled games.
[quote]"As for the GeForce 4mx, it didn't exist (publicly) when the iMac was launched. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears before long. Especially if it's pin-compatible."<hr></blockquote>
Oh please... The iMac was announced (but didn't really ship) just one month before the towers. Sorry, I don't buy that. Further, can you name one time in history where the iMac actually had parity with the Towers in terms of graphics hardware? They didn't! Apple intentionally keeps the iMac one step behind the Pro line.
Though I think it would be a good idea for Apple to put the Geforce 4MX in the iMacs, I would be very surprised to see Apple put the iMacs graphics in parity with the Pro line. You have to remember that the Geforce 2mx (32mb) is a huge improvement over the previous ATI Rage 128 ulta (8mb) in the previous generation. Since they kept the Rage 128 series for so long, I'd be very surprised if they bumped up from the Geforce 2mx anytime soon.
[quote]"Apple also needs to get their long-rumored revision to OpenGL out, so that there's a consistent API for the more advanced capabilities of the RADEON/GeForce3/etc. The current iMac's capabilities will improve simply with that. Ditto a finished CoreAudio layer, etc."<hr></blockquote>
What? Apple's OpenGL in OS X is considered top notch! Do you care to elaborate on this? I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you understand how OpenGL works, you'd know that all of the new features for the Radeon, Geforce, etc. are handled through OpenGL extensions. Eventually, the OpenGL specification itself needs to get updated to roll in all of the extenstions, but Apple has no responsibility on doing that. I'm not familiar with the issues with Core Audio, other than the praise it was given for the lowest latency out of any OS on the market.
[quote]"For... how much? Why not just bump the graphics chip up to a 4mx, and keep it as a PC that functions as a sort of game console? It'll be a simple enough option by MWNY, when Apple will have had months to work the inefficiencies out of their production lines."<hr></blockquote>
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless Apple updates the graphics on the pro line, they won't touch the graphics on the iMac line. Care to make a friendly wager on that?
[quote]"Given that the iMac uses a motherboard chipset for graphics, and the PowerMacs get the full card and higher-end options, and have faster busses and processors, etc., I don't think this is why the iMac shipped with a 2mx. They used it because it's what there was."<hr></blockquote>
How does the iMac, using motherboard chipsets for graphics, preclude it from using a Geforce 4mx? As for using "what there was", then why didn't Apple use the Radeon 7500 like the low end pro line? Why has the iMac always been a notch down from the Pro line? I really don't see why you don't believe this is intentional. The history of what graphics chip was available demonstrates Apple's intentions through the iMac history.
<strong>"This is because Apple doesn't seriously push games. "</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, Apple doesn't push games very hard. To their credit, they have come a long way in recent years. Still, I would agree they stop short of what is necessary.
[quote]"Give it a rest already. the current iMacs(Heck. in their day. even the Rage 128 ones) can handle nearly any game you throw at them with ease. " <hr></blockquote>
Have you actually used an iMac? I have one and can easily contradict that last statement. The iMac does just fine with the lesser demanding games, but any game that goes into the "hardcore" such as Q3, UT, etc. you have to dumb down all of the graphics options, particularly the texture quality, just to get somewhat playable frame rates. I can't play Myth3 at all on my iMac DV/SE 500. It's just way to slow on that machine, but it does fairly well on other popular games such as StarCraft and even Tony Hawk II skateboarding. Basically, each game is a case by case basis. The (G3 based iMacs) were nice machines, but they generally choked on many games performance wise.
[quote]"This thing would get pounded in a second by the market. if Apple wants to poke at the console market. they'd need to make a serious, difficult to top, unique and competitive effort like what I outlined." <hr></blockquote>
I'm not debating whether or not I think Apple would be successful or not in the console market. I'm strictly speaking in terms of what Apple could do hardware wise to produce an affordable gaming machine that would be competitive performance wise.
[quote]Idealy. it would be like in the golden days. when the 320x240 graphics with synthetic sounds. on that _other_ platform just couldn't hold a candle to the Macintosh(Especially once the 8-bit color, stereophonic Mac II arrived). and plus most cutting edge games(MS Flight simulator, Colony, SimCity, Vette!, Deja vu and on and on. ah. the good old days… were actually Mac first back then(Without the part where Apple was suicidally trying to eliminate games on the Mac of course:-)). <hr></blockquote>
I agree. Sadly, those days are over. You're right, there used to be a time where the Mac version of the games were higher quality, mainly because the Mac didn't have a resolution as low as the PC. Unfortunately, the days of superior quality games are over. We're just lucky if we get the same games, period.
Unfortunately, the cost of Mac only development for games is just hard to justify. The cost of building an A-list game is considered to be greater than the sales would ever recover. However, it just may be one of those things that's necessary for platform growth.
<strong>Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless Apple updates the graphics on the pro line, they won't touch the graphics on the iMac line. Care to make a friendly wager on that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>How does the iMac, using motherboard chipsets for graphics, preclude it from using a Geforce 4mx? As for using "what there was", then why didn't Apple use the Radeon 7500 like the low end pro line? Why has the iMac always been a notch down from the Pro line? I really don't see why you don't believe this is intentional. The history of what graphics chip was available demonstrates Apple's intentions through the iMac history.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What on earth are you talking about???
The GeForce4 MX and the the GeForce4 Titanuim premiered directly alongside each other. if you stuck a GeForce4 MX in the new iMac(Probably one of the "Special" configurations. heck. they did it before with the Rage 128 Ultra). then you could just use the GeForce4 Titanuim BTO AGP(As well as the capability to buy it's descendents and their rivals later on) as a temptation to get a PowerMac instead of an iMac.
The GeForce4 MX and the the GeForce4 Titanuim premiered directly alongside each other. if you stuck a GeForce4 MX in the new iMac(Probably one of the "Special" configurations. heck. they did it before with the Rage 128 Ultra). then you </strong> <hr></blockquote>
Yes, I agree that Apple could put something better in a special addition iMac. However, only if it doesn't compete with the Pro line. You're forgetting that when Apple put the 16MB Rage Ultras in the iMac Special addition, the Pro line had the Geforce 2mx in them. Likewise, even at that point in time, the iMacs were a generation behind!!! Your point does not contradict what I said!
[quote]<strong>could just use the GeForce4 Titanuim BTO AGP(As well as the capability to buy it's descendents and their rivals later on) as a temptation to get a PowerMac instead of an iMac.
Eric, </strong> <hr></blockquote>
If you're asking me if I think this is a good idea, I'd say yes. Historically, Apple has never done this with their iMac and Pro lines. Likewise, I have no reason to believe they will start now.
I obviously have no insider knowledge as to what Apple will do. However, I do have a historical knowledge of what Apple has done. What I'm saying is consistent with Apple's history in this regard. What you and Amorph have suggested is not consistent with Apple's history. Apple is obviously free to do whatever it wants. However, what they can do and what they are most likely to do are two different things.
