I understand the tradeoffs, but don't make it an either/or situation where you can like Steam or MAS, but not both. Valve seems committed to OS X, and Steam has certainly been a huge help in pushing Mac games within recent years. I doubt they would pull anything really going against Mac long term interests, like Adobe dragging their feet through Carbon for years, or Microsoft stealing IP.
You can have both but then you lose all the benefits of the MAS: namely that every app on your system is sandboxed and has been curated by someone trained. As soon as you have one non-vetted app on your system the whole system is insecure, you might as well have every app non vetted.
I am a Steam user and think it is great, but I keep it installed on a separate box (a PC). That box has no personal files so it doesn't matter that the games haven't been checked by anyone, have access to the whole HD, and install their own background processes willy nilly (e.g. Uplay, Punkbuster). But my Mac is different: it has my personal files on it. If I were to ever go back to gaming on my Mac it would require that a game pass the same stringent MAS tests as every other app.
Aspyr are quite good at releasing games on the MAS but not perfect. My favorite game of all time (Civ IV Beyond the Sword) is one they have released only on Steam.
No, the Mac won't play the latest games, you have to wait for the ports, and as is shown here some five months after the other platforms.
Also, where have you read that the PS4 will be limited to 24fps, the PS3 isn't, so why would the PS4 be?
Utterly incorrect.
Mac users, unlike Windows users, are able to install Windows on their machines using Bootcamp and, therefore, are able to play anything released for the PC market.
Mac users, unlike Windows users, are able to install Windows on their machines using Bootcamp and, therefore, are able to play anything released for the PC market.
Two issues I see with that
1. How many Mac users actually do that, especially just to play a game?
2. Why does it matter to a Windows user about Bootcamp? Also, do you realise what the retail price of Windows is?
1. How many Mac users actually do that, especially just to play a game?
2. Why does it matter to a Windows user about Bootcamp? Also, do you realise what the retail price of Windows is?
Of course it does. What are you even talking about?
Also, where have you read that the PS4 will be limited to 24fps
The tech demos of most of the games they're releasing.
the PS3 isn't, so why would the PS4 be?
What in the world kind of logic is that? They're completely different devices. What you can take to the bank is the PS4 not getting anywhere near 60 FPS in most games and still not putting out 1080p content.
1. How many Mac users actually do that, especially just to play a game?
Me. It's the only reason I even use Windows, in fact. There's nothing else doable there that can't be done in OS X. Heck, the games for which I use Windows could very probably be wrapped in Cider and played in OS X just fine, but I don't feel the need to waste my time trying and having it bug out without knowing whether it was my fault or the wrapper's.
Because a Mac will actually do things you'd want to do and isn't limited to 24FPS?
I don't where you're getting the 24FPS from, but smartphones and iPads already do most things people want to do - surf the web, watch and take photos/videos, social media, email, etc. This isn't 2005. Most people need a really good reason to justify a Mac's higher cost, and playing Triple-A game titles on integrated graphics months after they've already been released on other platforms isn't one of them.
Quote:
So… one month.
The $599 Mac Mini is not going to have GT 650M level performance in a month. The $799 or $899 Mini might get the Iris Pro treatment whenever they're updated next, but like I said earlier why bother if you're a gamer. A PS4 will be $400-$500 cheaper.
If I'm going to lay down that kind of money, it won't be for notebook level gaming performance that's for sure.
Why bother when a PS4 is $399 and will only get cheaper.
Because a Mac will actually do things you'd want to do and isn't limited to 24FPS?
[...]
They'll wish to play a generic hallway shooter with a plot whose premise destroys its own existence and which has but one redeeming attack?
"Things you'd want to do."
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
And again, this game's entertainment value is irrelevant to this discussion.
Tallest Skil
What you can take to the bank is the PS4 not getting anywhere near 60 FPS in most games and still not putting out 1080p content.
...on this console that's yet to be released.
Sony has several months to tweak performance, and every new console improves over time as 3rd party devs get accustomed to it. Take any console and compare the release titles to games that came out towards the end of its lifecycle.
