Everyone seem to agree that even on a pc, it requires near top of the line gaming rig to play doom3 with eye-candy on with decent fps.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
The 5200 is not just entry level, an ATi 9600 is entry level. The 5200 is last year's entry level card.
Quote:
Originally posted by bitemymac
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
Even occasional gamers will be turned off by the lack of power here.
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
I'm sorry, But as a gamer I have to interject with that statement.
The console platforms that are currently out are not satisfactory for me WHAT SO EVER. The graphics look like hell on both platforms. The textures are complete crap (to optimise performance).
If the same game is available for PC... guess which platform to play on... PC!
Computers have 100 times better quality, speed, and usually sound. I play for the graphics and realism. PS2 and X-Box can NOT deliver that because of how horrible the graphics are... compared to computers.
Anyways... I suppose how hard of a gamer you are. To me I have never seen a game that is as life like as FarCry and Doom3. I love FarCry and wouldn't trade it for any other game (unless it was a motocross game).
But to get back on subject... IDSoftware would be foolish to cut support for the g5 iMac... will it look as good as a 1200 dollar pc?? Not even close. Will it run? Yes, but I wouldn't want to play it. Expect about 20-30fps on 800x600 with the lowest possible settings.
The 5200 is not just entry level, an ATi 9600 is entry level. The 5200 is last year's entry level card.
Uh... entry level for what? It is entry level for all iMacs, PowerMac dual 1.8 rev b, and PowerMac dual 2.0 rev b. The 9600xt is ONLY offered in the dual 2.5.
Uh... entry level for what? It is entry level for all iMacs, PowerMac dual 1.8 rev b, and PowerMac dual 2.0 rev b. The 9600xt is ONLY offered in the dual 2.5.
I'm sorry, I should've assumed some wouldn't know hardware terms.
Entry level means "low end," basically. The 5200 is probably on the verge of discontinuation.
Everyone seem to agree that even on a pc, it requires near top of the line gaming rig to play doom3 with eye-candy on with decent fps.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
Whether the GPU on a imac is upgradeable or not, one is not being fair judging how imac should peform.
Simple question of whether imac can run doom3, which I think it will, but with all the eye candy, I would doubt. However, you would expect poor doom3 performance from a consumer line pc with onboard GPU, but why is new imac's gaming performance being measured to the high end pc?...
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
If one had asked a similar question regarding doom3 performance on the consumerline dell pc from a game enthusiast's board, one will be laughed at for sure.
So, what's the point?
Can a consumer line pc run doom3?....... probably....
Can a consumer line pc run doom3 with eye candy at kick ass resolution?..... no!...
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
You haven't done much PC shopping, have you?
$1,229
Processor/Display
Pentium® 4 Processor 540 with HT Technology (3.20GHz, 800 FSB)
Operating System
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2
Video Card
128MB PCI Express? x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon? X300 SE
Memory
FREE UPGRADE! 1GB2 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x512M)
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service3,and Tech Support plus Nights and Weekends
Dimension 8400
XP Home, Faster Processor, 160GB Hard Drive & 3 year Service
No fancy footwork required. No customizing. This is just what is being offered right now that is closest to the entry level iMac price. Seems to me it will game just fine. Now, try pricing one nearer the mid and high end iMac price range. Also, some of you still pretend that we have processor parity with the PC. No way does a 1.6 G5 get in the same arena as a 3.2 P4 HT monster. It is one thing to say that the iMac is crap for gaming. It is disinformation to suggest that a PC at a comparable price point is just as crippled. Let's keep this discussion somewhere in the realm of reality. The low end consumer PCs you speak of start at $499 including monitor. Those are not to be compared with iMacs.
The X300 SE isn't a better card than the 5200... so I wouldn't say that machine would game great... the X300 is basically a 9200 converted to PCI-Express from AGP.
The X300 SE isn't a better card than the 5200... so I wouldn't say that machine would game great... the X300 is basically a 9200 converted to PCI-Express from AGP.
Quibbles. That CPU is twice the processor and the system costs less than the entry iMac. Add just a little more to the price and you have a kickin gaming system. Again I say that entry level PCs are not gaming machines but they are also in the $499 price range. When you compare Apples to apple, PCs in the iMacs price range do game quite well. You have to get well into PM territory to compare to a $1500 PC for gaming power.
(long post dissing PC's as a games platform, dissing FPS's, praising consoles and Halo)
...
