It's the game machine, stupid!
Mods, I know this is in FH under the thinnest pretenses. Move it or lock it or merge it as you see fit.
From time to time, a thread pops up about gaming rigs. I usually don't participate in those conversations because I am not really a gamer. Still, I found two articles on the subject that were too tasty to pass up and thought would make good fodder for conversation. The first article I will copy in full. It is called "It's the games, stupid!" by John C Dvorak. I know that many of you would rather kill him than read his work. So I expect this to become flame bait. still, he makes some compelling points and I believe, valid ones, as well. The second, I will just link if I can figure out how.
I believe it may be time for Apple to address the utter lack of an offering in this space. the i/eMac is not a game machine by any standard. The G5 is overkill, at least price wise and is not marketed for good reason as a game station. There should be a box between $1300 and $2300, thereabouts, to address this market. Before you say XBOX; or Playstation,, you should realize by now that people in the gaming PC category don't care about those options, or they already have them in addition to their PC. Parents would probably consider Mac if Macs were good for games. Games are 1/4th of the reason people buy computers. Without that component, the platform is severely disadvantaged. I know that Apple would have to work with developers. But what if they licensed some titles themselves and hired a room full of programers to staff the Apple gaming division. They couldn't do it all, but they could show some interest in that market and be certain that titles came to the Mac in more of a timely manner. With a strategy such as this, the Mac might become a viable gaming option. As long as kids and young adults want to play PC games, the Mac will always be disadvantaged.
One last thing before the articles. Gaming would help the upgrade cycle and after market component issue as well. Games drive video card, sound card, and speaker sales. If the Mac was a gaming platform, we would have up to date video cards equal to those on the PC side because the Mac platform would be able to use them. Anyway, here's the articles
People talk about changing platforms. They promote Mac and Linux as vaguely better than Windows because these operating systems crash less, because they're cheaper, or because Microsoft isn't involved. Meanwhile, Windows users complain bitterly about everything. But few actually switch. Why is this? Let's look at the reasons to switch and try to determine exactly why Windows has such a viselike grip on its user base. If I am correct in my assessment, then everyone has been barking up the wrong tree for decades.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ease of use. Most people agree that Macs are the easiest to use. Windows XP is hardly difficult to use, and one can expect Linux to be viable on the desktop someday. This is no longer a hot-button topic. The PC may be flaky, but nobody is running away because it is hard to use. So this notion is apparently overrated.
Crash-proofing. Windows users seem to think their machines crash the most. Most experts see Linux as the most stable of the three operating systems. That said, nobody except server mavens is concerned about frequent crashes to the point where people are running away from Windows and defecting to Linux. This is another wash.
Spam. This is a function of e-mail, not platform. The tools to fight spam are found mostly on Windows machines, but again, no one shifts operating systems because of this.
Compatibility. Peripheral compatibility is the big issue, with Windows leading all others. I do see some minor evidence that Windows is preferred because it works with certain hardware. Linux looks to be lagging here. So Windows has the edge, but this may skew in the direction of keeping Windows people tied to the platform, not luring others to switch.
Most file formats are compatible with each other, so that's become a nonissue. The last vestige of incompatibility seems to be compression methodologies?StuffIt versus ZIP. As for general software, the most distinctive package that would encourage a shift to the Mac is Apple's Final Cut Pro. But that is a highly specialized niche product aimed specifically at video professionals, so it cannot influence a large market segment. Again, there's no compelling reason to change operating-system affiliations over compatibility.
Total cost of ownership. Apparently nobody cares. Experts can prove that the Mac is the cheapest platform by virtue of the low cost of support and training. Linux is just plain free. I think a case can be made for any of the contenders.
Viruses and security. Windows suffers the most here. Almost all major problems are Windows-related on both the client side and the server side. Yet nobody is abandoning Windows for this reason; people just complain about it.
Range of applications. Windows has an obvious lead here despite the Mac's slight edge with multimedia. The irony of Microsoft's dominance in the applications arena is that it puts the small players out of business, which actually hurts Windows. As the applications portfolio grows on the other platforms, their market shares increase. So this seems to be the most important differentiator. But it's not making any serious dent in the Windows market share that I can see.