The $599 Mac Mini is not going to have GT 650M level performance in a month. The $799 or $899 Mini might get the Iris Pro treatment whenever they're updated next…
So what would the base model get? It doesn't make any sense to give it worse performance.
…but like I said earlier why bother if you're a gamer. A PS4 will be $400-$500 cheaper.
… Or you could get a Mac and actually do computing with your device. I don't think you understand what a PlayStation is and can do.
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
And there you go doing it instead.
Either you went TL;DR, or you confused which of us claimed to know what other people want to do with their hardware.
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
Different devices for different purposes is precisely the point I'm making*. Most people who buy a Mac didn't buy it to game. Like you, they have that covered already. Instead they have reasons other than gaming, but there will come a day when the $599 Mac Mini has both respectable graphics and OS X - a huge value.
Until then, there's just not enough attraction to make gaming on a Mac anything other than it already is. Which is why I say headlines like this, while welcomed, are mostly irrelevant.
*I own a Mac mini, a gaming PC, an Android phone, an iPad, and a Raspberry Pi.
Yes, you could install Windows on your Mac so you can play the latest games (that are released for Windows), but then why bother purchasing a Mac in the first place?
The tech demos of most of the games they're releasing.
What in the world kind of logic is that? They're completely different devices. What you can take to the bank is the PS4 not getting anywhere near 60 FPS in most games and still not putting out 1080p content.
Price is still a concern for MAS games. As Zoolook mentioned, Steam is the discount shop for digital titles. iOS game devs have holiday sales, but the only notable MAS discounts I can remember were for major new releases of Mac-only apps like Pixelmator and Acorn.
I see the same disparity in the online and physical Apple store, where accessories can sometimes have a higher price than elsewhere online.
Price is still a concern for MAS games. As Zoolook mentioned, Steam is the discount shop for digital titles. iOS game devs have holiday sales, but the only notable MAS discounts I can remember were for major new releases of Mac-only apps like Pixelmator and Acorn.
Part of the discrepancy comes from Steam having scheduled Steam sales while the Mac App Store has per-developer sales at any time they wish.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
I understand the tradeoffs, but don't make it an either/or situation where you can like Steam or MAS, but not both. Valve seems committed to OS X, and Steam has certainly been a huge help in pushing Mac games within recent years. I doubt they would pull anything really going against Mac long term interests, like Adobe dragging their feet through Carbon for years, or Microsoft stealing IP.
You can have both but then you lose all the benefits of the MAS: namely that every app on your system is sandboxed and has been curated by someone trained. As soon as you have one non-vetted app on your system the whole system is insecure, you might as well have every app non vetted.
I am a Steam user and think it is great, but I keep it installed on a separate box (a PC). That box has no personal files so it doesn't matter that the games haven't been checked by anyone, have access to the whole HD, and install their own background processes willy nilly (e.g. Uplay, Punkbuster). But my Mac is different: it has my personal files on it. If I were to ever go back to gaming on my Mac it would require that a game pass the same stringent MAS tests as every other app.
Aspyr are quite good at releasing games on the MAS but not perfect. My favorite game of all time (Civ IV Beyond the Sword) is one they have released only on Steam.
The problem is you gotta spend $1500 just to get a mac with a decent GPU.
Why bother when a PS4 is $399 and will only get cheaper.
Until the base model Mac Mini has at least GT 650M equivalent graphics, headlines like this are irrelevant.
Put this way, more Mac owners will see the game in the MAS and wish they could play it than will actually buy it.
Because a Mac will actually do things you'd want to do and isn't limited to 24FPS?
So… one month.
They'll wish to play a generic hallway shooter with a plot whose premise destroys its own existence and which has but one redeeming attack?
No, the Mac won't play the latest games, you have to wait for the ports, and as is shown here some five months after the other platforms.
Also, where have you read that the PS4 will be limited to 24fps, the PS3 isn't, so why would the PS4 be?
Utterly incorrect.
Mac users, unlike Windows users, are able to install Windows on their machines using Bootcamp and, therefore, are able to play anything released for the PC market.