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
I swear, one of these days I will write an article about the difference of a console and a gaming PC and put it on the intarweb, so whenever the subject comes up I'll just link to the article.
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. PC's are good for more than RTS and FPS. Consoles are generally abysmal at those two genres, simulation, heavy RPG, strategy, network gaming, and there is no possibility of game mods or freeware/shareware/indie games. PC gaming has spawned an international pro gaming community, consoles have no such thing. Both RTS and FPS have huge potential beyond where they stand now. There are much more than three or four good games coming out for PC's every year. In my two-hour test, single player Halo was boring enough I stopped playing - and I like the FPS genre in general.
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. PC's are good for more than RTS and FPS. Consoles are generally abysmal at those two genres, simulation, heavy RPG, strategy, network gaming, and there is no possibility of game mods or freeware/shareware/indie games.
By the way, the top selling game franchises of all time are all entirely for the PC.
The Sims, I believe is number 1.
I've read tons of articles about the downfall of PC gaming.. when will the idiots give up? I can have my TV, my word processor, my calculator, my everything all in a box. Why would I pay $200 on an Xbox when $200 extra invested in my computer will allow it to play more games which are more diverse and better.
Besides, console game makers have this nasty habit of leaving bugs in their games pass release. On a PC, you could simply install a patch, on a console, you bend over and take it in the butt.
By the way, the top selling game franchises of all time are all entirely for the PC.
The Sims, I believe is number 1.
I've read tons of articles about the downfall of PC gaming.. when will the idiots give up? I can have my TV, my word processor, my calculator, my everything all in a box. Why would I pay $200 on an Xbox when $200 extra invested in my computer will allow it to play more games which are more diverse and better.
Besides, console game makers have this nasty habit of leaving bugs in their games pass release. On a PC, you could simply install a patch, on a console, you bend over and take it in the butt.
That's something I don't understand either. Computers are becoming less of a luxury item. Everyone pretty much has and needs a computer nowadays, or else people look at you weird. It could still be considered a luxury to own one but much less so than a game console.
A game console *is* a luxury item. No one *needs* it per se. People that buy a console most likely have a computer somewhere in the house. I don't have any statistics on this but I'd be willing to bet that most people that own a console also own a computer because the computer is almost essential today while a console isn't.
Someone that buys a console before a computer probably needs to set some priorities straight.
With that in mind and the fact that computers do run games and much better and with many more options than a console, how can consoles be so popular and how can people claim PC gaming is dead?
I think it's the other way around...it may not happen today or tomorrow but I'm thinking the console market is going to suffer the same fate as the arcade market.
Arcades died when consoles offered the same fun but at home. Consoles are going to die because computers do the same thing, only better (like slughead mentioned...patches, higher res graphics, multiplayer that doesn't suck, more options, more input device support (mouse and keyboard for FPS and RTS plz, thx.)
The few advantages consoles provide aren't even advantages to the consumer...they're advantages to the developers who basically get it easy because they only need to code for one platform with fixed specs. This allows them to crank out games at a faster pace because less testing is needed and less options need to be put in (no need to change screen resolution, or graphics options, etc.)
Computers are a mess when it comes to that...but they're getting better. ATI and nVidia are releasing new cards less and less often. And Intel, AMD and IBM have hit a wall also, leading me to believe new CPUs will also be released less rapidly. This should allow game developers make their games work on a smaller number of CPUs and GPUs.
The Sims is the best selling _PC_ game, so not much use there. Ive found a top twenty list, its from last year, but I dont think it will have changed too much,
"Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
"Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
"Combat" for Atari 2600: 20 million units
"Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
"Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
"Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
"Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
"Pac-Man" for Atari 2600: 10 million units
"The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
"Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
The Sims is the best selling _PC_ game, so not much use there. Ive found a top twenty list, its from last year, but I dont think it will have changed too much,
I said game "franchises."
It's kind of funny, the Sims is basically a game where you play with dolls, so each expansion (and the sequel), however minute the changes, always become number one sellers for a while.
It's kind of like barbie collectors when mattel introduces one with a new hat or something.
The Sims is the best selling _PC_ game, so not much use there. Ive found a top twenty list, its from last year, but I dont think it will have changed too much,
"Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
"Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
"Combat" for Atari 2600: 20 million units
"Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
"Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
"Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
"Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
"Pac-Man" for Atari 2600: 10 million units
"The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
"Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
I cant vouch for its accuracy, Im surprised Starcraft isnt on the list.
