Apple Gaming Industry
All
I am switching over to APPLE from the Windows world. I am looking at purchasing a laptop and am considering the factors of gaming in the apple world.
Will the INTEL Apple's be more freindly for game programmers to produce more games? If this is the case I will hold out for the INTEL laptops rather than purchase the existing model.
Thanks
DUTCH
I am switching over to APPLE from the Windows world. I am looking at purchasing a laptop and am considering the factors of gaming in the apple world.
Will the INTEL Apple's be more freindly for game programmers to produce more games? If this is the case I will hold out for the INTEL laptops rather than purchase the existing model.
Thanks
DUTCH
Comments
Even if the Mactel laptops are faster, the games simply might not be available to run on them. I'd expect it to be well into 2007 before there are any reasonable amount of games that will run on the new Intel machines.
The Intel macs will definitely be more friendly to the PC games, so i would definitely hold out until then. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a PPC now because it'll take 1-2 years for a Macintel laptop to finally make the scene.
Originally posted by g3pro
What the heck are you talking about? The game devs are enthusiastic about the porting to intel because of how few optimizations they have to do. PowerPC is a bitch for optimization.
The Intel macs will definitely be more friendly to the PC games, so i would definitely hold out until then. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a PPC now because it'll take 1-2 years for a Macintel laptop to finally make the scene.
Yeah I'm sure they're really enthusiastic about creating yet another version of their software for a small fraction of an already small market. There will undoubtedly be benefits several years down the road, but if you want to run the most games of, say, the 2005-2006 period, you'll get a PowerPC Mac. If you get an Intel Mac, you're taking the risk that companies won't start releasing universal binaries of all their games right away, not to mention previously-released games (I wouldn't count on Rosetta in this case). There's even a serious risk of game developers saying "screw it," at least during this transition, and slowing down on Mac games.
The only short-term benefit for games will be if you can run PC games on your Intel Mac. But it's absurd to suggest that developers are happy about having to make sure their games can run on both PowerPC and Intel Macs.
... and as statements on the Mac/ platform currently stand, that Windows and its software will run on the Mac/ machines, this really should be the best option for you.
My guess is though that there will be MANY Begars and Whiners, not to different from what you may see around here, that will desired the old days of PPC and thus...
... if you bought a cheap MACchine now and planned to sell it in a year to move to one of the Intel MACchines the resale value will probably hold up well.
Originally posted by g3pro
What the heck are you talking about? The game devs are enthusiastic about the porting to intel because of how few optimizations they have to do. PowerPC is a bitch for optimization.
Yes, the guys at Worlds of Warcraft had something "quasi"-working during WWDC. Take a look at this site. Scroll down and look at post #25.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...ort&t=1323&p=2
If I were a delevoper, publisher or porter of Mac games, I'd start planning a way out now. If you guys don't think that Mac-gaming will be killed by dual-booting (OS X + XP) Macs, you are dreaming...
does't seem so drastic.
am guessing its a great thing for games by moving to intel, especially considering a brand new top of the line $3k+ Powermac can barely handle Doom3- which really is only the first step in the coming onslaught of 'next gen' graphic games.
Hopefully the move to Intel will sweep most of the hardware and software issues with running games on OSX aside.
As for the switch to Intel chips causing developers to avoid writing programs for MacOS, only time will tell, but all that will have really changed is the brains of the computer. If anything I suspect that Apple is likely to continue expanding marketshare. I for one can hardly wait to see the new generation of pro laptops designed by Apple and running on Yonah.
Originally posted by hardhead
Let's look at this soberly and without any "fanboism".
If I were a delevoper, publisher or porter of Mac games, I'd start planning a way out now. If you guys don't think that Mac-gaming will be killed by dual-booting (OS X + XP) Macs, you are dreaming...
I don't think dual booting will be as common as people are thinking. Apple isn't going to be supporting it. Odds are apple will be getting their own hardware still... that a lot of the PC world won't have. This means that unless someone writes a driver for the motherboard chipset... you're going to see some lowsy performance on the windows side.