Two issues I see with that
1. How many Mac users actually do that, especially just to play a game?
2. Why does it matter to a Windows user about Bootcamp? Also, do you realise what the retail price of Windows is?
Can it be done, or can it be done?
Of course it does. What are you even talking about?
The tech demos of most of the games they're releasing.
What in the world kind of logic is that? They're completely different devices. What you can take to the bank is the PS4 not getting anywhere near 60 FPS in most games and still not putting out 1080p content.
Me. It's the only reason I even use Windows, in fact. There's nothing else doable there that can't be done in OS X. Heck, the games for which I use Windows could very probably be wrapped in Cider and played in OS X just fine, but I don't feel the need to waste my time trying and having it bug out without knowing whether it was my fault or the wrapper's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because a Mac will actually do things you'd want to do and isn't limited to 24FPS?
I don't where you're getting the 24FPS from, but smartphones and iPads already do most things people want to do - surf the web, watch and take photos/videos, social media, email, etc. This isn't 2005. Most people need a really good reason to justify a Mac's higher cost, and playing Triple-A game titles on integrated graphics months after they've already been released on other platforms isn't one of them.
Quote:
So… one month.
The $599 Mac Mini is not going to have GT 650M level performance in a month. The $799 or $899 Mini might get the Iris Pro treatment whenever they're updated next, but like I said earlier why bother if you're a gamer. A PS4 will be $400-$500 cheaper.
If I'm going to lay down that kind of money, it won't be for notebook level gaming performance that's for sure.
Tallest Skil
Corvus
Why bother when a PS4 is $399 and will only get cheaper.
Because a Mac will actually do things you'd want to do and isn't limited to 24FPS?
[...]
They'll wish to play a generic hallway shooter with a plot whose premise destroys its own existence and which has but one redeeming attack?
"Things you'd want to do."
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
And again, this game's entertainment value is irrelevant to this discussion.
Tallest Skil
What you can take to the bank is the PS4 not getting anywhere near 60 FPS in most games and still not putting out 1080p content.
...on this console that's yet to be released.
Sony has several months to tweak performance, and every new console improves over time as 3rd party devs get accustomed to it. Take any console and compare the release titles to games that came out towards the end of its lifecycle.
So what would the base model get? It doesn't make any sense to give it worse performance.
… Or you could get a Mac and actually do computing with your device. I don't think you understand what a PlayStation is and can do.
And there you go doing it instead. :rolleyes:
He said you have to pick one or the other, though.
In those months, it won't change. And yes, launch titles and end titles have different qualities, but that's also irrelevant to this discussion.
Tallest Skil
Vorsos
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
And there you go doing it instead.
Either you went TL;DR, or you confused which of us claimed to know what other people want to do with their hardware.
And you missed the rest of the post, but hey, whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
"Things you'd want to do."
Stop imposing your personal wants and needs on everyone. I want to play nice games at 1080p on their initial release date (not months later) while batch encoding video; that's why I have a Mac and a console. Somehow I find the willpower to not assume everyone else has similar use cases.
Different devices for different purposes is precisely the point I'm making*. Most people who buy a Mac didn't buy it to game. Like you, they have that covered already. Instead they have reasons other than gaming, but there will come a day when the $599 Mac Mini has both respectable graphics and OS X - a huge value.
Until then, there's just not enough attraction to make gaming on a Mac anything other than it already is. Which is why I say headlines like this, while welcomed, are mostly irrelevant.
*I own a Mac mini, a gaming PC, an Android phone, an iPad, and a Raspberry Pi.
Yes, you could install Windows on your Mac so you can play the latest games (that are released for Windows), but then why bother purchasing a Mac in the first place?
Where do I get the Last of Us for OSX?
Really, you have a PS4?
Fixed that for you.
I see the same disparity in the online and physical Apple store, where accessories can sometimes have a higher price than elsewhere online.
Where do you get Europa Universalis IV for PS4? :no:
Please actually reply to the points I'm making rather than inventing your own.
Part of the discrepancy comes from Steam having scheduled Steam sales while the Mac App Store has per-developer sales at any time they wish.
I see.
Looks like I'm done here.