Some of those games were bundled with consoles so it doesn't surprise me. Other games have been around since forever, so that doesn't surprise me either.
Arcades died when consoles offered the same fun but at home. Consoles are going to die because computers do the same thing, only better (like slughead mentioned...patches, higher res graphics, multiplayer that doesn't suck, more options, more input device support (mouse and keyboard for FPS and RTS plz, thx.)
The few advantages consoles provide aren't even advantages to the consumer...they're advantages to the developers who basically get it easy because they only need to code for one platform with fixed specs. This allows them to crank out games at a faster pace because less testing is needed and less options need to be put in (no need to change screen resolution, or graphics options, etc.)
Media center PC's and consoles will eventually push into each others' market space. This can end up "killing the console", but the two are going to melt together anyway - what's left will look like a console and act much like a console. The difference isn't big even now. An XBox is a standardized PC you have to hack before running media center functionality.
Your one inch thick PowerBook doesn't have it's guts situated behind the display.
I'm not following you here. The PB has a battery and keyboard fitted in a chassis half as thick as the iMac. If we assume the space taken by those two is offsetted by the larger enclosure of the G5 and full-sized HD, that still leaves a volume equivalent to the total size of the PB that can be used for cooling systems. Furthermore, factor in that the iMac is significantly bigger in size than its screen, and even the 15" PB can manage to cool the Radeon 9700, compared to the baseline 17" iMac.
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service3,and Tech Support plus Nights and Weekends
Dimension 8400
XP Home, Faster Processor, 160GB Hard Drive & 3 year Service
No fancy footwork required. No customizing. This is just what is being offered right now that is closest to the entry level iMac price. Seems to me it will game just fine. Now, try pricing one nearer the mid and high end iMac price range. Also, some of you still pretend that we have processor parity with the PC. No way does a 1.6 G5 get in the same arena as a 3.2 P4 HT monster. It is one thing to say that the iMac is crap for gaming. It is disinformation to suggest that a PC at a comparable price point is just as crippled. Let's keep this discussion somewhere in the realm of reality. The low end consumer PCs you speak of start at $499 including monitor. Those are not to be compared with iMacs.
The quoted dell box isn't an entry level and this system would still have hard time playing doom3 unless you spend another $250 to $500 on a graphic card.
the entry level you've quoted at $499 + equivalent 17" LCD for another $350 + anti spyware $30 + anti-virus $49 (that is always outdated), and i can go on forever with the list, but that's not the point.........
it doesn't matter how you put it, any entry level PC with similar quality and capacity of computing will cost about $1000. This is still cheaper, but I woudn't change such a pc system with an iMac for extra $300, would you? I would however be willing to pay $300 to get an iMac if someone offered a such deal with my entry level pc.
You have to realized that it's not just a computing box..... It's and iMac!......
Just as much desire to have iPod over any of dell mp3 players...... Why?...
Because you can't place a price over the user experience and quality.
Comments
Originally posted by bitemymac
Everyone seem to agree that even on a pc, it requires near top of the line gaming rig to play doom3 with eye-candy on with decent fps.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
The 5200 is not just entry level, an ATi 9600 is entry level. The 5200 is last year's entry level card.
Originally posted by bitemymac
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
Even occasional gamers will be turned off by the lack of power here.
Originally posted by Matsu
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
I'm sorry, But as a gamer I have to interject with that statement.
The console platforms that are currently out are not satisfactory for me WHAT SO EVER. The graphics look like hell on both platforms. The textures are complete crap (to optimise performance).
If the same game is available for PC... guess which platform to play on... PC!
Computers have 100 times better quality, speed, and usually sound. I play for the graphics and realism. PS2 and X-Box can NOT deliver that because of how horrible the graphics are... compared to computers.
Anyways... I suppose how hard of a gamer you are. To me I have never seen a game that is as life like as FarCry and Doom3. I love FarCry and wouldn't trade it for any other game (unless it was a motocross game).
But to get back on subject... IDSoftware would be foolish to cut support for the g5 iMac... will it look as good as a 1200 dollar pc?? Not even close. Will it run? Yes, but I wouldn't want to play it. Expect about 20-30fps on 800x600 with the lowest possible settings.