Gaming. I pulled this out of the general-applications category because this is the only category where Windows rocks. In fact, when I analyze the list carefully, only games stand above the rest? giving Windows a genuine edge.
When Steve Jobs first rolled out the Macintosh and eschewed games on the machine, telling people to put them on the Apple II instead, he made the biggest mistake of his life right then and there. This is the main differentiator in platform preference. PCs can play tremendous games, and there are many more to choose from than there are cross-platform titles. Families are hard-pressed not to own a PC because of the tonnage of children's games, for instance. Although Macs are easier for kids to use, children still want machines that can play the games they like.
All the wheel spinning about the superiority of this platform or that platform just boils down to the fun side of computing: games. No other single factor is so skewed. Everything else is a wash."
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=8150
From time to time, a thread pops up about gaming rigs. I usually don't participate in those conversations because I am not really a gamer. Still, I found two articles on the subject that were too tasty to pass up and thought would make good fodder for conversation. The first article I will copy in full. It is called "It's the games, stupid!" by John C Dvorak. I know that many of you would rather kill him than read his work. So I expect this to become flame bait. still, he makes some compelling points and I believe, valid ones, as well. The second, I will just link if I can figure out how.
I believe it may be time for Apple to address the utter lack of an offering in this space. the i/eMac is not a game machine by any standard. The G5 is overkill, at least price wise and is not marketed for good reason as a game station. There should be a box between $1300 and $2300, thereabouts, to address this market. Before you say XBOX; or Playstation,, you should realize by now that people in the gaming PC category don't care about those options, or they already have them in addition to their PC. Parents would probably consider Mac if Macs were good for games. Games are 1/4th of the reason people buy computers. Without that component, the platform is severely disadvantaged. I know that Apple would have to work with developers. But what if they licensed some titles themselves and hired a room full of programers to staff the Apple gaming division. They couldn't do it all, but they could show some interest in that market and be certain that titles came to the Mac in more of a timely manner. With a strategy such as this, the Mac might become a viable gaming option. As long as kids and young adults want to play PC games, the Mac will always be disadvantaged.
One last thing before the articles. Gaming would help the upgrade cycle and after market component issue as well. Games drive video card, sound card, and speaker sales. If the Mac was a gaming platform, we would have up to date video cards equal to those on the PC side because the Mac platform would be able to use them. Anyway, here's the articles
People talk about changing platforms. They promote Mac and Linux as vaguely better than Windows because these operating systems crash less, because they're cheaper, or because Microsoft isn't involved. Meanwhile, Windows users complain bitterly about everything. But few actually switch. Why is this? Let's look at the reasons to switch and try to determine exactly why Windows has such a viselike grip on its user base. If I am correct in my assessment, then everyone has been barking up the wrong tree for decades.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ease of use. Most people agree that Macs are the easiest to use. Windows XP is hardly difficult to use, and one can expect Linux to be viable on the desktop someday. This is no longer a hot-button topic. The PC may be flaky, but nobody is running away because it is hard to use. So this notion is apparently overrated.
Crash-proofing. Windows users seem to think their machines crash the most. Most experts see Linux as the most stable of the three operating systems. That said, nobody except server mavens is concerned about frequent crashes to the point where people are running away from Windows and defecting to Linux. This is another wash.
Spam. This is a function of e-mail, not platform. The tools to fight spam are found mostly on Windows machines, but again, no one shifts operating systems because of this.
Compatibility. Peripheral compatibility is the big issue, with Windows leading all others. I do see some minor evidence that Windows is preferred because it works with certain hardware. Linux looks to be lagging here. So Windows has the edge, but this may skew in the direction of keeping Windows people tied to the platform, not luring others to switch.
