Very true and is one the main factors for closing down the site. However of all the petitions I had ever ran on the site, Half-Life 2 was the strongest AND largest by far. I can't help to believe that if in fact it was released, they would have made at least a small profit and any profit is a good thing!
Until Apple offers consumer level hardware that is actually capable of running modern games, what game companies do doesn't matter.
That has little to do with it. What you guys don't seem to understand is that most people who play these games do so with hardware that's at about the same level as the Mac's. There just aren't all that many people buying graphics cards in the general population, including most of those playing games.
It's also just a very few games that really need the better cards. Most people play with most of the difficult stuff turned off, and they don't seem to mind.
High end gamers don't mind paying the equivalent of the Mac Pro, and that's the machine Apple doesn't sell enough of (well, actually, they don't ell enough of any of them).
Also, don't forget that laptops make up a good half of all sales, and they are no better, and often worse than what Apple has, but are used for games anyway.
Err, no they didn't solve the problem. Yes, you can use Boot Camp to play the latest games, but with the kind of crap graphic cards that come with the consumer Macs why bother?
Problem: Some people feel held back from buying Macs because some software isn't developed for both systems.
Solution: Boot Camp lets you run windows and run said applications.
It does solve the problem from now on. How well it solves it is almost a moot point in the matter.
As for graphic cards, I'm running games fine. Then again, I'm not looking to run games at extremely high resolution, max settings, and still get 60 FPS. That market is not really in Apple's scope of business to begin with (PC Modders etc).
That has little to do with it. What you guys don't seem to understand is that most people who play these games do so with hardware that's at about the same level as the Mac's. There just aren't all that many people buying graphics cards in the general population, including most of those playing games.
It's also just a very few games that really need the better cards. Most people play with most of the difficult stuff turned off, and they don't seem to mind.
I like to refer to the Steam user survey regarding what hardware people really use to play PC games.
I see only 2% of the players using integrated graphics, plus whatever integrated are in the 14% "other" category. I think it isn't farfetched to say that 95% of the people on Steam have better than integrated. Of Apple's consumer hardware, everything but the iMac comes with integrated.
This problem goes way beyond turning effects off and having to drop to a non-native resolution that looks like someone melted your crisp LCD. First and foremost, this is about being able to play at all. The GMA 950 doesn't run this year's games. It doesn't run last year's games. It mostly doesn't run games from the year before that.
The iMac's graphics high end is lackluster and struggles with new games, but at least they will run at low resolutions, with some effects on to boot.
Quote:
High end gamers don't mind paying the equivalent of the Mac Pro, and that's the machine Apple doesn't sell enough of (well, actually, they don't ell enough of any of them).
The equivalent of Mac Pro? Now you're talking a few percent of the market at most. Serious competetive gamers get by with machines costing far less than the low end iMac.
Go above $1500 and you won't get any significant volume of gamers.
Quote:
Also, don't forget that laptops make up a good half of all sales, and they are no better, and often worse than what Apple has, but are used for games anyway.
At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
I like to refer to the Steam user survey regarding what hardware people really use to play PC games.
I see only 2% of the players using integrated graphics, plus whatever integrated are in the 14% "other" category. I think it isn't farfetched to say that 95% of the people on Steam have better than integrated. Of Apple's consumer hardware, everything but the iMac comes with integrated.
This problem goes way beyond turning effects off and having to drop to a non-native resolution that looks like someone melted your crisp LCD. First and foremost, this is about being able to play at all. The GMA 950 doesn't run this year's games. It doesn't run last year's games. It mostly doesn't run games from the year before that.
The average PC costs $700. sometimes that even includes the low end monitor. Even desktops for $1,00 are using integrated graphics. you'd be surprised what you will find when you look through the Dell and Hp catalogs they mistakenly send me every week.
even the better machines use the lowest end graphics, better than 950 graphics, but not always yhat much better than 965 graphics.
Quote:
The iMac's graphics high end is lackluster and struggles with new games, but at least they will run at low resolutions, with some effects on to boot.The equivalent of Mac Pro? Now you're talking a few percent of the market at most. Serious competetive gamers get by with machines costing far less than the low end iMac.
They seem to be fime for most people playing game as we often see from posts.
As for the Mac Pro, Alien and Voodoo sold plenty of $3,000+ machines to gamers. they still do. I know gamers who spend several hundred just for higher speed LED lit memory for their machines.