Originally posted by slughead
The 5200 is not just entry level, an ATi 9600 is entry level. The 5200 is last year's entry level card.
Uh... entry level for what? It is entry level for all iMacs, PowerMac dual 1.8 rev b, and PowerMac dual 2.0 rev b. The 9600xt is ONLY offered in the dual 2.5.
Originally posted by emig647
Uh... entry level for what? It is entry level for all iMacs, PowerMac dual 1.8 rev b, and PowerMac dual 2.0 rev b. The 9600xt is ONLY offered in the dual 2.5.
I'm sorry, I should've assumed some wouldn't know hardware terms.
Entry level means "low end," basically. The 5200 is probably on the verge of discontinuation.
Originally posted by bitemymac
Everyone seem to agree that even on a pc, it requires near top of the line gaming rig to play doom3 with eye-candy on with decent fps.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
Whether the GPU on a imac is upgradeable or not, one is not being fair judging how imac should peform.
Simple question of whether imac can run doom3, which I think it will, but with all the eye candy, I would doubt. However, you would expect poor doom3 performance from a consumer line pc with onboard GPU, but why is new imac's gaming performance being measured to the high end pc?...
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
If one had asked a similar question regarding doom3 performance on the consumerline dell pc from a game enthusiast's board, one will be laughed at for sure.
So, what's the point?
Can a consumer line pc run doom3?....... probably....
Can a consumer line pc run doom3 with eye candy at kick ass resolution?..... no!...
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
You haven't done much PC shopping, have you?
$1,229
Processor/Display
Pentium® 4 Processor 540 with HT Technology (3.20GHz, 800 FSB)
Operating System
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2
Video Card
128MB PCI Express? x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon? X300 SE
Memory
FREE UPGRADE! 1GB2 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x512M)
Hard Drive
160GB2 Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Monitor
FREE UPGRADE! New
17 in E173FP Flat Panel Display
CD ROM/DVD ROM
Dual Drives: 16x DVD + FREE UPGRADE! 16x DVD+RW/+R w/ dbl layer write
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service3,and Tech Support plus Nights and Weekends
Dimension 8400
XP Home, Faster Processor, 160GB Hard Drive & 3 year Service
No fancy footwork required. No customizing. This is just what is being offered right now that is closest to the entry level iMac price. Seems to me it will game just fine. Now, try pricing one nearer the mid and high end iMac price range. Also, some of you still pretend that we have processor parity with the PC. No way does a 1.6 G5 get in the same arena as a 3.2 P4 HT monster. It is one thing to say that the iMac is crap for gaming. It is disinformation to suggest that a PC at a comparable price point is just as crippled. Let's keep this discussion somewhere in the realm of reality. The low end consumer PCs you speak of start at $499 including monitor. Those are not to be compared with iMacs.
Originally posted by slughead
I'm sorry, I should've assumed some wouldn't know hardware terms.
Entry level means "low end," basically. The 5200 is probably on the verge of discontinuation.
Sorry just read what you wrote wrong... I could have read it 10 different ways looking back.
Originally posted by emig647
The X300 SE isn't a better card than the 5200... so I wouldn't say that machine would game great... the X300 is basically a 9200 converted to PCI-Express from AGP.
Quibbles. That CPU is twice the processor and the system costs less than the entry iMac. Add just a little more to the price and you have a kickin gaming system. Again I say that entry level PCs are not gaming machines but they are also in the $499 price range. When you compare Apples to apple, PCs in the iMacs price range do game quite well. You have to get well into PM territory to compare to a $1500 PC for gaming power.
Originally posted by Matsu
(long post dissing PC's as a games platform, dissing FPS's, praising consoles and Halo)
...
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
I swear, one of these days I will write an article about the difference of a console and a gaming PC and put it on the intarweb, so whenever the subject comes up I'll just link to the article.
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. PC's are good for more than RTS and FPS. Consoles are generally abysmal at those two genres, simulation, heavy RPG, strategy, network gaming, and there is no possibility of game mods or freeware/shareware/indie games. PC gaming has spawned an international pro gaming community, consoles have no such thing. Both RTS and FPS have huge potential beyond where they stand now. There are much more than three or four good games coming out for PC's every year. In my two-hour test, single player Halo was boring enough I stopped playing - and I like the FPS genre in general.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
You have to get well into PM territory to compare to a $1500 PC for gaming power.
That's certainly true.