<strong>You're right, Apple doesn't push games very hard. To their credit, they have come a long way in recent years. Still, I would agree they stop short of what is necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Have you actually used an iMac? I have one and can easily contradict that last statement. The iMac does just fine with the lesser demanding games, but any game that goes into the "hardcore" such as Q3, UT, etc. you have to dumb down all of the graphics options, particularly the texture quality, just to get somewhat playable frame rates. I can't play Myth3 at all on my iMac DV/SE 500. It's just way to slow on that machine, but it does fairly well on other popular games such as StarCraft and even Tony Hawk II skateboarding. Basically, each game is a case by case basis. The (G3 based iMacs) were nice machines, but they generally choked on many games performance wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. I was using a 400Mhz Rev D Strawberry iMac DV and later a 450Mhz Rev E Ruby iMac DV+(My dad's favorite color is red. so he just bought the strawberry one because it was the closest to red until the ruby iMac came out. we bought both iMac's as servers. but the guy that set them up as servers didn't come for a while. so I just used them to see just how fast "New World" Macs were and try out OS X until then). I didn't have to turn off hardly anything in Quake 3 and UT and Deus Ex(And these were with the un-tuned demos). Myth 3 wasn't out then. so I wouldn't know. Descent 3 worked just dandy aside from if I turned up the bezier-based outdoor landscapes to "High". and anything else I threw at either iMac seemed to work to perfection. the _very_ worst thing I ever had to do was switch to 16-bit graphics in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. and that's an extreme example. I think the old iMacs(The ones with Rage 128 that is?) packed plenty of punch and then some for the games of their day. as well as the capability to run a good portion of today's games with decency. and the new iMacs look like they'll continue to hold this mantle with gusto.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I'm not debating whether or not I think Apple would be successful or not in the console market. I'm strictly speaking in terms of what Apple could do hardware wise to produce an affordable gaming machine that would be competitive performance wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the biggest thing Apple could do is ink a deal with Creative, Philips, Yamaha etc. as the Macintosh's audio really hasn't been up to snuff since Wing Commander IV(Unquestionably one of the best games ever made) came out.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I agree. Sadly, those days are over. You're right, there used to be a time where the Mac version of the games were higher quality, mainly because the Mac didn't have a resolution as low as the PC. Unfortunately, the days of superior quality games are over. We're just lucky if we get the same games, period.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. it's very tragic and depressing. but it didn't have to be that way. read the part of <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001359&p="; target="_blank">this thread</a> where I point out Apple's past advantage of easily recognizable superiority and criticise Apple's jump to PCI, ATA etc. if Apple took up the old standard again. they might just be able to break their self-forged shackles of submission and compliance(Bring up your browser's search function and punch in the word "Quadra" to skip down to the relevant part).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Unfortunately, the cost of Mac only development for games is just hard to justify. The cost of building an A-list game is considered to be greater than the sales would ever recover. However, it just may be one of those things that's necessary for platform growth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Definitely. but I was using the game console as a way to sweeten up the Macintosh for platform exclusive A-list titles. I think it would work beautifully.
<strong>Yes, I agree that Apple could put something better in a special addition iMac. However, only if it doesn't compete with the Pro line. You're forgetting that when Apple put the 16MB Rage Ultras in the iMac Special addition, the Pro line had the Geforce 2mx in them. Likewise, even at that point in time, the iMacs were a generation behind!!! Your point does not contradict what I said!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it does. the GeForce4 Titanuim is there now just like the Geforce2 MX was there then.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>If you're asking me if I think this is a good idea, I'd say yes. Historically, Apple has never done this with their iMac and Pro lines. Likewise, I have no reason to believe they will start now.
I obviously have no insider knowledge as to what Apple will do. However, I do have a historical knowledge of what Apple has done. What I'm saying is consistent with Apple's history in this regard. What you and Amorph have suggested is not consistent with Apple's history. Apple is obviously free to do whatever it wants. However, what they can do and what they are most likely to do are two different things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rrrr. using the GeForce4 Titanuim as a backstop against the GeForce4 MX would be just like what Apple's doing now. using the GeForce4 MX as a backstop against the GeForce2 MX. or what they were doing then. using the GeForce2 MX as a backstop against the Rage 128Pro/Ultra.
My, this Apple could do a games console thing has hit a raw nerve.
I didn't vouch it going beyond 15 posts.
Hmmm.
The C64 wasn't quite the fastest processor machine of it's time. About a mhz?
The 'Spectrum' and the old (was it Apple II?) of the time beat it in mhz.
It also 3 sound channels to the Atari's 4 channel stereo. The Atari machine also had more dazzeling colour.
Yet, games are what made the c64. Had thousands of 'em. Sold ten million plus machines? It was a good alrounder. It had good sound. Great game tunes and fx. Had 8 (count 'em, to Atari of the time...) sprites to the Atari's four. Had colour graphics to the Spectrum's mono colour.
Games these days seem to be just about 3D. Both the PsII and the X-box both seem to outweigh the GameCube in the 3D dept. However, the Nintendo philosophy when it comes to games takes some beating. They certainly make id games appear very, VERY dull in terms of colour and gameplay. Alot of the PS I games looked as dull as ditch water and samey.
I smile to hear of the rumours of Raycer tech' adding extra chipset capability to give Apple machines that extra oomph and sparkle over PCs.
Makes me think back to the 'computer games machine'. (Cos I certainly didn't use my C64 for my education at the time... )
I liked the pretense the the C64 was a computer! Still, the keyboard came in handy for many in and out game options! Specially playing Elite! Arggly...argle.....(Homer style drool...)
I look at the new imac and see the coolest computer (games machine, cough...ahem...) there's ever been. JUST HOW MANY CONSOLES HAVE A BUILT IN MONITOR? Apple play the games card, grudgingly these days as opposed to not at all in recent years. They have something in common with the Commodore of times past in that they don't really see their machines as being used for 'lowly' games, but bless, they're getting into the spirit of things like the dad of a bride does at the post sermon wedding disco function (Gee, dad's doing his embarrassing pelvic groove...). They have loftier notions of creative productivity. (The Amiga is alive and well? Or it soon will be if Raycer chipset goes into the next gen motherboard?!!)
Shame. As if Apple could just market one of their machines in a certain way...they'd sure have a damn fair machine for games. Maybe by the 'just for homework and productivity' trojan horse? Still. The price. You wouldn't buy any machine just for games at over £1,000, would you?
No? Well, that didn't stop C64 owners paying more for their Amiga! It doesn't stop PC owners paying £2,000 for their 'ultimate' rig. I know, I've had mates pay through the nose for a PC and all they play are...
Power is cheaper these days (if your a pc or console owner...sorry Apple...) Maybe you don't have to pay even £1,000 for a good games PC/console.
Hmmm. I'm looking forward to the day when the LCD's take the plunge and maybe we might see the low end NEW imac where the old imac low end is now.
I kind think (prove me wrong apple...) that they'll hang onto the Geforce 2 mx to the death like they did with the ati rage card.
I hope they adopt the geforce 4mx sooner in the imac range.
Apple's hardware is due for an internal overhaul from m/board to cpu.
The whole cpu argument is stale. It's clear Apple can't keep charging obsene dosh for out of date internals.
They're ahead of the game in Os, style...and...software...but...
They, for the premium they charge, just haven't nailed down the internals of their machine.
But heck, compared to the pre-open Gl ati card days...the current stuff if state of the art!
Apple as a 'games console'. I...don't really see it. I was never fond of 'games consoles'.
I like the keyboard that said, 'This is a computer.' (BUT, ahem, I can use it for games...cough, ahem, after I've been doing some serious work on it... )
I kinda like Amorph's argument best.
But the other guys are making sense also.
I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a while. It's making me smile.
For Apple to be the 'games COMPUTER' of choice depends on many more factors than Apple just producing a 'console'.
The OS getting developers. Moto pulling their finger out. Value. Cost. Designing cool kit. Developing their own state of the art productivity suites. Making sure they still have applications developed for them. Drawing in the Unix and Java and NeXt crowds. Maybe a few Linux stragglers and Windows converts.
To me, it's accumulative. Once upon a time, the PC was just a boring two and a half colour (Yes, that's sarcasm...) computer which the Amiga beat the beejeezus out of. Yet the crude PC at the time had Battle chess? Why? Lots of bored workers in offices, I guess.
And now? Everybody's had to have W95 on a computer at home to go with their cd players.
It seems MS have gone after Sony with the Xbox.
Apple seems to have gone after Sony with the iPod.
"I didn't have to turn off hardly anything in Quake 3 and UT and Deus Ex(And these were with the un-tuned demos)."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, now it seems we're getting into that subjective matter of opinion thing. If you feel comfortable playing these games at an average of say 20fps, then I suppose there isn't much I can say about that. Most would agree that if don't at least average 30fps, then the choppiness of the game will negatively affect your performance. Remember, an average of 30fps means that at some parts, the game will likely dip to 10fps at times. Since my iMac is faster than the iMacs you describe, I feel quite comfortable that you did not experience better performance that I did. That said, in Q3 for example, the only way I can average 30fps is if I turn the texture quality way down. In gameplay, that means things like faces, etc. are blank. The same goes for UT, turning down the quality is not an option. Deus Ex is even worse. It's a great game, but even more demanding than UT or Q3. I don't have frame rates for that game, but it is noticably slower than UT which the engine is based on.