Imagine a developer thinking: should I write a game for the G5/Cell on XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution, or the few people who play games on x86? Most developers are always choosing the former.
Originally posted by hardhead
Let's look at this soberly and without any "fanboism".
If I were a delevoper, publisher or porter of Mac games, I'd start planning a way out now. If you guys don't think that Mac-gaming will be killed by dual-booting (OS X + XP) Macs, you are dreaming...
I think you're the one that's dreaming. I doubt more than maybe 10% of users will dual boot, if even that. I know I sure won't, no need too. Maybe if the game-makers included a copy of XP with each game, that could hypothetically work, but that won't happen, just like game devs requiring people to dual boot to run their games won't happen.
I'm just continually surprised by how much serious gamers spend on their computers, when they could have a perfectly optimized console with just as many games to choose from for so much less. Is it because PC games are easier to pirate? Or are there certain games where the PC does offer a better experience?
Originally posted by spyder
I think you're the one that's dreaming. I doubt more than maybe 10% of users will dual boot, if even that. I know I sure won't, no need too. Maybe if the game-makers included a copy of XP with each game, that could hypothetically work, but that won't happen, just like game devs requiring people to dual boot to run their games won't happen.
But I think it is going to end up being a solution, if not the primary solution, for the heavy-duty Mac gamers.
I know from reading these boards that it seems like most computer users are into the heavy-duty games, but very few are. I think internet forums are just dominated by those same people who are into computer games (young males?). I have no doubt that those few who are really heavy into the games, and don't have a console as Reid points out, will figure out how to make PC games run on their Intel Macs. And once they do figure it out, with the huge number of PC games compared to Mac, why bother with Mac games any more?
I don't think this is as big of a problem for software in general, but I do think it applies to games. First, the gamers tend to be the l33t hax0rs who will go to the trouble of figuring out how to get PC games to run on their Macs. People who use other types of software will probably be less likely to do it. Second, games are unique in that they really don't use the GUI of OS X. Games tend to be pretty similar on PC vs. Mac, once they're ported.
Originally posted by Reid
I don't play video games, so forgive me for not getting it, but I don't understand why anyone uses a $four-figure plus PC to play games vs. a $150 PlayStation or Xbox. I'd think the experience would be much better on a big screen TV with surround sound and a decent controller, vs. using, say, the keyboard and trackpad on a laptop.
Basically, because TV resolution sucks and gamepads suck. There are many games that translate just fine to consoles: puzzles, cards, racing, sports etc. Some of these even work better with gamepads. But there are some big categories that don't translate. RTS and turn-based strategy just don't work without a mouse and keyboard, and would be frustrating at 640x480. For FPS, there's an interesting divide between people who think that console FPS are just fine, and people who think those people are insane. You get higher resolution, finer detail, better AI, better multiplayer, faster framerate, and much, much, much better control on a PC. Personally, I think playing a FPS with a stick, instead of a keyboard and mouse, is an exercise in frustration.
So for most casual gaming, consoles are fine; which is why they already dominate the market. But PC gaming will never go away, because there's so many things you just can't do well, or at all, on a standard console.
Originally posted by Reid
I don't play video games, so forgive me for not getting it, but I don't understand why anyone uses a $four-figure plus PC to play games vs. a $150 PlayStation or Xbox. I'd think the experience would be much better on a big screen TV with surround sound and a decent controller, vs. using, say, the keyboard and trackpad on a laptop.
I'm just continually surprised by how much serious gamers spend on their computers, when they could have a perfectly optimized console with just as many games to choose from for so much less. Is it because PC games are easier to pirate? Or are there certain games where the PC does offer a better experience?
Consoles are tolerable for simple arcade style games, but they are not even in the same league as personal computer hosted games when it comes to First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategy, Flight Simulators, etc.
Console games are lackluster compared with their PC counterparts, and the gamepad controls are just horrid. That being said, I think that the portable versions do have certain merits (he says while lovingly stroking his PSP...).
Originally posted by jms698
Or maybe everyone will simply develop for the more lucrative games console market and ignore the x86 and Mac games markets altogether.