And I did say "high End" gamers.
Quote:
Go above $1500 and you won't get any significant volume of gamers.At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
The truth is that "gamers" are a very small part of the computing public. the same few million buy most of the games, year after year, with older ones dropping out as new ones enter.
MBP's also have dedicated gpu's and memory.
Most people who buy games might buy one or two a year.
I got 50,000 signature just in the first 3 days! The petition ran for several weeks and accumulated over a quarter million votes and that's only those who voted.
At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
This statement is flat out WRONG! I am in the market right now for 3 Winblows laptops and to get dedicated graphics on a PC laptop you are spending mac money. Remember ANYTHING that says shared memory is NOT dedicated chip. They show ATi and nVidia chipsets but the memory is not on the graphics ship. READ the fine print it is there for a reason.
I am in the market right now for 3 Winblows laptops and to get dedicated graphics on a PC laptop you are spending mac money.
I just did some shopping around for laptops made by some of the big OEMs. As for their GPUs, here are the contenders for 'books in the consumer arena.
HP
$875 Pavilion dv2500t series
NVIDIA 8400GS (64 MB)
$1000 pavilion dv9500t series
NVIDIA 8400GS (128 MB)
$950 Pavilion tx1000z series
NVIDIA 6150GO
HP Compaq
$600 Presario V6500Z series
NVIDIA 7150M
$450 Presario C500T series
Intel GMA950 (integrated)
Dell
$500 Inspiron 1501
ATI Xpress1150 (integrated)
$800 Inspiron 1420
Intel GMA X3100 (integrated)
$850 Inspiron 1721
ATI Xpress1270 (integrated)
$1300 XPS M1330
Intel GMA X3100 (integrated)
$650 Vostro 1400
NVIDIA 8400GS (128 MB)
Sony
$950 VGN-CR290
Intel GMA X3100 (integrated)
$1200 VGN-FZ290 (who comes up with these things?)
NVIDIA 8400GT (128 MB)
Toshiba
$971 Satellite A200/A205
ATI Mobility HD 2400 (128 MB)
$1250 Tecra M8 (sounds like some sort of firearm to me)
Intel GMA X3100 (integrated)
Lenovo
$1100 N200
NVIDIA 7300GO (256 MB)
In conclusion:
Lots of Windows laptops priced at or under the MacBook's going rates either come with or can be configured to include dedicated graphics cards. Many do not. But in the Windows world, it is possible to purchase a laptop with a dedicated GPU for significantly under $2000. Granted, many of these computers will undoubtedly include substandard components, weaker processors, and worse support than Macs. But the fact remains that you can get a Windows laptop with a dedicated GPU for a lot less than $2000.
Err, no they didn't solve the problem. Yes, you can use Boot Camp to play the latest games, but with the kind of crap graphic cards that come with the consumer Macs why bother?
Too true. Plus Bootcamp doesn't allow you to use Fan Control. When I play WoW through Bootcamp my macbook gets ridiculously hot.
The average PC costs $700. sometimes that even includes the low end monitor. Even desktops for $1,00 are using integrated graphics. you'd be surprised what you will find when you look through the Dell and Hp catalogs they mistakenly send me every week.
even the better machines use the lowest end graphics, better than 950 graphics, but not always yhat much better than 965 graphics.
Yes, there are lots of machines being sold using integrated graphics. What I said was that they cannot run new games, and therefore computers actually being used for gaming have something else.
At least Acer and HP have laptops with passable graphics chips for cheap. I have seen those brands used by gamers.
edit: just for kicks, I went into the Dell website. The first laptop I clicked on cost 900€ equipped with a Geforce 8400M GS. A Macbook starts from 1050€.
Quote:
They seem to be fime for most people playing game as we often see from posts.
The experience with a particular hardware is subjective, but if your specs are so pitiful the game won't even start, that's not subjective. I don't think framerates in the single digits are seriously okay for anyone, either. You see it reflected in the Steam survey.
Quote:
As for the Mac Pro, Alien and Voodoo sold plenty of $3,000+ machines to gamers. they still do. I know gamers who spend several hundred just for higher speed LED lit memory for their machines.
I'm describing the elephant's trunk, you're describing its tail. I don't know a single person who'd have had a desktop worth over $1500. I do, however, know several people who have been among the nation's and continent's top gamers. Who are these people spending hundreds on LED lit memory?