[quote]"I think the biggest thing Apple could do is ink a deal with Creative, Philips, Yamaha etc. as the Macintosh's audio really hasn't been up to snuff since Wing Commander IV(Unquestionably one of the best games ever made) came out."<hr></blockquote>
Actually, I don't think Apple's audio is quite as bad as it's reputation. In my opinion, the only time it sounded bad was when some games used tinny MIDI tracks that were much better handled on cards like soundblaster. Now that all sounds are digitized, I don't notice a significant difference as compared to playing on my PC with a dedicated sound card. In fact, the only thing that seems to be noticably better is the use of 3D audio. There is a difference in quality, but it isn't huge. Still, I agree that Apple should include some sort of dedicated audio chips, for better quality in games, but also to offload the CPU.
[quote]"Yes. it's very tragic and depressing. but it didn't have to be that way. read the part of this thread where I point out Apple's past advantage of easily recognizable superiority and criticise Apple's jump to PCI, ATA etc. if Apple took up the old standard again. "<hr></blockquote>
Well, I agree with the quality part, but not if it's going to cost me an extra $1000 for a machine with roughly equivalent hardware.
[quote]"Sure it does. the GeForce4 Titanuim is there now just like the Geforce2 MX was there then."<hr></blockquote>
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Nor do I see how this contradicts my claim that the iMac has always been a generation behind the Pro line in terms of graphics hardware.
The Geforce 4 Ti is the current high end chip that is available as a BTO option on the pro line. The Geforce2 MX was never a high end chip, rather it was a default low end chip for the Pro line, back when the iMacs were using Rage 128 pros. Even then, the Geforce 3 was a BTO option on the pro line. Likewise, I don't see your point.
[quote]"Rrrr. using the GeForce4 Titanuim as a backstop against the GeForce4 MX would be just like what Apple's doing now. using the GeForce4 MX as a backstop against the GeForce2 MX. or what they were doing then. using the GeForce2 MX as a backstop against the Rage 128Pro/Ultra.
I fail to see the difference."<hr></blockquote>
If you're trying to illustrate that the Geforce 4mx already has an upgrade path for Apple using existing technology (namely the Geforce 4 Ti), then I will gladly explain the difference to you.
For starters, why is there no mention of the Geforce 3 in your lineup? Answer: because it's an expensive BTO option. This is exactly what the Geforce 4 Ti is. If we're referring to nVidia chips, Apple will likely always use the lower cost MX series chips as a default, but will likely offer the Ti versions as expensive BTO options. Are you suggesting that Apple is likely to make the Geforce 4Ti the default chip for the pro line this summer, just so they can bump the iMac up to the Geforce 4mx? If so, I can tell you with 99% confidence that this just isn't going to happen. The Ti is to expensive to be a default piece of hardware.
[quote]Why not a Nintendo GameCube in a G4? Instead of a zip bay have some sort of decoder box, or a PCI card, and use the super drive to play the Game Cube minidisks. USB controllers. That kind of partnering makes more sense to me. I mean, not everyone wants to play games in their living room.
The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.
hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.
<hr></blockquote>
i agree, why go all the way down to the living room to play a game? instead it's in my comp, open an app and throw in the game.
if you polled the xbox marketing people at MS, i don't think they'd encourage any company to try what they did, in fact, i'm sure they wished they could go back in time and nix it before it ever got started... stats show xbox sales are miserable and far below expectations.
<strong>Why not a Nintendo GameCube in a G4? Instead of a zip bay have some sort of decoder box, or a PCI card, and use the super drive to play the Game Cube minidisks. USB controllers. That kind of partnering makes more sense to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We all know how well THAT works.
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not just get Nintendo to port the GameCube's OS to the Mac's Open Firmware and slide in a few shims? I suppose your way would be easier. and more platform agnostic too.
The game cube add on is total crap. It would cost nearly as much to make one that works with your mac. Won't happen 'cause only a fool is going to pay for the cost of a mac plus the cost of an add-on to play game-cube games. Sorry.
Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible. Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. If you buy a computer for games play you have to pirate a lot of games before you break-even with the cost of buying a console plus games. Imagine you buy a PC for around a thousand (to play games on). For the same money you could get a GameCube and about a dozen games. Unless you pirate the computer games, it's just more cost effective to use a console. How many games do you have to pirate to turn a mac into a cost effective gaming machine?
Now because you have to buy a computer for productive stuff, it's nice to use it for games too (while it is still current). You buy a mac for DV-editing, photoshop, music etc etc... because you like the way it lets you work. If you're lucky a nice utility comes up within a few months that lets you 'back-up' your GC or XB or PS2 games to CD or DVD, but that's about as far as consoles on computers goes. Only xBox will see the horror of inexpensive PC emulation of their console (because of the architectural similarities.)
And, as has been pointed out here, the biggest selling COMPUTER GAMES of all time are consistently the type that DO NOT require huge hardware specs. Only a VERY SMALL percentage of COMPUTER GAMERS (which are, incedentally, over-represented in fora such as these) care to play the very hardware demanding 3-d games that get most of the press. Even fewer are willing to spend thousands spec'ing out a PC that can do it at 1600x1200@100fps, because most people have better things to do with their money. Apple knows this and caters their hardware/software solution accordingly.
The wisest, most cost effective, solution for a computer user and gamer is to buy the computer platform that works best for them, and a console to play games on.
"Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. If you buy a computer for games play you have to pirate a lot of games before you break-even with the cost of buying a console plus games."
Nice post Matsu.
The fantasy side of me still would like a matt white cube without skirt and ugly vent...
It'd make a cute console. Available in aqua and strawberry flavour colours.
I'd also like to see a Chrome dome! Or a Chrome sphere! (mind you...leave that design for a G5...heck...play football with your G5 console thing...)
Mac users get to play the odd game after they get their work done.
Ah. G5. "With great power comes great responsibility..."
<strong>My, this Apple could do a games console thing has hit a raw nerve.
I didn't vouch it going beyond 15 posts.
Hmmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I already had a pre-chewed idea. so I just lept right in. and I couldn't stand the sillier arguments being tossed at it. so I started swatting at them. and I just sort of kept going from there.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The C64 wasn't quite the fastest processor machine of it's time. About a mhz?
The 'Spectrum' and the old (was it Apple II?) of the time beat it in mhz.
It also 3 sound channels to the Atari's 4 channel stereo. The Atari machine also had more dazzeling colour.
Yet, games are what made the c64. Had thousands of 'em. Sold ten million plus machines? It was a good alrounder. It had good sound. Great game tunes and fx. Had 8 (count 'em, to Atari of the time...) sprites to the Atari's four. Had colour graphics to the Spectrum's mono colour.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda' like the Apple ][ in it's heyday. I remember the thousands of games made up something like 90% of it's software library back then?
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Games these days seem to be just about 3D. Both the PsII and the X-box both seem to outweigh the GameCube in the 3D dept. However, the Nintendo philosophy when it comes to games takes some beating. They certainly make id games appear very, VERY dull in terms of colour and gameplay. Alot of the PS I games looked as dull as ditch water and samey.
I smile to hear of the rumours of Raycer tech' adding extra chipset capability to give Apple machines that extra oomph and sparkle over PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. hardware based graphics are too easy for the next guy to one-up. if Apple wants exclusive A-list titles. Apple had better give developers a darned good reason to use their hardware. and multi-AltiVec based graphics/sound is about the best(And coolest) exclusive advantage Apple has right now. as for the three current game consoles. aside from speed(PS2, NGC and MXB respectively). they're utterly identical. Apple would need to stand out. this same principal is equally valid in the Mac vs. IBM PC war too.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Makes me think back to the 'computer games machine'. (Cos I certainly didn't use my C64 for my education at the time... )
I liked the pretense the the C64 was a computer! Still, the keyboard came in handy for many in and out game options! Specially playing Elite! Arggly...argle.....(Homer style drool...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like voice input better .
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I look at the new imac and see the coolest computer (games machine, cough...ahem...) there's ever been. JUST HOW MANY CONSOLES HAVE A BUILT IN MONITOR? Apple play the games card, grudgingly these days as opposed to not at all in recent years. They have something in common with the Commodore of times past in that they don't really see their machines as being used for 'lowly' games, but bless, they're getting into the spirit of things like the dad of a bride does at the post sermon wedding disco function (Gee, dad's doing his embarrassing pelvic groove...). They have loftier notions of creative productivity. (The Amiga is alive and well? Or it soon will be if Raycer chipset goes into the next gen motherboard?!!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the big difference is that the Macintosh hasn't got _any_ advantages(Power, expandability, price, popularity, innovativeness etc?) over the other choices right now. with the exception of the best VPU in the price range(Heck. in the world for all I know). and Apple certainly isn't flaunting that. game developers or otherwise.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Shame. As if Apple could just market one of their machines in a certain way...they'd sure have a damn fair machine for games. Maybe by the 'just for homework and productivity' trojan horse? Still. The price. You wouldn't buy any machine just for games at over £1,000, would you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. like I said. Apple REALLY needs to get serious about games.(People buy "Home theaters" for five or twelve thousand dollars and more just for movies ).