Imagine a developer thinking: should I write a game for the G5/Cell on XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution, or the few people who play games on x86? Most developers are always choosing the former.
The "few people who play games on x86" are still a billion dollar market -- I don't think that we have to worry about it going away anytime soon.
Truthfully, I don't think that "gaming consoles" are going to exist in the future. In the next decade or so, I think that they will first become media centers, and then merge into general computing machines. As consoles become more powerful and computers become ever cheeper (and more powerful) they will converge.
Originally posted by Res
Truthfully, I don't think that "gaming consoles" are going to exist in the future. In the next decade or so, I think that they will first become media centers, and then merge into general computing machines. As consoles become more powerful and computers become ever cheeper (and more powerful) they will converge.
Based on 'cheeper' machines I would come to the exact opposite conclusion and suggest that consoles and general computing will diverge.
Thoughts of convergence come from the fact that $500 video cards in expensive machines dominate the 'high end' PC games at this time. They have left consoles that use 733 pentiums and old video cards in the dust.
The new consoles in the next 6-12 months catch up in a big way and go into specialized processors that have processing power designed for gaming (and video). Machines with 1-3 terraflops targeted at games will take awhile to overcome in the general computing market.
Convergence will probably come between home entertainment and gaming so I agree with half of your statement. (Sony and Toshiba are going to use the Cell processor in other devices). However general computing will probably go laptop/Mac mini. Quite and unobtrusive devices with no fans. A lot of people don't need the horsepower that is developing.
The PC games do have die hard supporters and a number of people will stick with them because of the tweak factor and 'indies' not available on consoles. However as the console market gets larger the ability to design chips specifically for games will probably accelerate the divergence.
What this vision of the future leaves out is the driving force for Moore's law and the monster box. As specialized processors take over the game market is there a residual market large enough to drive the high end 100+ watt processor market in 'general computing' and what in general computing needs additional horsepower. (by the way I do have a dual 2 and it is not because of need so I do understand 'wants'.)
Games/entertainment - high bandwidth specialized processors.
General computing - max. horsepower constrained by watts (no fans).
Handhelds - max. horsepower constrained by battery life.
Originally posted by Silverdog
Based on 'cheeper' machines I would come to the exact opposite conclusion and suggest that consoles and general computing will diverge. [...]
Games/entertainment - high bandwidth specialized processors.
General computing - max. horsepower constrained by watts (no fans).
Handhelds - max. horsepower constrained by battery life.
Very interesting point. I agree.
However, I think that general computing on a "console" will happen. A super-powerful next generation cell-like processor will easily be able to run/emulate a PC operating system. Intel's 15 year roadmap is for all processor to eventually look like similar to the cell (which is ahead of it's time, see http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=2).
So, the "console/media center" could take the place of the Powermac G5 in the home. "General computing" then falls by the wayside and we're left with, as you say, all other computing being mobile. Laptops all the way.
Since Apple isn't big in the gaming market, this makes the Intel/Pentium-M switch all the more intelligent. IBM are certainly not in the low-power/mobile chip market.
Originally posted by jms698
However, I think that general computing on a "console" will happen. A super-powerful next generation cell-like processor will easily be able to run/emulate a PC operating system. Intel's 15 year roadmap is for all processor to eventually look like similar to the cell (which is ahead of it's time, see http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=2).
IBM are certainly not in the low-power/mobile chip market.
I think the Intel roadmap shown is oversimplified. Intel has a roadmap that diverges in many directions, Xenon, Pentiums, Mobiles, Itaniums, ARMs. As both processor design tools develop and provide shorter lead times, e.g. PowerPC family, and as the market for processing expands processors can become more specialized.
Games will get there on compilers and processors for high bandwidth video that isn't needed in general computing and I don't think general computing will be compiled on these processors. (Except maybe Linux and a Java based OS for hackers.)
IBM actually still is in the low-power processor market just without Altivec. The Power PC RISC architecture is great for low power uses in the embeded market.
It would be interesting to know if Tiger's restructuring with CoreVideo offloading processing to the GPU would it make a low power G3 processor more viable.