Most file formats are compatible with each other, so that's become a nonissue. The last vestige of incompatibility seems to be compression methodologies?StuffIt versus ZIP. As for general software, the most distinctive package that would encourage a shift to the Mac is Apple's Final Cut Pro. But that is a highly specialized niche product aimed specifically at video professionals, so it cannot influence a large market segment. Again, there's no compelling reason to change operating-system affiliations over compatibility.
Total cost of ownership. Apparently nobody cares. Experts can prove that the Mac is the cheapest platform by virtue of the low cost of support and training. Linux is just plain free. I think a case can be made for any of the contenders.
Viruses and security. Windows suffers the most here. Almost all major problems are Windows-related on both the client side and the server side. Yet nobody is abandoning Windows for this reason; people just complain about it.
Range of applications. Windows has an obvious lead here despite the Mac's slight edge with multimedia. The irony of Microsoft's dominance in the applications arena is that it puts the small players out of business, which actually hurts Windows. As the applications portfolio grows on the other platforms, their market shares increase. So this seems to be the most important differentiator. But it's not making any serious dent in the Windows market share that I can see.
Gaming. I pulled this out of the general-applications category because this is the only category where Windows rocks. In fact, when I analyze the list carefully, only games stand above the rest? giving Windows a genuine edge.
When Steve Jobs first rolled out the Macintosh and eschewed games on the machine, telling people to put them on the Apple II instead, he made the biggest mistake of his life right then and there. This is the main differentiator in platform preference. PCs can play tremendous games, and there are many more to choose from than there are cross-platform titles. Families are hard-pressed not to own a PC because of the tonnage of children's games, for instance. Although Macs are easier for kids to use, children still want machines that can play the games they like.
All the wheel spinning about the superiority of this platform or that platform just boils down to the fun side of computing: games. No other single factor is so skewed. Everything else is a wash."
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=8150
Comments
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Parents would probably consider Mac if Macs were good for games. Games are 1/4th of the reason people buy computers.
I?m a pretty big proponent of games on the Macintosh, but I?ll be damned if I know where you get these figures from. I?d sure love a source.
I know that Apple would have to work with developers. But what if they licensed some titles themselves and hired a room full of programmers to staff the Apple gaming division. They couldn't do it all, but they could show some interest in that market and be certain that titles came to the Mac in more of a timely manner. With a strategy such as this, the Mac might become a viable gaming option.
Well, I?m all for this, but I don?t see it happening anytime soon. First off, the majority of Macintosh hardware is too antiquated to use for ?hardcore? gaming. The video cards in the e/iMacs are grossly inferior for ANY type of FPS. Ditto for every i/PowerBook. That leaves the G4 towers, which do not have enough system bus throughput to accommodate hardcore gaming. And then there?s the G5, which IS suitable for gaming. But it starts at $1700.
originally posted in the article
Compatibility. Peripheral compatibility is the big issue, with Windows leading all others. I do see some minor evidence that Windows is preferred because it works with certain hardware. Linux looks to be lagging here. So Windows has the edge, but this may skew in the direction of keeping Windows people tied to the platform, not luring others to switch.
I?m not sure I understand what the author is trying to say here. If peripheral compatibility is a ?big? issue, then why is there only ?minor? evidence that Windows users choose windows because of it?
Gaming. I pulled this out of the general-applications category because this is the only category where Windows rocks. In fact, when I analyze the list carefully, only games stand above the rest? giving Windows a genuine edge.
When Steve Jobs first rolled out the Macintosh and eschewed games on the machine, telling people to put them on the Apple II instead, he made the biggest mistake of his life right then and there. This is the main differentiator in platform preference. PCs can play tremendous games, and there are many more to choose from than there are cross-platform titles. Families are hard-pressed not to own a PC because of the tonnage of children's games, for instance. Although Macs are easier for kids to use, children still want machines that can play the games they like.
Again, I?m a huge fan of games, but I?m having a hard time seeing how such a broad statement can be made without any sort of statistics to back it up.
My $0.02,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by Antithesis
Oh, boy. Where to begin?
I?m a pretty big proponent of games on the Macintosh, but I?ll be damned if I know where you get these figures from. I?d sure love a source.