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>No? Well, that didn't stop C64 owners paying more for their Amiga! It doesn't stop PC owners paying £2,000 for their 'ultimate' rig. I know, I've had mates pay through the nose for a PC and all they play are...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And plus. the fact of that it's a world class PC couldn't hurt. if a Macintosh already has even the slightest appeal to mom and dad. then the constant urging from their children couldn't but help point the way.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Power is cheaper these days (if your a pc or console owner...sorry Apple...) Maybe you don't have to pay even £1,000 for a good games PC/console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can custom build an £800 wintel machine that will chew up and spit out any game you give it.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Hmmm. I'm looking forward to the day when the LCD's take the plunge and maybe we might see the low end NEW imac where the old imac low end is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LCD's won't be the ones to do it. look to <a href="http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/"; target="_blank">light emitting polymers(LEPs)</a>. which can be made on anything down to _a piece of cheap dirty paper_(Although most of them will of course use good solid plastic or metal for backing ). if they're placed on a flexible backing. you can roll one up into a 1cm cylinder too. a good 50cm LEP display will probably go for about £60(A good consumer and power efficient display). and light emitting diodes(LEDs). solve the LCD's color(A final successor to the CRT for color sensetivem videophile and high end users) and brightness problem and then some(Certain LED arrays are being used as public streetlights among other things!). both display technologies are expected late this year to mid-2003.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I kind think (prove me wrong apple...) that they'll hang onto the Geforce 2 mx to the death like they did with the ati rage card.
I hope they adopt the geforce 4mx sooner in the imac range.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Apple will probably upgrade them when games that can seriously challenge a good GeForce2 MX(Why didn't they use the GeForce2 GT or Ultra?) come along. I think Doom 3 will be the definition of the new era.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Apple's hardware is due for an internal overhaul from m/board to cpu.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then some! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The whole cpu argument is stale. It's clear Apple can't keep charging obsene dosh for out of date internals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Count the days. count the minutes. count on the a PPC 8500.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>They're ahead of the game in Os, style...and...software...but...</strong><hr></blockquote>
They, for the premium they charge, just haven't nailed down the internals of their machine.[/QB]
Talk about it!
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>But heck, compared to the pre-open Gl ati card days...the current stuff if state of the art!</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least you could get one of those super cool VillageTronic 3DFX cards and blow away every PC on the block back then.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Apple as a 'games console'. I...don't really see it. I was never fond of 'games consoles'.
I like the keyboard that said, 'This is a computer.' (BUT, ahem, I can use it for games...cough, ahem, after I've been doing some serious work on it... )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Try telling that to the game developers.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I kinda like Amorph's argument best.
But the other guys are making sense also.
I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a while. It's making me smile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing like a good fight to get the blood moving.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>For Apple to be the 'games COMPUTER' of choice depends on many more factors than Apple just producing a 'console'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not unless another plan is executed(Like my "Plan B: bring back N.I.H. and go for the throat) one for example). Apple will always be 20th best until they give game developers and game players a really good reason to choose Macintosh.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The OS getting developers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But of course.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Moto pulling their finger out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. Motorola is practically the only reason the PPC has any distinguishing features. left to IBM. it would degrade into a high Mhz. low efficiency blob of normality. what the PPC really needs is more money. 2 hours of inventory on hand be cursed. if Apple wants to sell ten million iMacs. they need to build them. right now.
<strong>Developing their own state of the art productivity suites.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YEAH!
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Making sure they still have applications developed for them. Drawing in the Unix and Java and NeXt crowds. Maybe a few Linux stragglers and Windows converts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Making sure they still have LOTS of applications developed for them. what we need are programmers trained in the fine intricacies of the Macintosh. maybe Apple should make Cocoa even easier(Where are you Bill Atkinson?). and promote "Programming for The Rest of Us".
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>To me, it's accumulative. Once upon a time, the PC was just a boring two and a half colour (Yes, that's sarcasm...) computer which the Amiga beat the beejeezus out of. Yet the crude PC at the time had Battle chess? Why? Lots of bored workers in offices, I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. lot's of bored consumers that were gullible enough to own anything from IBM(Hey! I played BattleChess on my CI!).
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>And now? Everybody's had to have W95 on a computer at home to go with their cd players.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it was because comparing 3.1 and 95 was a complete joke(Too bad comparing XP and OS X isn't )
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>It seems MS have gone after Sony with the Xbox.
And Nintendo too. also note their purchase of the WebTV. I think they're clearing room outside their PC domain.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
[QB]Apple seems to have gone after Sony with the iPod.
An interesting distinction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple seems to have gone after everyone that makes an MP3 player with the iPod! whenever Apple makes anything for a new(Or forgotten) market. it will stand head and shoulders above all others.
Comments
1. Games sell for $48-$70. game companies get $33-$45. guess where the rest goes?
2. That's called: "I'll take the high road and you'll take the low road. and I'll get there before ye!"
3. And what did Sony have when they started?
4. Oh yeah? I think Jet Set Radio Future, Project Gotham Racing, Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee and Max Payne. amongst others. are pretty darned good too.
im talking about games for only the xbox(i know some of those are xbox only, but not all), besides, some of those are availible in other games( all i looked at where screenshots)
Amorph.
Lemon Bon Bon
:cool:
The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.
hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.
<strong>They produced a number of games for the Saturn and for the SuperNES, actually. The point is, however, that the Playstation was released in 1995. You cannot seriously believe that the console market is substantially the same as it was seven years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. only Sony is Nintendo, Microsoft is Sony, Nintendo is Sega and Sega is 3DO
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>Yes, that's right. G4s cost very little. That's why a dual G4 machine costs $3000.
Wait, let's be fair. Let's cut out the hard drive, etc. from that. Let's say $1500.
Oh, and 1 GHz chips are overkill for a game console. Let's say we drop the price by two-thirds.
That's $500 for a box containing just two G4s.
... not counting the significant engineering costs of developing a machine which can use three processors...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aw why that's silly. if you can buy three 400Mhz G4s for <a href="http://eshop.macsales.com/Item_DealMac.cfm?ID=4279&Item=OWCZ4400MA"; target="_blank">about $500</a>(Including profit margins, retail markup and _very_ low volumes). and there's a $350 difference(With everything other than CPUs equaled out) between Apple's 800Mhz and 933Mhz models(And different clock speed CPUs cost near precisely the same to produce). a single 1Ghz G4 couldn't possibly cost $750.
I'd guesstimate that Apple is probably paying. oh say? $300 a pop right now. and that's at a very low volume(Just Apple's top-end professional systems). Assuming that Apple was buying at an immense volume discount, design costs and fab setup had been payed off, Motorola had gotten production capacity ready to handle a good 5-10 million units and Motorola was also buying from it's suppliers at an equally large bulk discount. Apple could probably buy 1Ghz G4s at about $120 per chip.
And with top range Sound blasters going for around $200 as well as the best GeForces going for about $350. plus other support chips whose functions that could easily be handed off to the CPUs. comparing the cost of them to dedicated chipsets just pounds this in further. I think Apple could make awesome ultra-high volume system for about $550(Production cost).