Quote:
The truth is that "gamers" are a very small part of the computing public. the same few million buy most of the games, year after year, with older ones dropping out as new ones enter.
Got any numbers to support that? I think it's false.
The average age of the readership (yes, readers, not subscribers) of my country's leading gaming magazine rises every year. It's currently at about 25.
Quote:
MBP's also have dedicated gpu's and memory.
We're discussing how the lack of volume of gaming-capable Macs causes companies not to make games for the platform. $2000+ laptops do not generate that kind of volume. MBP is simply not a consumer class machine.
Ehmm... play from Mac OS X, WOW runs very good on Mac especially with lastest 2 patches.
He's talking about Macbook.
My Core 2 Macbook with 2GB memory doesn't run WoW nearly well enough in OS X with all settings at minimum and at Macbook's internal resolution. I haven't tried Boot Camp, but the OS X client makes it clear that you need every extra bit of speed you can get with this slug of a GPU.
Ehmm... play from Mac OS X, WOW runs very good on Mac especially with lastest 2 patches.
Not on a macbook it doesn't. On a macbook WoW crawls with horrible framerates under native OS X. Even with everything turned down. No way to go into Shatt without horrible frame stutterring on a macbook in native OS. Under Bootcamp with Windows XP it runs MUCH better with almost everything turned up. The sad fact is that the Windows XP drivers run the integrated gpu better than Apple.\
My Core 2 Macbook with 2GB memory doesn't run WoW nearly well enough in OS X with all settings at minimum and at Macbook's internal resolution. I haven't tried Boot Camp, but the OS X client makes it clear that you need every extra bit of speed you can get with this slug of a GPU.
Windows drivers run the macbook gpu better. I would say that WoW under bootcamp runs as good as it does natively on a macbook pro. It's common knowledge in the mac section of the WoW tech support forum.
Comments
I'll keep on saying this. It all comes down to numbers. If there were enough Macs out there, this wouldn't be a problem.
Every time we look at something, such as games, programs, graphics cards, or whateer, it's lack of numbers that is the fault for us not having them.
QFT.
Until Apple offers consumer level hardware that is actually capable of running modern games, what game companies do doesn't matter.
QFT.
Until Apple offers consumer level hardware that is actually capable of running modern games, what game companies do doesn't matter.
That has little to do with it. What you guys don't seem to understand is that most people who play these games do so with hardware that's at about the same level as the Mac's. There just aren't all that many people buying graphics cards in the general population, including most of those playing games.
It's also just a very few games that really need the better cards. Most people play with most of the difficult stuff turned off, and they don't seem to mind.
High end gamers don't mind paying the equivalent of the Mac Pro, and that's the machine Apple doesn't sell enough of (well, actually, they don't ell enough of any of them).
Also, don't forget that laptops make up a good half of all sales, and they are no better, and often worse than what Apple has, but are used for games anyway.
Err, no they didn't solve the problem. Yes, you can use Boot Camp to play the latest games, but with the kind of crap graphic cards that come with the consumer Macs why bother?
Problem: Some people feel held back from buying Macs because some software isn't developed for both systems.
Solution: Boot Camp lets you run windows and run said applications.
It does solve the problem from now on. How well it solves it is almost a moot point in the matter.
As for graphic cards, I'm running games fine. Then again, I'm not looking to run games at extremely high resolution, max settings, and still get 60 FPS. That market is not really in Apple's scope of business to begin with (PC Modders etc).
That has little to do with it. What you guys don't seem to understand is that most people who play these games do so with hardware that's at about the same level as the Mac's. There just aren't all that many people buying graphics cards in the general population, including most of those playing games.
It's also just a very few games that really need the better cards. Most people play with most of the difficult stuff turned off, and they don't seem to mind.
I like to refer to the Steam user survey regarding what hardware people really use to play PC games.
I see only 2% of the players using integrated graphics, plus whatever integrated are in the 14% "other" category. I think it isn't farfetched to say that 95% of the people on Steam have better than integrated. Of Apple's consumer hardware, everything but the iMac comes with integrated.
This problem goes way beyond turning effects off and having to drop to a non-native resolution that looks like someone melted your crisp LCD. First and foremost, this is about being able to play at all. The GMA 950 doesn't run this year's games. It doesn't run last year's games. It mostly doesn't run games from the year before that.