All the parts in my PC are as follows:
Case and PSU: Antec 450 Watt $100
Mobo : Asus A7N8X Deluxe $70
Processor: Athlon XP 3200 (400 FSB) $115
RAM : 1GB Corsair $155
Video Card: GeForce 6800 GT $350
Hard Drives: Dual SATA 80 GB (in RAID) $120
CD-ROM: generic 52x $30
Windows 2000 Pro: $90
The mobo has 1000baseT port, an extra 100baseT port, hardware SATA RAID, 5.1 surround sound, 2 firewire 400 ports, and 6 USB 2.0 slots.
And the total is:
$1,030
Heck, with some bigger hard drives this thing could run a pretty kickin Http/mysql/php server.
Originally posted by Gon
I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. PC's are good for more than RTS and FPS. Consoles are generally abysmal at those two genres, simulation, heavy RPG, strategy, network gaming, and there is no possibility of game mods or freeware/shareware/indie games.
By the way, the top selling game franchises of all time are all entirely for the PC.
The Sims, I believe is number 1.
I've read tons of articles about the downfall of PC gaming.. when will the idiots give up? I can have my TV, my word processor, my calculator, my everything all in a box. Why would I pay $200 on an Xbox when $200 extra invested in my computer will allow it to play more games which are more diverse and better.
Besides, console game makers have this nasty habit of leaving bugs in their games pass release. On a PC, you could simply install a patch, on a console, you bend over and take it in the butt.
Originally posted by slughead
By the way, the top selling game franchises of all time are all entirely for the PC.
The Sims, I believe is number 1.
I've read tons of articles about the downfall of PC gaming.. when will the idiots give up? I can have my TV, my word processor, my calculator, my everything all in a box. Why would I pay $200 on an Xbox when $200 extra invested in my computer will allow it to play more games which are more diverse and better.
Besides, console game makers have this nasty habit of leaving bugs in their games pass release. On a PC, you could simply install a patch, on a console, you bend over and take it in the butt.
That's something I don't understand either. Computers are becoming less of a luxury item. Everyone pretty much has and needs a computer nowadays, or else people look at you weird. It could still be considered a luxury to own one but much less so than a game console.
A game console *is* a luxury item. No one *needs* it per se. People that buy a console most likely have a computer somewhere in the house. I don't have any statistics on this but I'd be willing to bet that most people that own a console also own a computer because the computer is almost essential today while a console isn't.
Someone that buys a console before a computer probably needs to set some priorities straight.
With that in mind and the fact that computers do run games and much better and with many more options than a console, how can consoles be so popular and how can people claim PC gaming is dead?
I think it's the other way around...it may not happen today or tomorrow but I'm thinking the console market is going to suffer the same fate as the arcade market.
Arcades died when consoles offered the same fun but at home. Consoles are going to die because computers do the same thing, only better (like slughead mentioned...patches, higher res graphics, multiplayer that doesn't suck, more options, more input device support (mouse and keyboard for FPS and RTS plz, thx.)
The few advantages consoles provide aren't even advantages to the consumer...they're advantages to the developers who basically get it easy because they only need to code for one platform with fixed specs. This allows them to crank out games at a faster pace because less testing is needed and less options need to be put in (no need to change screen resolution, or graphics options, etc.)
Computers are a mess when it comes to that...but they're getting better. ATI and nVidia are releasing new cards less and less often. And Intel, AMD and IBM have hit a wall also, leading me to believe new CPUs will also be released less rapidly. This should allow game developers make their games work on a smaller number of CPUs and GPUs.
"Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
"Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
"Combat" for Atari 2600: 20 million units
"Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
"Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
"Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
"Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
"Pac-Man" for Atari 2600: 10 million units
"The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
"Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
"GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units
"Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
"Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
"Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
"Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units
"Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
"Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
"Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
"Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
"Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units
"Pitfall 1" for Atari 2600 : 6 million units
http://www.ownt.com/qtakes/2003/game...gamestats.shtm
I cant vouch for its accuracy, Im surprised Starcraft isnt on the list.
Originally posted by mmmpie
The Sims is the best selling _PC_ game, so not much use there. Ive found a top twenty list, its from last year, but I dont think it will have changed too much,
I said game "franchises."
It's kind of funny, the Sims is basically a game where you play with dolls, so each expansion (and the sequel), however minute the changes, always become number one sellers for a while.
It's kind of like barbie collectors when mattel introduces one with a new hat or something.