Eric,
[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
<strong>It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales. If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is because Apple doesn't seriously push games. they should include one or more sampler DVDs(Preferably the double sided double layered 18GB kind) with each new Mac sold. each disc loaded to the brim with demos of games, educational titles and other third party consumer software. included with these demos would be links to the appropriate pages in various stores, on the developer's online company store and maybe even direct, in-game(Or other software
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>To attract gamers, you need to engineer a gaming machine. I realize profit margins are relatively tight on the iMac, but Apple could make a few very small changes to make a good gaming machine. For starters, look at the X-Box. It's basically a P3 700mhz with a Geforce3+ on it. A low end iMac with a 700mhz G4 beats the X-Box processor wise, but Apple needs to put a good graphics chip on it. The Geforce2MX is barely acceptable by todays standards. A Geforce 4MX would be a considerable improvement at an affordable cost. Of course, if Apple really wanted to build a good gaming machine, it would through in a Geforce 4 Ti.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Give it a rest already. the current iMacs(Heck. in their day. even the Rage 128 ones) can handle nearly any game you throw at them with ease. and are clearly ready for the games of the future too. aside from the Macintosh's absolutely pathetic audio capabilities(16/48? stereophonic!? Apple doesn't even support <a href="http://www.openal.org/home/"; target="_blank">OpenAL</a>!?!?!?). I honestly can't think of anything Apple could do hardware-wise.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thing would get pounded in a second by the market. if Apple wants to poke at the console market. they'd need to make a serious, difficult to top, unique and competitive effort like what I outlined. as Falcon said:
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I don't think that there is much debate here. In order to succesfully navigate the console waters Apple would need to be totally and utterly comitted to the project. They would have to be willing to spend billions of dollars to get the project off the ground. There is no halfway. The risks would be great. But the rewards greater.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>One final note - I do agree with the notion that Apple needs to make sure unique A list games come to the Mac. I'll also agree that as long as the hardware is adequate, this may be the single most important factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Until then, Mac gamers will always be 6 months behind what everyone else is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Idealy. it would be like in the golden days. when the 320x240 graphics with synthetic sounds. on that _other_ platform just couldn't hold a candle to the Macintosh(Especially once the 8-bit color, stereophonic Mac II arrived). and plus most cutting edge games(MS Flight simulator, Colony, SimCity, Vette!, Deja vu and on and on. ah. the good old days?) were actually Mac first back then(Without the part where Apple was suicidally trying to eliminate games on the Mac of course:-)).
Eric,
[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
<strong>
What definition of "game" are you using? If it doesn't include casual gamers, it's not relevant. I know there aren't many people interested in playing the "hard-core" games on iMacs - or Macs, for that matter. There's not much Apple can do to change that, except to grab enough marketshare that it makes sense to (co)develop for their hardware platform. Also, the hard-core gamers are now a minority, and a diminishing one.
The games that tend to do really well don't necessarily have hardware requirements that rule out an iMac.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, the few games that have done extremely well do not require extreme hardware. For example, The Sims is now the best selling game of all time (over 6 million copies). Before that, Myst held that title. Also, games like Starcraft, etc. don't have huge requirements. Still, regardless of what category you put them in, these games are very much the exception to the rule. People don't buy consoles to play Scrabble or Monopoly. The vast majority of todays games (hardcore or not) require significant graphics power.
Anyway, the iMac did well as a consumer machine, but did not help the Mac gaming market in the least bit according to the Mac game developers and publishers.
[quote]"Maybe they were happy with the games that shipped on the iMac? Who knows. At any rate, the iMac is not going to cut into the PC gaming market very much - that crowd is looking for an entirely different sort of machine."<hr></blockquote>
Though I think games like Bugdom are cute for kids, I hardly think iMac buyers were content to just play the bundled games.
[quote]"As for the GeForce 4mx, it didn't exist (publicly) when the iMac was launched. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears before long. Especially if it's pin-compatible."<hr></blockquote>
Oh please... The iMac was announced (but didn't really ship) just one month before the towers. Sorry, I don't buy that. Further, can you name one time in history where the iMac actually had parity with the Towers in terms of graphics hardware? They didn't! Apple intentionally keeps the iMac one step behind the Pro line.
Though I think it would be a good idea for Apple to put the Geforce 4MX in the iMacs, I would be very surprised to see Apple put the iMacs graphics in parity with the Pro line. You have to remember that the Geforce 2mx (32mb) is a huge improvement over the previous ATI Rage 128 ulta (8mb) in the previous generation. Since they kept the Rage 128 series for so long, I'd be very surprised if they bumped up from the Geforce 2mx anytime soon.
[quote]"Apple also needs to get their long-rumored revision to OpenGL out, so that there's a consistent API for the more advanced capabilities of the RADEON/GeForce3/etc. The current iMac's capabilities will improve simply with that. Ditto a finished CoreAudio layer, etc."<hr></blockquote>
What? Apple's OpenGL in OS X is considered top notch! Do you care to elaborate on this? I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you understand how OpenGL works, you'd know that all of the new features for the Radeon, Geforce, etc. are handled through OpenGL extensions. Eventually, the OpenGL specification itself needs to get updated to roll in all of the extenstions, but Apple has no responsibility on doing that. I'm not familiar with the issues with Core Audio, other than the praise it was given for the lowest latency out of any OS on the market.
[quote]"For... how much? Why not just bump the graphics chip up to a 4mx, and keep it as a PC that functions as a sort of game console? It'll be a simple enough option by MWNY, when Apple will have had months to work the inefficiencies out of their production lines."<hr></blockquote>
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless Apple updates the graphics on the pro line, they won't touch the graphics on the iMac line. Care to make a friendly wager on that?
[quote]"Given that the iMac uses a motherboard chipset for graphics, and the PowerMacs get the full card and higher-end options, and have faster busses and processors, etc., I don't think this is why the iMac shipped with a 2mx. They used it because it's what there was."<hr></blockquote>
How does the iMac, using motherboard chipsets for graphics, preclude it from using a Geforce 4mx? As for using "what there was", then why didn't Apple use the Radeon 7500 like the low end pro line? Why has the iMac always been a notch down from the Pro line? I really don't see why you don't believe this is intentional. The history of what graphics chip was available demonstrates Apple's intentions through the iMac history.
Steve
<strong>"This is because Apple doesn't seriously push games. "</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, Apple doesn't push games very hard. To their credit, they have come a long way in recent years. Still, I would agree they stop short of what is necessary.
[quote]"Give it a rest already. the current iMacs(Heck. in their day. even the Rage 128 ones) can handle nearly any game you throw at them with ease. " <hr></blockquote>
Have you actually used an iMac? I have one and can easily contradict that last statement. The iMac does just fine with the lesser demanding games, but any game that goes into the "hardcore" such as Q3, UT, etc. you have to dumb down all of the graphics options, particularly the texture quality, just to get somewhat playable frame rates. I can't play Myth3 at all on my iMac DV/SE 500. It's just way to slow on that machine, but it does fairly well on other popular games such as StarCraft and even Tony Hawk II skateboarding. Basically, each game is a case by case basis. The (G3 based iMacs) were nice machines, but they generally choked on many games performance wise.
[quote]"This thing would get pounded in a second by the market. if Apple wants to poke at the console market. they'd need to make a serious, difficult to top, unique and competitive effort like what I outlined." <hr></blockquote>
I'm not debating whether or not I think Apple would be successful or not in the console market. I'm strictly speaking in terms of what Apple could do hardware wise to produce an affordable gaming machine that would be competitive performance wise.
[quote]Idealy. it would be like in the golden days. when the 320x240 graphics with synthetic sounds. on that _other_ platform just couldn't hold a candle to the Macintosh(Especially once the 8-bit color, stereophonic Mac II arrived). and plus most cutting edge games(MS Flight simulator, Colony, SimCity, Vette!, Deja vu and on and on. ah. the good old days…
I agree. Sadly, those days are over. You're right, there used to be a time where the Mac version of the games were higher quality, mainly because the Mac didn't have a resolution as low as the PC. Unfortunately, the days of superior quality games are over. We're just lucky if we get the same games, period.
Unfortunately, the cost of Mac only development for games is just hard to justify. The cost of building an A-list game is considered to be greater than the sales would ever recover. However, it just may be one of those things that's necessary for platform growth.
Steve
<strong>Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless Apple updates the graphics on the pro line, they won't touch the graphics on the iMac line. Care to make a friendly wager on that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>How does the iMac, using motherboard chipsets for graphics, preclude it from using a Geforce 4mx? As for using "what there was", then why didn't Apple use the Radeon 7500 like the low end pro line? Why has the iMac always been a notch down from the Pro line? I really don't see why you don't believe this is intentional. The history of what graphics chip was available demonstrates Apple's intentions through the iMac history.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What on earth are you talking about???