Again, I?m a huge fan of games, but I?m having a hard time seeing how such a broad statement can be made without any sort of statistics to back it up.
-Antithesis
98% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
My 1/4th rule does not come from stats. It is based on my assumptions about the 4 main reasons people buy computers: word processing, Internet, email, and games. This list is a little outdated because digital storage is becoming a big deal these days. I actually believe that gaming drove the computer revolution after DTP. It was the only thing pushing the limits of tech for quite some time. Without games, there would be no arms race in the video card market. Without games, I doubt AMD would be around today. Without games, I doubt we would be a over 3GHz in the PC side. I can't prove it, but I know I'm right. As for Dvorak, I don't know where he gets his stats from. Probably the same place I get mine from.
The Mac game market comes down to sales. If more Mac users buy games, there will be more green lights for Mac ports, more attention paid to the quality and timeliness of those ports, and more Mac games generally. Note the word buy, since piracy appears to be completely out of control in this market. If you play games that you didn't buy, you're actively driving publishers and developers away from the Mac market (they're steadily leaving the PC market in favor of consoles, too, for the same reason). If you build your own PC or buy a console to play games - which I certainly understand, mind you - then you aren't growing the Mac games market either.
If Apple builds it, they won't come. If Mac users buy them, they will come. That's it, according to people in the game industry itself. It doesn't make sense for Apple to take a more active role in game development than they have until there's a demand, and right now the Mac user base is not creating much demand. There's a lot of talk, but not much in the way of action.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll keep saying this until it sinks in: If you want games on the Mac, buy games for the Mac. Period.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Crash-proofing. Windows users seem to think their machines crash the most. Most experts see Linux as the most stable of the three operating systems. That said, nobody except server mavens is concerned about frequent crashes to the point where people are running away from Windows and defecting to Linux. This is another wash.
If they actually worked with a more stable system they might realize what they are soon missing. Right now they assume all OSes are like this.
Most file formats are compatible with each other, so that's become a nonissue. The last vestige of incompatibility seems to be compression methodologies?StuffIt versus ZIP. As for general software, the most distinctive package that would encourage a shift to the Mac is Apple's Final Cut Pro. But that is a highly specialized niche product aimed specifically at video professionals, so it cannot influence a large market segment. Again, there's no compelling reason to change operating-system affiliations over compatibility.
Hogwash. PKZip and Stuffit are available on both platforms. It's called competition.
Distinctive packages on the Mac - the iApps and other bundled software. I think alot of people are amazed how integrated and easy the iApps are.
Total cost of ownership. Apparently nobody cares. Experts can prove that the Mac is the cheapest platform by virtue of the low cost of support and training. Linux is just plain free. I think a case can be made for any of the contenders.
IT desktop staff would lose their jobs if Macs were brought in. IT desktop staff hate Macs because they do everything for you.
Viruses and security. Windows suffers the most here. Almost all major problems are Windows-related on both the client side and the server side. Yet nobody is abandoning Windows for this reason; people just complain about it.
Again, if they actually worked on a system without viruses, they'd soon see what they are missing. They just feel they have to live with it.
I love the 20" iMac, but its a hard sell based on the specs. This is especially true when comparing it to PC systems. Ok, ok, none of these are new arguments. I see a gaping hole in the Mac line-up. The G5 is High-end and the iMac is consumerish. Make the G5s all dual and make a mege-Cube G5 headless iMac machine. I'd buy one.
Originally posted by Amorph
I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll keep saying this until it sinks in: If you want games on the Mac, buy games for the Mac. Period.
It's a bit of a paradox though, don't you think, Amorph? What if the games available for purchase on the Mac aren't the games people really want to buy? The other problem is that they bring to the mac the games I wanted to buy three or four years later... In extreme cases, such as Everquest. So should I purchase games I don't necessarily want, or how do I get them to port games that I do want?
Originally posted by LoCash
It's a bit of a paradox though, don't you think, Amorph? What if the games available for purchase on the Mac aren't the games people really want to buy? The other problem is that they bring to the mac the games I wanted to buy three or four years later... In extreme cases, such as Everquest. So should I purchase games I don't necessarily want, or how do I get them to port games that I do want?