Originally posted by mmmpie
The Sims is the best selling _PC_ game, so not much use there. Ive found a top twenty list, its from last year, but I dont think it will have changed too much,
"Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
"Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
"Combat" for Atari 2600: 20 million units
"Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
"Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
"Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
"Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
"Pac-Man" for Atari 2600: 10 million units
"The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
"Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
"GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units
"Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
"Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
"Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
"Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units
"Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
"Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
"Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
"Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
"Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units
"Pitfall 1" for Atari 2600 : 6 million units
http://www.ownt.com/qtakes/2003/game...gamestats.shtm
I cant vouch for its accuracy, Im surprised Starcraft isnt on the list.
Some of those games were bundled with consoles so it doesn't surprise me. Other games have been around since forever, so that doesn't surprise me either.
Dragon Warrior VII surprises me though...
http://www.tenthousandpercent.com/viewtopic.php?t=160
at least 3 in the top 10 for 2 months
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Arcades died when consoles offered the same fun but at home. Consoles are going to die because computers do the same thing, only better (like slughead mentioned...patches, higher res graphics, multiplayer that doesn't suck, more options, more input device support (mouse and keyboard for FPS and RTS plz, thx.)
The few advantages consoles provide aren't even advantages to the consumer...they're advantages to the developers who basically get it easy because they only need to code for one platform with fixed specs. This allows them to crank out games at a faster pace because less testing is needed and less options need to be put in (no need to change screen resolution, or graphics options, etc.)
Media center PC's and consoles will eventually push into each others' market space. This can end up "killing the console", but the two are going to melt together anyway - what's left will look like a console and act much like a console. The difference isn't big even now. An XBox is a standardized PC you have to hack before running media center functionality.
Originally posted by Ra
Your one inch thick PowerBook doesn't have it's guts situated behind the display.
I'm not following you here. The PB has a battery and keyboard fitted in a chassis half as thick as the iMac. If we assume the space taken by those two is offsetted by the larger enclosure of the G5 and full-sized HD, that still leaves a volume equivalent to the total size of the PB that can be used for cooling systems. Furthermore, factor in that the iMac is significantly bigger in size than its screen, and even the 15" PB can manage to cool the Radeon 9700, compared to the baseline 17" iMac.
"Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
How many of those were in the Performa 630/6200 bundle?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
You haven't done much PC shopping, have you?
$1,229
Processor/Display
Pentium® 4 Processor 540 with HT Technology (3.20GHz, 800 FSB)
Operating System
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2
Video Card
128MB PCI Express? x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon? X300 SE
Memory
FREE UPGRADE! 1GB2 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x512M)
Hard Drive
160GB2 Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Monitor
FREE UPGRADE! New
17 in E173FP Flat Panel Display
CD ROM/DVD ROM
Dual Drives: 16x DVD + FREE UPGRADE! 16x DVD+RW/+R w/ dbl layer write
Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service3,and Tech Support plus Nights and Weekends
Dimension 8400
XP Home, Faster Processor, 160GB Hard Drive & 3 year Service
No fancy footwork required. No customizing. This is just what is being offered right now that is closest to the entry level iMac price. Seems to me it will game just fine. Now, try pricing one nearer the mid and high end iMac price range. Also, some of you still pretend that we have processor parity with the PC. No way does a 1.6 G5 get in the same arena as a 3.2 P4 HT monster. It is one thing to say that the iMac is crap for gaming. It is disinformation to suggest that a PC at a comparable price point is just as crippled. Let's keep this discussion somewhere in the realm of reality. The low end consumer PCs you speak of start at $499 including monitor. Those are not to be compared with iMacs.
The quoted dell box isn't an entry level and this system would still have hard time playing doom3 unless you spend another $250 to $500 on a graphic card.
the entry level you've quoted at $499 + equivalent 17" LCD for another $350 + anti spyware $30 + anti-virus $49 (that is always outdated), and i can go on forever with the list, but that's not the point.........
it doesn't matter how you put it, any entry level PC with similar quality and capacity of computing will cost about $1000. This is still cheaper, but I woudn't change such a pc system with an iMac for extra $300, would you? I would however be willing to pay $300 to get an iMac if someone offered a such deal with my entry level pc.
You have to realized that it's not just a computing box..... It's and iMac!......
Just as much desire to have iPod over any of dell mp3 players...... Why?...
Because you can't place a price over the user experience and quality.