The GeForce4 MX and the the GeForce4 Titanuim premiered directly alongside each other. if you stuck a GeForce4 MX in the new iMac(Probably one of the "Special" configurations. heck. they did it before with the Rage 128 Ultra). then you could just use the GeForce4 Titanuim BTO AGP(As well as the capability to buy it's descendents and their rivals later on) as a temptation to get a PowerMac instead of an iMac.
Eric,
<strong>
What on earth are you talking about???
The GeForce4 MX and the the GeForce4 Titanuim premiered directly alongside each other. if you stuck a GeForce4 MX in the new iMac(Probably one of the "Special" configurations. heck. they did it before with the Rage 128 Ultra). then you </strong> <hr></blockquote>
Yes, I agree that Apple could put something better in a special addition iMac. However, only if it doesn't compete with the Pro line. You're forgetting that when Apple put the 16MB Rage Ultras in the iMac Special addition, the Pro line had the Geforce 2mx in them. Likewise, even at that point in time, the iMacs were a generation behind!!! Your point does not contradict what I said!
[quote]<strong>could just use the GeForce4 Titanuim BTO AGP(As well as the capability to buy it's descendents and their rivals later on) as a temptation to get a PowerMac instead of an iMac.
Eric, </strong> <hr></blockquote>
If you're asking me if I think this is a good idea, I'd say yes. Historically, Apple has never done this with their iMac and Pro lines. Likewise, I have no reason to believe they will start now.
I obviously have no insider knowledge as to what Apple will do. However, I do have a historical knowledge of what Apple has done. What I'm saying is consistent with Apple's history in this regard. What you and Amorph have suggested is not consistent with Apple's history. Apple is obviously free to do whatever it wants. However, what they can do and what they are most likely to do are two different things.
Steve
<strong>You're right, Apple doesn't push games very hard. To their credit, they have come a long way in recent years. Still, I would agree they stop short of what is necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Have you actually used an iMac? I have one and can easily contradict that last statement. The iMac does just fine with the lesser demanding games, but any game that goes into the "hardcore" such as Q3, UT, etc. you have to dumb down all of the graphics options, particularly the texture quality, just to get somewhat playable frame rates. I can't play Myth3 at all on my iMac DV/SE 500. It's just way to slow on that machine, but it does fairly well on other popular games such as StarCraft and even Tony Hawk II skateboarding. Basically, each game is a case by case basis. The (G3 based iMacs) were nice machines, but they generally choked on many games performance wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. I was using a 400Mhz Rev D Strawberry iMac DV and later a 450Mhz Rev E Ruby iMac DV+(My dad's favorite color is red. so he just bought the strawberry one because it was the closest to red until the ruby iMac came out. we bought both iMac's as servers. but the guy that set them up as servers didn't come for a while. so I just used them to see just how fast "New World" Macs were and try out OS X until then). I didn't have to turn off hardly anything in Quake 3 and UT and Deus Ex(And these were with the un-tuned demos). Myth 3 wasn't out then. so I wouldn't know. Descent 3 worked just dandy aside from if I turned up the bezier-based outdoor landscapes to "High". and anything else I threw at either iMac seemed to work to perfection. the _very_ worst thing I ever had to do was switch to 16-bit graphics in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. and that's an extreme example. I think the old iMacs(The ones with Rage 128 that is?) packed plenty of punch and then some for the games of their day. as well as the capability to run a good portion of today's games with decency. and the new iMacs look like they'll continue to hold this mantle with gusto.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I'm not debating whether or not I think Apple would be successful or not in the console market. I'm strictly speaking in terms of what Apple could do hardware wise to produce an affordable gaming machine that would be competitive performance wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the biggest thing Apple could do is ink a deal with Creative, Philips, Yamaha etc. as the Macintosh's audio really hasn't been up to snuff since Wing Commander IV(Unquestionably one of the best games ever made) came out.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I agree. Sadly, those days are over. You're right, there used to be a time where the Mac version of the games were higher quality, mainly because the Mac didn't have a resolution as low as the PC. Unfortunately, the days of superior quality games are over. We're just lucky if we get the same games, period.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. it's very tragic and depressing. but it didn't have to be that way. read the part of <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001359&p="; target="_blank">this thread</a> where I point out Apple's past advantage of easily recognizable superiority and criticise Apple's jump to PCI, ATA etc. if Apple took up the old standard again. they might just be able to break their self-forged shackles of submission and compliance(Bring up your browser's search function and punch in the word "Quadra" to skip down to the relevant part).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Unfortunately, the cost of Mac only development for games is just hard to justify. The cost of building an A-list game is considered to be greater than the sales would ever recover. However, it just may be one of those things that's necessary for platform growth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Definitely. but I was using the game console as a way to sweeten up the Macintosh for platform exclusive A-list titles. I think it would work beautifully.
Eric,
<strong>Yes, I agree that Apple could put something better in a special addition iMac. However, only if it doesn't compete with the Pro line. You're forgetting that when Apple put the 16MB Rage Ultras in the iMac Special addition, the Pro line had the Geforce 2mx in them. Likewise, even at that point in time, the iMacs were a generation behind!!! Your point does not contradict what I said!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it does. the GeForce4 Titanuim is there now just like the Geforce2 MX was there then.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>If you're asking me if I think this is a good idea, I'd say yes. Historically, Apple has never done this with their iMac and Pro lines. Likewise, I have no reason to believe they will start now.
I obviously have no insider knowledge as to what Apple will do. However, I do have a historical knowledge of what Apple has done. What I'm saying is consistent with Apple's history in this regard. What you and Amorph have suggested is not consistent with Apple's history. Apple is obviously free to do whatever it wants. However, what they can do and what they are most likely to do are two different things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rrrr. using the GeForce4 Titanuim as a backstop against the GeForce4 MX would be just like what Apple's doing now. using the GeForce4 MX as a backstop against the GeForce2 MX. or what they were doing then. using the GeForce2 MX as a backstop against the Rage 128Pro/Ultra.
I fail to see the difference.
Eric,
I didn't vouch it going beyond 15 posts.
Hmmm.
The C64 wasn't quite the fastest processor machine of it's time. About a mhz?
The 'Spectrum' and the old (was it Apple II?) of the time beat it in mhz.
It also 3 sound channels to the Atari's 4 channel stereo. The Atari machine also had more dazzeling colour.
Yet, games are what made the c64. Had thousands of 'em. Sold ten million plus machines? It was a good alrounder. It had good sound. Great game tunes and fx. Had 8 (count 'em, to Atari of the time...) sprites to the Atari's four. Had colour graphics to the Spectrum's mono colour.
Games these days seem to be just about 3D. Both the PsII and the X-box both seem to outweigh the GameCube in the 3D dept. However, the Nintendo philosophy when it comes to games takes some beating. They certainly make id games appear very, VERY dull in terms of colour and gameplay. Alot of the PS I games looked as dull as ditch water and samey.
I smile to hear of the rumours of Raycer tech' adding extra chipset capability to give Apple machines that extra oomph and sparkle over PCs.
Makes me think back to the 'computer games machine'. (Cos I certainly didn't use my C64 for my education at the time...
I liked the pretense the the C64 was a computer! Still, the keyboard came in handy for many in and out game options! Specially playing Elite! Arggly...argle.....(Homer style drool...)
I look at the new imac and see the coolest computer (games machine, cough...ahem...) there's ever been. JUST HOW MANY CONSOLES HAVE A BUILT IN MONITOR? Apple play the games card, grudgingly these days as opposed to not at all in recent years. They have something in common with the Commodore of times past in that they don't really see their machines as being used for 'lowly' games, but bless, they're getting into the spirit of things like the dad of a bride does at the post sermon wedding disco function (Gee, dad's doing his embarrassing pelvic groove...). They have loftier notions of creative productivity. (The Amiga is alive and well? Or it soon will be if Raycer chipset goes into the next gen motherboard?!!)
Shame. As if Apple could just market one of their machines in a certain way...they'd sure have a damn fair machine for games. Maybe by the 'just for homework and productivity' trojan horse?
No? Well, that didn't stop C64 owners paying more for their Amiga! It doesn't stop PC owners paying £2,000 for their 'ultimate' rig. I know, I've had mates pay through the nose for a PC and all they play are...
Power is cheaper these days (if your a pc or console owner...sorry Apple...) Maybe you don't have to pay even £1,000 for a good games PC/console.
