Why Valve games are not coming to Macs..

[kingtj]

More to the story.....

Well, what we DO know for a fact is that Half-Life 2 was coded to use Direct-X instead of OpenGL. It wouldn't surprise me if the crux of the problem revolves around that initial design decision on Valve's part.....

(EG. Valve would have to re-write the whole game and add-on episodes to work in OpenGL, in order to run properly in OS X natively. Instead of doing this, they probably complained to Apple that they need to support Direct-X extensions in some manner, inside OS X. Apple's people probably said "Yeah, sure... we'll make a note of that." and went back to Cupertino, laughed at the idea for a few minutes, and ignored them after that.)

Anyone who coded a video game to use Direct-X in Windows knew up-front that they were effectively tying themselves to that platform (and by extension, the Xbox console). That's why some people (like ID Software) used OpenGL instead for the Quake series, and why Direct-X was avoided in all the Blizzard titles too.

I'm not a software developer myself, but I worked closely with a number of them before. As I understand it, Direct-X is a little easier to code for than OpenGL, all things considered. Direct-X extensions give developers a lot of tools to access advanced features of the latest video cards. That's an area where Apple seems much less concerned, since they don't even provide the latest video cards and chipsets as options for any of the machines they sell.

Still, it seems to me that if you proceed with writing a game title using OpenGL for OS X and run into issues, Apple is willing to assist. (I recall seeing several updates made in point releases of OS X that specifically addressed bugs only found in World of Warcraft!)

I am actually very curious what those three things were that Newell said that Apple was told. It is hard to say if Apple is or isn't listening if we are never told by the developers what was said.

From our viewpoint it becomes he-said/she-said, with our evidence for anything being the lack of games and nothing more.

 

[Stella]

That depends on the purpose of the PC in the first place. If all the Mac needed to do was internet, word processing then the current cards would be fine - not under powered. But the Macs are capable of much more, including games.

Take the iMac as an example. Its capable of far more than just word processing, email etc. The graphic capability lets it down - you could say that it is being crippled due to poor graphics. The iMac cannot realize its full potential. To do so, Apple want you to buy the Mac Pro instead.

Are you sure?
"They offer the highest end STABLE card avaliable"

First, let me say that mac graphics cards are NOT underpowered by ANY means. They offer the highest end STABLE card avaliable, and update pretty quickly, save their laptop line (as the same with any other company).

 

[boboki]

Take the iMac as an example. Its capable of far more than just word processing, email etc. The graphic capability lets it down - you could say that it is being crippled due to poor graphics. The iMac cannot realize its full potential. To do so, Apple want you to buy the Mac Pro instead.

Are you sure?
"They offer the highest end STABLE card avaliable"

What is this crippled you keep talking about? I have a 7600 GTS in my iMac24".... I am not crippled in ANY way whatsoever! I get awesome FPS in all my games I play.... be they mac native, bootcamped, or wine. WoW I pull over 100fps, CoD2 I get about 45-60fps.... where is the cripple I keep hearing? How is ANYTHING over 30fps (the speed you see stuff in) crippled? I have all effects, shaders, polyanthroninjamorphing all turned on... anti-aliasing, etcetc.. its all up full tilt, and still I get great fps (all on cod suffers a tad, but still lag free and 25-40fps is still more than ok).
I have YET to run across a game, ANY GAME, that my mac does not play, and play well... (well thats a lie.. theres that one that requires the physx card.....)

You show me a game thats "crippled by poor graphics" on a mac.... and I'll get it, install it, and post my fps results.

And yes, they offer the highest end STABLE cards out... the 8000 series is HARDLY stable... it crashes or straight does not work on more games than it works on.

 

[nookster]

What is this crippled you keep talking about? I have a 7600 GTS in my iMac24".... I am not crippled in ANY way whatsoever! I get awesome FPS in all my games I play.... be they mac native, bootcamped, or wine. WoW I pull over 100fps, CoD2 I get about 45-60fps.... where is the cripple I keep hearing? How is ANYTHING over 30fps (the speed you see stuff in) crippled? I have all effects, shaders, polyanthroninjamorphing all turned on... anti-aliasing, etcetc.. its all up full tilt, and still I get great fps (all on cod suffers a tad, but still lag free and 25-40fps is still more than ok).
I have YET to run across a game, ANY GAME, that my mac does not play, and play well... (well thats a lie.. theres that one that requires the physx card.....)

You show me a game thats "crippled by poor graphics" on a mac.... and I'll get it, install it, and post my fps results.

And yes, they offer the highest end STABLE cards out... the 8000 series is HARDLY stable... it crashes or straight does not work on more games than it works on.