I agree that it's not quite so simple, because it means buying games you might not be crazy about that might not run as well as they would on a PC or a console. However, no-one seems to have a problem with Apple investing resources now toward a better Mac gaming market in the future. I'm saying that the end users should be making that investment. You'd be paying for it either way, since an initiative by Apple would be funded by sales.
The simple fact of the matter is that publishers can only gauge the size of a market by what has sold. Petitions and letter-writing campaigns are of seriously dubious value because people are notorious for clamoring for things that they don't buy once they're released. Like it or not, the relevant, concrete measure used is the size of the market, and the market necessarily consists of games that have already been released. Game Publisher X doesn't know that you're lukewarm about Final Perp Shooter III, but excited about the upcoming Furious Postal Serviceworkers II. They can and will make a best-guess estimate of the market for the latter based on the sales of the former.
Right now, the Mac market - meaning the number of people who buy games - is small enough that it can only support A-list games that have a good chance of recouping their costs, and shareware games that don't cost nearly as much to develop. If Mac gamers want more, they have to show publishers that there's a bigger market, and that means buying more games now, and buying them consistently, and being patient: It can take two years or more for a game to be finished.
So I suppose the question is, how much do you really want games on the Mac? Is it something that'll give you a warm fuzzy feeling? Or are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Macs are for more productive uses of ones' time (though one might still send the heavy duty stuff to a PC compute node).
Originally posted by Amorph
... excited about the upcoming Furious Postal Serviceworkers II...
Man! They're making a sequel! Wicked!
Thanks for reminding me to play Ninja Gaiden on my 55 inch HDTV tonight. Why would I want a desktop to play games on?
"Hardcore gamers" means Unreal or Doom junkies who are concerned that they are only getting 120 fps out of their rig. These people are not a legitimate market in comparison to the number of people who just want to use their computer. THey may well be bleeding edge, but there really aren't that many of them, so their desire to spend money doesn't mean all that much. There is also quite a bit more to the world of gaming than first person shooters.
Most of your complaints are simply a silly rehashing of the fact that G4 based machines suck. Please stop rehashing arguments that are reducible to this point- it is tedious to read articles that are basically summaries of all the complaints in current hardware up till last summer. Yes, G4 based machines suck. Get it in your head that Apple is in the midst of a transition to the G5.
When Apple releases a G5 iMac, then you have something to talk about if its specs aren't up to stuff (BTW, "Hardcore gamers" don't use LCDs because of ghosting problems).
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I actually believe that gaming drove the computer revolution after DTP.
I thought that the internet drove computer sales after DTP.
Although I don't have any stats to back this up, I think most PC gamers are playing games on standard Compaq/HP/Dell hardware. There is only a small percentage of people who build their own PC's to unbelievable specs. It just seems like there are a lot of them since there are so many Win users out there that a even a small percentage of them can lead to hundreds of thousands. What I'm trying to say is that building a hardcore gaming machine will not equal mass-immigration from the wintel world. Most people won't care. If Apple actually did make a gamer's Mac, a small percentage of Apple's 3% marketshare will actually buy the machine and Apple probably can't recoup the R&D that they put in it.
As for viruses. I believe that it COULD be a major reason why many people will want to abandon the Windows. Only problem being that many Windows users don't realize that they are the only ones affected. They think that viruses are universal. I spoke to many Windows users and they didn't believe that my Mac is never affected. Many Win Users think like this: Windows is the most popular OS, therefore, Windows is the easiest, most powerful, and most secure platform. Why would they want to switch to a Mac which is theoretically less secure? Apple could advertise the fact that they are almost immune to virus attacks. But that will probably be taken as a challenge to all the hackers out there and we will no longer enjoy the peaceful life that we have. I guess that we need to let people know by word-of-mouth.
I'm not trying to preach here.
I've spent plenty of time on the various PTP networks.