Hmmm. I'm looking forward to the day when the LCD's take the plunge and maybe we might see the low end NEW imac where the old imac low end is now.
I kind think (prove me wrong apple...) that they'll hang onto the Geforce 2 mx to the death like they did with the ati rage card.
I hope they adopt the geforce 4mx sooner in the imac range.
Apple's hardware is due for an internal overhaul from m/board to cpu.
The whole cpu argument is stale. It's clear Apple can't keep charging obsene dosh for out of date internals.
They're ahead of the game in Os, style...and...software...but...
They, for the premium they charge, just haven't nailed down the internals of their machine.
But heck, compared to the pre-open Gl ati card days...the current stuff if state of the art!
Apple as a 'games console'. I...don't really see it. I was never fond of 'games consoles'.
I like the keyboard that said, 'This is a computer.' (BUT, ahem, I can use it for games...cough, ahem, after I've been doing some serious work on it...
I kinda like Amorph's argument best.
But the other guys are making sense also.
I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a while. It's making me smile.
For Apple to be the 'games COMPUTER' of choice depends on many more factors than Apple just producing a 'console'.
The OS getting developers. Moto pulling their finger out. Value. Cost. Designing cool kit. Developing their own state of the art productivity suites. Making sure they still have applications developed for them. Drawing in the Unix and Java and NeXt crowds. Maybe a few Linux stragglers and Windows converts.
To me, it's accumulative. Once upon a time, the PC was just a boring two and a half colour (Yes, that's sarcasm...) computer which the Amiga beat the beejeezus out of. Yet the crude PC at the time had Battle chess? Why? Lots of bored workers in offices, I guess.
And now? Everybody's had to have W95 on a computer at home to go with their cd players.
It seems MS have gone after Sony with the Xbox.
Apple seems to have gone after Sony with the iPod.
An interesting distinction.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
"I didn't have to turn off hardly anything in Quake 3 and UT and Deus Ex(And these were with the un-tuned demos)."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, now it seems we're getting into that subjective matter of opinion thing. If you feel comfortable playing these games at an average of say 20fps, then I suppose there isn't much I can say about that. Most would agree that if don't at least average 30fps, then the choppiness of the game will negatively affect your performance. Remember, an average of 30fps means that at some parts, the game will likely dip to 10fps at times. Since my iMac is faster than the iMacs you describe, I feel quite comfortable that you did not experience better performance that I did. That said, in Q3 for example, the only way I can average 30fps is if I turn the texture quality way down. In gameplay, that means things like faces, etc. are blank. The same goes for UT, turning down the quality is not an option. Deus Ex is even worse. It's a great game, but even more demanding than UT or Q3. I don't have frame rates for that game, but it is noticably slower than UT which the engine is based on.
[quote]"I think the biggest thing Apple could do is ink a deal with Creative, Philips, Yamaha etc. as the Macintosh's audio really hasn't been up to snuff since Wing Commander IV(Unquestionably one of the best games ever made) came out."<hr></blockquote>
Actually, I don't think Apple's audio is quite as bad as it's reputation. In my opinion, the only time it sounded bad was when some games used tinny MIDI tracks that were much better handled on cards like soundblaster. Now that all sounds are digitized, I don't notice a significant difference as compared to playing on my PC with a dedicated sound card. In fact, the only thing that seems to be noticably better is the use of 3D audio. There is a difference in quality, but it isn't huge. Still, I agree that Apple should include some sort of dedicated audio chips, for better quality in games, but also to offload the CPU.
[quote]"Yes. it's very tragic and depressing. but it didn't have to be that way. read the part of this thread where I point out Apple's past advantage of easily recognizable superiority and criticise Apple's jump to PCI, ATA etc. if Apple took up the old standard again. "<hr></blockquote>
Well, I agree with the quality part, but not if it's going to cost me an extra $1000 for a machine with roughly equivalent hardware.
[quote]"Sure it does. the GeForce4 Titanuim is there now just like the Geforce2 MX was there then."<hr></blockquote>
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Nor do I see how this contradicts my claim that the iMac has always been a generation behind the Pro line in terms of graphics hardware.
The Geforce 4 Ti is the current high end chip that is available as a BTO option on the pro line. The Geforce2 MX was never a high end chip, rather it was a default low end chip for the Pro line, back when the iMacs were using Rage 128 pros. Even then, the Geforce 3 was a BTO option on the pro line. Likewise, I don't see your point.
[quote]"Rrrr. using the GeForce4 Titanuim as a backstop against the GeForce4 MX would be just like what Apple's doing now. using the GeForce4 MX as a backstop against the GeForce2 MX. or what they were doing then. using the GeForce2 MX as a backstop against the Rage 128Pro/Ultra.
I fail to see the difference."<hr></blockquote>
If you're trying to illustrate that the Geforce 4mx already has an upgrade path for Apple using existing technology (namely the Geforce 4 Ti), then I will gladly explain the difference to you.
For starters, why is there no mention of the Geforce 3 in your lineup? Answer: because it's an expensive BTO option. This is exactly what the Geforce 4 Ti is. If we're referring to nVidia chips, Apple will likely always use the lower cost MX series chips as a default, but will likely offer the Ti versions as expensive BTO options. Are you suggesting that Apple is likely to make the Geforce 4Ti the default chip for the pro line this summer, just so they can bump the iMac up to the Geforce 4mx? If so, I can tell you with 99% confidence that this just isn't going to happen. The Ti is to expensive to be a default piece of hardware.
Steve
The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.
hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.
<hr></blockquote>
i agree, why go all the way down to the living room to play a game? instead it's in my comp, open an app and throw in the game.
if you polled the xbox marketing people at MS, i don't think they'd encourage any company to try what they did, in fact, i'm sure they wished they could go back in time and nix it before it ever got started... stats show xbox sales are miserable and far below expectations.
cuss
<strong>Why not a Nintendo GameCube in a G4? Instead of a zip bay have some sort of decoder box, or a PCI card, and use the super drive to play the Game Cube minidisks. USB controllers. That kind of partnering makes more sense to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you mean like <a href="http://utenti.lycos.it/faberp/CD-IPCCARD.htm"; target="_blank">this</a> or <a href="http://utenti.lycos.it/faberp/cl3dobl.htm"; target="_blank">this</a>?
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>I mean, not everyone wants to play games in their living room.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if they do want to play games in their living room. they can buy <a href="http://www.macally.com/spec/usb/input_device/airstick.html"; target="_blank">this</a> and <a href="http://www.focusinfo.com/products/b_tview_con.htm"; target="_blank">this</a>.
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>The trick would be to make it Mac only, so that PC gamers couldn't hack the device. Nintendo could charge $200 for the add-on, so all they do is open some market share. And everything is legit, so no Sony versus GameStation fiasco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We all know how well THAT works.
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>hmm? Tear me to shreds on this one. But I'd by a G4 with a Game cube in it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not just get Nintendo to port the GameCube's OS to the Mac's Open Firmware and slide in a few shims? I suppose your way would be easier. and more platform agnostic too.
Eric,
[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
A Gamecube add on...
Keep going with your incisive posts Eric.
Entertaining stuff.
Lemon Bon Bon
:cool:
Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible. Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. If you buy a computer for games play you have to pirate a lot of games before you break-even with the cost of buying a console plus games. Imagine you buy a PC for around a thousand (to play games on). For the same money you could get a GameCube and about a dozen games. Unless you pirate the computer games, it's just more cost effective to use a console. How many games do you have to pirate to turn a mac into a cost effective gaming machine?
Now because you have to buy a computer for productive stuff, it's nice to use it for games too (while it is still current). You buy a mac for DV-editing, photoshop, music etc etc... because you like the way it lets you work. If you're lucky a nice utility comes up within a few months that lets you 'back-up' your GC or XB or PS2 games to CD or DVD, but that's about as far as consoles on computers goes. Only xBox will see the horror of inexpensive PC emulation of their console (because of the architectural similarities.)
And, as has been pointed out here, the biggest selling COMPUTER GAMES of all time are consistently the type that DO NOT require huge hardware specs. Only a VERY SMALL percentage of COMPUTER GAMERS (which are, incedentally, over-represented in fora such as these) care to play the very hardware demanding 3-d games that get most of the press. Even fewer are willing to spend thousands spec'ing out a PC that can do it at 1600x1200@100fps, because most people have better things to do with their money. Apple knows this and caters their hardware/software solution accordingly.