Hi.

In order;

Your iMac is no longer in circulation, the present crop are on average poorer performers, and have no higher end GFX option like your last gen iMac.

The latest MBPs use 8600M GT gpu's. I am not aware of any general stability or compatibility issues.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

And yes, they offer the highest end STABLE cards out... the 8000 series is HARDLY stable... it crashes or straight does not work on more games than it works on.

Glad to see more misinformation being spread. The 8000 is stable and more games are designed and tested to work with Nvidia than ATI(More games have Nvidia badges like W40k: DoW and World in Conflict) The best part of this ridiculousness is that the 2600 isn't even the best ATI card. As far games, try Supreme Commander or World in Conflict.

How is ANYTHING over 30fps (the speed you see stuff in) crippled?

The speed you see stuff in? Are you thinking of film because it's 24 fps? That's handled quite differently. The common threshhold is 60fps because of LCDs running at 60Hz.

 

[BTW]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/01/valve-sticks-boot-el-jobso

Yup.

At least there's hope that Valve may bring its wares via EA.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

(EG. Valve would have to re-write the whole game and add-on episodes to work in OpenGL, in order to run properly in OS X natively. Instead of doing this, they probably complained to Apple that they need to support Direct-X extensions in some manner, inside OS X. Apple's people probably said "Yeah, sure... we'll make a note of that." and went back to Cupertino, laughed at the idea for a few minutes, and ignored them after that.)

A good point - we don't know the substance of the debate between Apple and Valve. Valve may have been asking a lot from Apple, and when Apple balked they told the story in a way that made Apple look bad without actually telling us the nature of the disagreement.

Right now it seems to me that game developers do not take Apple seriously enough to take any risks with the platform. Apple is similarly disinterested in investing in making the platform more game-friendly. Until both sides warm up to each other a bit more, nothing's going to change.

In either case the gamer, casual or hardcore, loses. Right now it would be pretty easy to have retail, dual-plaform GPUs available in every computer store that represent the entire GPU line from both ATI and NVIDIA - at a fractionally larger cost than single platform PC cards. Apple's GPUs are already made this way, and if any of the GPU manufacturers chose (and Apple went along), they could start making the latest cards dual platform tomorrow.

 

[boboki]

Hi.

In order;

Your iMac is no longer in circulation, the present crop are on average poorer performers, and have no higher end GFX option like your last gen iMac.

The latest MBPs use 8600M GT gpu's. I am not aware of any general stability or compatibility issues.

OUCH.... Just went to Apple's store... HD 2600 is ONLY option! You have got to be kidding me! And I was almost mad that I missed out on this newer sweet looking model. Ok, the card is still not at all bad, it is not a 8800 to be sure, but again, I would call it far from crippled. It seems to rank pretty close to the 8600 GT... not what I would call a monster card, but still more than capable of decent game play.

This again though really points out a serious lack of a middle-teir stand alone model from apple, you know... something called MAC.
Read: macbook, mackbook pro, mac mini, imac, --MAC--, mac pro.. I am pretty sure that we could use a machine like a mac pro, without forcing dual procs...

 

[Stella]

OUCH.... Just went to Apple's store... HD 2600 is ONLY option! You have got to be kidding me! And I was almost mad that I missed out on this newer sweet looking model. Ok, the card is still not at all bad, it is not a 8800 to be sure, but again, I would call it far from crippled. It seems to rank pretty close to the 8600 GT... not what I would call a monster card, but still more than capable of decent game play.

This again though really points out a serious lack of a middle-teir stand alone model from apple, you know... something called MAC.
Read: macbook, mackbook pro, mac mini, imac, --MAC--, mac pro.. I am pretty sure that we could use a machine like a mac pro, without forcing dual procs...

Benchmark / Review
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151673,00.asp

Those ATI HD 2600 cards are hardly cutting edge... more like entry level / budget.

 

[boboki]

Glad to see more misinformation being spread. The 8000 is stable and more games are designed and tested to work with Nvidia than ATI(More games have Nvidia badges like W40k: DoW and World in Conflict) The best part of this ridiculousness is that the 2600 isn't even the best ATI card. As far games, try Supreme Commander or World in Conflict.




The speed you see stuff in? Are you thinking of film because it's 24 fps? That's handled quite differently. The common threshhold is 60fps because of LCDs running at 60Hz.

Well not to be argumentive or anything, but there are reported problems with all 8000 in the NWN 1+2, WoW, CoD 1+2, And that new game that requires the physx card, just off the top of my head.