The iMac's graphics high end is lackluster and struggles with new games, but at least they will run at low resolutions, with some effects on to boot.
High end gamers don't mind paying the equivalent of the Mac Pro, and that's the machine Apple doesn't sell enough of (well, actually, they don't ell enough of any of them).
The equivalent of Mac Pro? Now you're talking a few percent of the market at most. Serious competetive gamers get by with machines costing far less than the low end iMac.
Go above $1500 and you won't get any significant volume of gamers.
Also, don't forget that laptops make up a good half of all sales, and they are no better, and often worse than what Apple has, but are used for games anyway.
At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
I like to refer to the Steam user survey regarding what hardware people really use to play PC games.
I see only 2% of the players using integrated graphics, plus whatever integrated are in the 14% "other" category. I think it isn't farfetched to say that 95% of the people on Steam have better than integrated. Of Apple's consumer hardware, everything but the iMac comes with integrated.
This problem goes way beyond turning effects off and having to drop to a non-native resolution that looks like someone melted your crisp LCD. First and foremost, this is about being able to play at all. The GMA 950 doesn't run this year's games. It doesn't run last year's games. It mostly doesn't run games from the year before that.
The average PC costs $700. sometimes that even includes the low end monitor. Even desktops for $1,00 are using integrated graphics. you'd be surprised what you will find when you look through the Dell and Hp catalogs they mistakenly send me every week.
even the better machines use the lowest end graphics, better than 950 graphics, but not always yhat much better than 965 graphics.
The iMac's graphics high end is lackluster and struggles with new games, but at least they will run at low resolutions, with some effects on to boot.The equivalent of Mac Pro? Now you're talking a few percent of the market at most. Serious competetive gamers get by with machines costing far less than the low end iMac.
They seem to be fime for most people playing game as we often see from posts.
As for the Mac Pro, Alien and Voodoo sold plenty of $3,000+ machines to gamers. they still do. I know gamers who spend several hundred just for higher speed LED lit memory for their machines.
And I did say "high End" gamers.
Go above $1500 and you won't get any significant volume of gamers.At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
The truth is that "gamers" are a very small part of the computing public. the same few million buy most of the games, year after year, with older ones dropping out as new ones enter.
MBP's also have dedicated gpu's and memory.
Most people who buy games might buy one or two a year.
The rest play on consoles.
I got 50,000 signature just in the first 3 days! The petition ran for several weeks and accumulated over a quarter million votes and that's only those who voted.
Yeah, but you voted twice.
At least half of Windows laptops I see advertised have dedicated video memory, which puts them head and shoulders above anything from Apple except iMac.
This statement is flat out WRONG! I am in the market right now for 3 Winblows laptops and to get dedicated graphics on a PC laptop you are spending mac money. Remember ANYTHING that says shared memory is NOT dedicated chip. They show ATi and nVidia chipsets but the memory is not on the graphics ship. READ the fine print it is there for a reason.
I am in the market right now for 3 Winblows laptops and to get dedicated graphics on a PC laptop you are spending mac money.
I just did some shopping around for laptops made by some of the big OEMs. As for their GPUs, here are the contenders for 'books in the consumer arena.
HP
$875 Pavilion dv2500t series$1000 pavilion dv9500t series$950 Pavilion tx1000z seriesHP Compaq
$600 Presario V6500Z series$450 Presario C500T seriesDell
$500 Inspiron 1501$800 Inspiron 1420$850 Inspiron 1721$1300 XPS M1330$650 Vostro 1400Sony
$950 VGN-CR290$1200 VGN-FZ290 (who comes up with these things?)Toshiba
$971 Satellite A200/A205$1250 Tecra M8 (sounds like some sort of firearm to me)Lenovo
$1100 N200In conclusion:
Lots of Windows laptops priced at or under the MacBook's going rates either come with or can be configured to include dedicated graphics cards. Many do not. But in the Windows world, it is possible to purchase a laptop with a dedicated GPU for significantly under $2000. Granted, many of these computers will undoubtedly include substandard components, weaker processors, and worse support than Macs. But the fact remains that you can get a Windows laptop with a dedicated GPU for a lot less than $2000.
Valve can keep their motion-sickness inducing game between their ass. For gaming, I will play my xbox360 and wii
Didn't take long for the mac community to turn. hehe.. predictable
Didn't take long for the mac community to turn. hehe.. predictable
Or you, perhaps?