Games are affordable and by stealing/sharing them we're digging our own graves.
(The same goes for mac software as well).
I also think that Apple should open a gaming division that actively supports/seeds game development and developers as well as producing in house games and or ports.
That could very easily be done right now and still address 98% of your "concerns".
Mac gaming at risk from piracy?
Developing for a smaller market comes with both risks and rewards. The rewards can be large in terms of fanatical devotion if you make a solid product. The risks can also be massive if your product is either widely-disliked, or in the case of Mac games, increasingly pirated. Macs are finally respectable gaming machines now that the architecture, CPU power, and high-end video cards are arguably a match for the Intel/AMD platform. This, along with the maturity of Mac OS X, should lead to more gaming titles available on the Mac. However, Mac gaming industry insiders are warning that the increasing piracy of Mac gaming titles may mean that some popular titles never get ported.
UK games developer Mark Thomas of porting house Coderus said: "If we don't recover costs, future projects can be at risk ? users have less titles, and fewer developers risk introducing Mac games. "We understand there will be piracy, but such massive levels will affect future titles. We are losing money that we need for future games. Mac gamers aren't getting the full picture here."
Mac game development houses are set up differently than PC or console developers. To get a port such as Command and Conquer: Generals out the door requires Aspyr, the company porting the game, to jump through a few hoops. First off, they must seek the blessing of EA Games for the port, and pay them a licensing fee. After that comes the development, packaging, marketing, and distribution costs. On top of that, Mac developers often need to pay at least a minimum guaranteed royalty on sales; this can hurt if sales do not meet expectations. So the development structure on the Mac side of the aisle works differently.
Many arguments have been made on the effect of piracy on revenues, sales, and future development. However, the case of Mac gaming is fairly clear-cut: with a minor segment (gamers) of a smaller market (Mac users) to develop for, piracy of game titles has a more drastic effect on the genre. With the size of the Mac market, even a relatively small number of sales due to piracy can make or break a title. Mac game developers are beginning to insert antipiracy measures into their games ? the latest Halo patch now checks the optical drive for a legitimate copy of the CD before game play will begin. According to MacSoft, they were forced into this because pirated copies exceeded legitimate ones:
MacSoft president Peter Tamte said: "Our wake-up call was when we physically tracked more people stealing Mac Halo online than buying it, even though we can physically track fewer than ten per cent of downloads. This dragged us kicking and screaming into copy protection. Unfortunately, all the methods we can employ need the CD in the drive. We were dragged into this," he said.
It can be tempting to fire up a Bit Torrent client or jump on to the Usenet instead of heading over to Micro Center or buying a copy of games on-line. However, if people do not change their behavior, or the increasing antipiracy measures do not change the current trends, the Mac gaming market ? which has undergone a strong rebound since the dark days of the late 1990s ? may soon fade away.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
There is only a small percentage of people who build their own PC's to unbelievable specs. It just seems like there are a lot of them since there are so many Win users out there that a even a small percentage of them can lead to hundreds of thousands. What I'm trying to say is that building a hardcore gaming machine will not equal mass-immigration from the wintel world. Most people won't care. If Apple actually did make a gamer's Mac, a small percentage of Apple's 3% marketshare will actually buy the machine and Apple probably can't recoup the R&D that they put in it.
I don't doubt you. But I'm not really talking about the super gamers. I'm talking about the average joe. Enough people spec out their systems so that vid card developers keep upping the anti. Because of this, even cheap PCs can get a great vid card if the buyer wants it. Walking down the aisles of CompUSA, there seem to be more graphics card choices for the PC than there are games for the Mac. Also, when parents buy a system for the family, they are not going to spec out the system to build the ultimate gaming rig. But they are going to see the staggering array of titles available for the PC and if games are any part of their purchasing decision, their going to go with the PC.