The wisest, most cost effective, solution for a computer user and gamer is to buy the computer platform that works best for them, and a console to play games on.
Nice post Matsu.
The fantasy side of me still would like a matt white cube without skirt and ugly vent...
It'd make a cute console. Available in aqua and strawberry flavour colours.
I'd also like to see a Chrome dome! Or a Chrome sphere! (mind you...leave that design for a G5...heck...play football with your G5 console thing...)
Mac users get to play the odd game after they get their work done.
Ah. G5. "With great power comes great responsibility..."
Lemon Bon Bon
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>My, this Apple could do a games console thing has hit a raw nerve.
I didn't vouch it going beyond 15 posts.
Hmmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I already had a pre-chewed idea. so I just lept right in. and I couldn't stand the sillier arguments being tossed at it. so I started swatting at them. and I just sort of kept going from there.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The C64 wasn't quite the fastest processor machine of it's time. About a mhz?
The 'Spectrum' and the old (was it Apple II?) of the time beat it in mhz.
It also 3 sound channels to the Atari's 4 channel stereo. The Atari machine also had more dazzeling colour.
Yet, games are what made the c64. Had thousands of 'em. Sold ten million plus machines? It was a good alrounder. It had good sound. Great game tunes and fx. Had 8 (count 'em, to Atari of the time...) sprites to the Atari's four. Had colour graphics to the Spectrum's mono colour.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda' like the Apple ][ in it's heyday. I remember the thousands of games made up something like 90% of it's software library back then?
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Games these days seem to be just about 3D. Both the PsII and the X-box both seem to outweigh the GameCube in the 3D dept. However, the Nintendo philosophy when it comes to games takes some beating. They certainly make id games appear very, VERY dull in terms of colour and gameplay. Alot of the PS I games looked as dull as ditch water and samey.
I smile to hear of the rumours of Raycer tech' adding extra chipset capability to give Apple machines that extra oomph and sparkle over PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. hardware based graphics are too easy for the next guy to one-up. if Apple wants exclusive A-list titles. Apple had better give developers a darned good reason to use their hardware. and multi-AltiVec based graphics/sound is about the best(And coolest) exclusive advantage Apple has right now. as for the three current game consoles. aside from speed(PS2, NGC and MXB respectively). they're utterly identical. Apple would need to stand out. this same principal is equally valid in the Mac vs. IBM PC war too.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Makes me think back to the 'computer games machine'. (Cos I certainly didn't use my C64 for my education at the time... )
I liked the pretense the the C64 was a computer! Still, the keyboard came in handy for many in and out game options! Specially playing Elite! Arggly...argle.....(Homer style drool...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like voice input better
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I look at the new imac and see the coolest computer (games machine, cough...ahem...) there's ever been. JUST HOW MANY CONSOLES HAVE A BUILT IN MONITOR? Apple play the games card, grudgingly these days as opposed to not at all in recent years. They have something in common with the Commodore of times past in that they don't really see their machines as being used for 'lowly' games, but bless, they're getting into the spirit of things like the dad of a bride does at the post sermon wedding disco function (Gee, dad's doing his embarrassing pelvic groove...). They have loftier notions of creative productivity. (The Amiga is alive and well? Or it soon will be if Raycer chipset goes into the next gen motherboard?!!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the big difference is that the Macintosh hasn't got _any_ advantages(Power, expandability, price, popularity, innovativeness etc?) over the other choices right now. with the exception of the best VPU in the price range(Heck. in the world for all I know). and Apple certainly isn't flaunting that. game developers or otherwise.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Shame. As if Apple could just market one of their machines in a certain way...they'd sure have a damn fair machine for games. Maybe by the 'just for homework and productivity' trojan horse? Still. The price. You wouldn't buy any machine just for games at over £1,000, would you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. like I said. Apple REALLY needs to get serious about games.(People buy "Home theaters" for five or twelve thousand dollars and more just for movies
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>No? Well, that didn't stop C64 owners paying more for their Amiga! It doesn't stop PC owners paying £2,000 for their 'ultimate' rig. I know, I've had mates pay through the nose for a PC and all they play are...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And plus. the fact of that it's a world class PC couldn't hurt. if a Macintosh already has even the slightest appeal to mom and dad. then the constant urging from their children couldn't but help point the way.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Power is cheaper these days (if your a pc or console owner...sorry Apple...) Maybe you don't have to pay even £1,000 for a good games PC/console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can custom build an £800 wintel machine that will chew up and spit out any game you give it.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Hmmm. I'm looking forward to the day when the LCD's take the plunge and maybe we might see the low end NEW imac where the old imac low end is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LCD's won't be the ones to do it. look to <a href="http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/"; target="_blank">light emitting polymers(LEPs)</a>. which can be made on anything down to _a piece of cheap dirty paper_(Although most of them will of course use good solid plastic or metal for backing
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I kind think (prove me wrong apple...) that they'll hang onto the Geforce 2 mx to the death like they did with the ati rage card.
I hope they adopt the geforce 4mx sooner in the imac range.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Apple will probably upgrade them when games that can seriously challenge a good GeForce2 MX(Why didn't they use the GeForce2 GT or Ultra?) come along. I think Doom 3 will be the definition of the new era.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Apple's hardware is due for an internal overhaul from m/board to cpu.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then some! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The whole cpu argument is stale. It's clear Apple can't keep charging obsene dosh for out of date internals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Count the days. count the minutes. count on the a PPC 8500.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>They're ahead of the game in Os, style...and...software...but...</strong><hr></blockquote>
They, for the premium they charge, just haven't nailed down the internals of their machine.[/QB]
Talk about it!
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>But heck, compared to the pre-open Gl ati card days...the current stuff if state of the art!</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least you could get one of those super cool VillageTronic 3DFX cards and blow away every PC on the block back then.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Apple as a 'games console'. I...don't really see it. I was never fond of 'games consoles'.
I like the keyboard that said, 'This is a computer.' (BUT, ahem, I can use it for games...cough, ahem, after I've been doing some serious work on it... )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Try telling that to the game developers.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>I kinda like Amorph's argument best.
But the other guys are making sense also.
I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a while. It's making me smile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing like a good fight to get the blood moving.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>For Apple to be the 'games COMPUTER' of choice depends on many more factors than Apple just producing a 'console'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not unless another plan is executed(Like my "Plan B: bring back N.I.H. and go for the throat) one for example). Apple will always be 20th best until they give game developers and game players a really good reason to choose Macintosh.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The OS getting developers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But of course.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Moto pulling their finger out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. Motorola is practically the only reason the PPC has any distinguishing features. left to IBM. it would degrade into a high Mhz. low efficiency blob of normality. what the PPC really needs is more money. 2 hours of inventory on hand be cursed. if Apple wants to sell ten million iMacs. they need to build them. right now.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Value. Cost. Designing cool kit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As always.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Developing their own state of the art productivity suites.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YEAH!
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Making sure they still have applications developed for them. Drawing in the Unix and Java and NeXt crowds. Maybe a few Linux stragglers and Windows converts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Making sure they still have LOTS of applications developed for them. what we need are programmers trained in the fine intricacies of the Macintosh. maybe Apple should make Cocoa even easier(Where are you Bill Atkinson?). and promote "Programming for The Rest of Us".
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>To me, it's accumulative. Once upon a time, the PC was just a boring two and a half colour (Yes, that's sarcasm...) computer which the Amiga beat the beejeezus out of. Yet the crude PC at the time had Battle chess? Why? Lots of bored workers in offices, I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. lot's of bored consumers that were gullible enough to own anything from IBM(Hey! I played BattleChess on my CI!).
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>And now? Everybody's had to have W95 on a computer at home to go with their cd players.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it was because comparing 3.1 and 95 was a complete joke(Too bad comparing XP and OS X isn't
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>It seems MS have gone after Sony with the Xbox.
And Nintendo too. also note their purchase of the WebTV. I think they're clearing room outside their PC domain.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
[QB]Apple seems to have gone after Sony with the iPod.
An interesting distinction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple seems to have gone after everyone that makes an MP3 player with the iPod! whenever Apple makes anything for a new(Or forgotten) market. it will stand head and shoulders above all others.
Eric,