Yeah, but you voted twice.
Crap I would've voted ten times had I known about the survey. I love Half Life2.
Article sounds like someone's trying to defend Apple's lack of interest in gaming. The hardware already proves it though.
Err, no they didn't solve the problem. Yes, you can use Boot Camp to play the latest games, but with the kind of crap graphic cards that come with the consumer Macs why bother?
Too true. Plus Bootcamp doesn't allow you to use Fan Control. When I play WoW through Bootcamp my macbook gets ridiculously hot.
As of last year, or the year before, AFAIK, the Video Game market does more business in gross $$$ than the movie business.
I guess Apple hates money.
Stupid on Apple's part.
As of last year, or the year before, AFAIK, the Video Game market does more business in gross $$$ than the movie business.
I guess Apple hates money.
But how much of that is for consoles?
The average PC costs $700. sometimes that even includes the low end monitor. Even desktops for $1,00 are using integrated graphics. you'd be surprised what you will find when you look through the Dell and Hp catalogs they mistakenly send me every week.
even the better machines use the lowest end graphics, better than 950 graphics, but not always yhat much better than 965 graphics.
Yes, there are lots of machines being sold using integrated graphics. What I said was that they cannot run new games, and therefore computers actually being used for gaming have something else.
At least Acer and HP have laptops with passable graphics chips for cheap. I have seen those brands used by gamers.
edit: just for kicks, I went into the Dell website. The first laptop I clicked on cost 900€ equipped with a Geforce 8400M GS. A Macbook starts from 1050€.
They seem to be fime for most people playing game as we often see from posts.
The experience with a particular hardware is subjective, but if your specs are so pitiful the game won't even start, that's not subjective. I don't think framerates in the single digits are seriously okay for anyone, either. You see it reflected in the Steam survey.
As for the Mac Pro, Alien and Voodoo sold plenty of $3,000+ machines to gamers. they still do. I know gamers who spend several hundred just for higher speed LED lit memory for their machines.
I'm describing the elephant's trunk, you're describing its tail. I don't know a single person who'd have had a desktop worth over $1500. I do, however, know several people who have been among the nation's and continent's top gamers. Who are these people spending hundreds on LED lit memory?
The truth is that "gamers" are a very small part of the computing public. the same few million buy most of the games, year after year, with older ones dropping out as new ones enter.
Got any numbers to support that? I think it's false.
The average age of the readership (yes, readers, not subscribers) of my country's leading gaming magazine rises every year. It's currently at about 25.
MBP's also have dedicated gpu's and memory.
We're discussing how the lack of volume of gaming-capable Macs causes companies not to make games for the platform. $2000+ laptops do not generate that kind of volume. MBP is simply not a consumer class machine.
Too true. Plus Bootcamp doesn't allow you to use Fan Control. When I play WoW through Bootcamp my macbook gets ridiculously hot.
Ehmm... play from Mac OS X, WOW runs very good on Mac especially with lastest 2 patches.
Ehmm... play from Mac OS X, WOW runs very good on Mac especially with lastest 2 patches.
He's talking about Macbook.
My Core 2 Macbook with 2GB memory doesn't run WoW nearly well enough in OS X with all settings at minimum and at Macbook's internal resolution. I haven't tried Boot Camp, but the OS X client makes it clear that you need every extra bit of speed you can get with this slug of a GPU.
Ehmm... play from Mac OS X, WOW runs very good on Mac especially with lastest 2 patches.
Not on a macbook it doesn't. On a macbook WoW crawls with horrible framerates under native OS X. Even with everything turned down. No way to go into Shatt without horrible frame stutterring on a macbook in native OS. Under Bootcamp with Windows XP it runs MUCH better with almost everything turned up. The sad fact is that the Windows XP drivers run the integrated gpu better than Apple.
He's talking about Macbook.
My Core 2 Macbook with 2GB memory doesn't run WoW nearly well enough in OS X with all settings at minimum and at Macbook's internal resolution. I haven't tried Boot Camp, but the OS X client makes it clear that you need every extra bit of speed you can get with this slug of a GPU.
Windows drivers run the macbook gpu better. I would say that WoW under bootcamp runs as good as it does natively on a macbook pro. It's common knowledge in the mac section of the WoW tech support forum.