I think there is a solution to this. Apple needs to do the same for games as they did with the iApps. They need to make the killer app. They need to come up with the best game in every category of gaming. Board and card games, RTS, driving, and puzzle games should be done as well as FPS. They need to make the games cross platform so that PC users will also be able to play them, buy them, and fall in love with them. The huge PC gaming market will more than pay for the project. Suddenly, there will be interest in gaming for the Mac from major developers as well. These Apple branded games should be offered free with every new Gaming Edition Mac (GEM), and sold separately in a bundle for $99. At least one of the games needs to be the best of class and they should all have that special Apple touch. One more thing. All of the games should work on every currently shipping Mac, but certain features can be locked for all accept (GEM) and high end owners.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I don't doubt you. But I'm not really talking about the super gamers. I'm talking about the average joe. Enough people spec out their systems so that vid card developers keep upping the anti.
I've seen this a couple of times already, so:
<nitpick>
You up the ante.
</nitpick>
Because of this, even cheap PCs can get a great vid card if the buyer wants it. Walking down the aisles of CompUSA, there seem to be more graphics card choices for the PC than there are games for the Mac.
A tiny percentage of an immense market is still attractive. And, of course, what they don't say is that the incredible churn of the video card market means that hardly any of the features of any given card will actually be exploited.
I think there is a solution to this. Apple needs to do the same for games as they did with the iApps. They need to make the killer app. They need to come up with the best game in every category of gaming. Board and card games, RTS, driving, and puzzle games should be done as well as FPS. They need to make the games cross platform so that PC users will also be able to play them, buy them, and fall in love with them. The huge PC gaming market will more than pay for the project. Suddenly, there will be interest in gaming for the Mac from major developers as well.
Or, abject horror from the small developers who are suddenly competing head to head with multi-billion dollar Apple Computer. And that's assuming that they can just snap their fingers and make best-in-class games in every category, which is quite an assumption. I know Apple has a lot of talent and a real culture of excellence, but I'd like to see them out-Carmack Carmack.
Apple already bundles games with their consumer machines, including titles which aren't available on Windows. The bigger problems are: That cross-platform titles are always shelved in the Windows section and rung up as Windows sales, shrinking the apparent size of the Mac market; that Macs and PCs are hardly ever available beside each other to compare directly; and when they are, the salesman almost always directs the buyer toward the PC with a bunch of BS - everyone knows that Macs can't play games. And that's if the buyer considers a Mac at all!
These are all much larger problems, many of which come back to the material fact that retail sucks, and electronics retail sucks rocks. Given that, those of us who know what's available, and who want more, can do our part by buying what is available.
I've decided this really belongs in General Discussion.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think there is a solution to this. Apple needs to do the same for games as they did with the iApps. They need to make the killer app. They need to come up with the best game in every category of gaming. Board and card games, RTS, driving, and puzzle games should be done as well as FPS. They need to make the games cross platform so that PC users will also be able to play them, buy them, and fall in love with them. The huge PC gaming market will more than pay for the project. Suddenly, there will be interest in gaming for the Mac from major developers as well. These Apple branded games should be offered free with every new Gaming Edition Mac (GEM), and sold separately in a bundle for $99. At least one of the games needs to be the best of class and they should all have that special Apple touch. One more thing. All of the games should work on every currently shipping Mac, but certain features can be locked for all accept (GEM) and high end owners.
Ditto. I think gaming IS the main reason why people don't want macs. Take my situation for example.
I will be buying a new computer very soon because I will be going to a boarding school. I have been debating for month, no, years, on whether or not to get a Mac or PC. The resounding reason why I'm still struggling is because of games. I heard that at the new school I'm going to, games are a way of life and played on the LAN. On one hand, I don't want to play games too much and lose focus. On the other, I want to be able to play PC games with my buddies occasionally.
The Mac is beautiful, the Mac GUI is intuitive, the mac Mhas the undeniably best multimedia software in all the land, and even if the mac doesn't support something, you can usually rely on good ole' Virtual PC.
But, the mac doesn't have games.
Also, cost is another major factor, although not as big of a factor as games. For me, I want the best, so if I get a mac, it has to be the dual processor G5 (which is not virtual PC compatible, by the way). I'm going to be shelling out over $3000 for the tower and monitor.