Now, I will have to redo my original statement a tad, as the 2600 HD is HARDLY top of the line..... and the best they seem to have for mac pro at the moment is still x1900 and 7000 series.....
I still stick by the fact that these cards are hardly underpowered or crippled, and will still run just about any game you throw at them.

I am not advocating the lack of games or saying Apple is guilt free, but I am saying that more FUD is spouted everyday about this very argument, that at the end of the day its made to look like Apple has done everything in its power to be anti-game, that the hardware in macs suck, and that Steve Jobs eats children.... and while the last may be true, the first two are hardly correct, or even fair. Macs are constantly held up to the latest betaware from pcs and are performanced based as such, and that is like apples to oranges at that point. So many people complain that macs graphics are "crippled" but just because its not the latest betahardware they released on a pc does not make it crippled. How many people that are not hardcore gamers own a 8800? No, most are still cranking x1600 or like a 7300, or worse. I just don't understand why its either mac has to be bleeding edge or its crippled and worthless. A LOT of liberties are being spoken when talking about the level of worth in gaming a mac has...

 

[boboki]

Benchmark / Review
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151673,00.asp

Those ATI HD 2600 cards are hardly cutting edge... more like entry level / budget.

Actually, I thought it was funny to see the DX10 results. Sad when a 2600HD beats a 8600 Too bad Mac doesn't use DX10..... or... is there something we are not being told

Its odd, I find myself almost feeling like I am being backed into a corner and have to defend my statements which were, for the most part, true. Already I see the standard nit pick that happens on forums as links to benchmarks and the like are posted to prove that its not the fastest card avaliable, and get this.. becuase this is the funny part, I already said that. It will be a great day when a conversation can be had in a forum enviroment that is constructive, non-argumental, and void of stupid link and grammar nazis. I say that Microsoft has a stanglehold of the gaming market having used leverage it had at the time, and offering a simplified enginer to program for (DX).... which is met with "APPLE DOESN'T GIVE SOURCECODE TO GAME MAKERS FOR THEIR GAMES OMGOMG ****" which somehow has nothing to do with my statement whatsoever.
I say that Apple uses decent highend cards (or it seems DID until that new iMac came out) that are a little older than zeroday cards, but are damn near 100% stable, and do not crash/overheat. I get benchmarks for the latest (unfortunatly) iMac card compaired to the new 8000 series... going completely against what I just said.
I say that the current cards are anything but crippled or poor performers as they are always said to have, judging this by actually using my machine to play games, play them at decent frame rates, and play them with most effects turned on. That, of course, is met with more links to WINDOWS based fps charts. I am not in windows for most my games and even when I use bootcamp, my results are a bit better than the charts you showed me.

Is it that hard to understand that Macs are NOT hardcore gamer machines, and base them for what they are? Why is it the best or its trash? Top end, and hardly working, or its old hat and worthless? Explain to me when a little common sense and looking at a whole picture was abandoned and replaced with close needlepoint details were picked out and used as flamebait instead?

 

[abackus]

I wonder what they asked apple and why they can't do what blizzard, epic and id software can.

You forgot to mention EA Games.

EA Games: These games are simply the exact same Windows executables, just running via emulation through a commercial WINE implementation. This is not acceptable. I want my games to run at full acceleration. It doesn't matter that WINE runs ok on Intel Macs.

Epic and ID: I haven't tried these because I really wish that I could transfer my software license for my Windows version over so I don't have to pay another $50 for games that are years old and selling for $10-20 on Windows now. That's about like buying the brand new (being sarcastic here) Halo 2 for Windows.

Blizzard: These guys do a remarkable job of simultaneously releasing patches and new releases on both Windows and Mac platforms. In fact, the recent patch introduced a Mac-only feature of recording video in-game. How cool is that?

Valve: I completely believe Gabe's comments about gaming concerns and suggestions being ignored. Case in point is an issue that's been plaguing WoW players on the MacBook Pro for months. If you install a recent MBP update, your video becomes choppy in game. The last thing I heard is that Apple is working with Nvidia to remedy the issue. That was at least a month ago. I can't wait to play WoW full screen again.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=942814498&sid=1&pageNo=1#17


When it comes to hardware though, my Macbook Pro screams when I switch to Windows XP. Very smooth framerates at full 1920x1200 resolution in all of my Steam/Valve games.

 

[Stella]

A better comparison:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html



Imagine a Porche that has very good performance, but instead of round wheels, has square wheels. Its overall performance will be crippled. Think that of the iMac.

Actually, I thought it was funny to see the DX10 results. Sad when a 2600HD beats a 8600 Too bad Mac doesn't use DX10..... or... is there something we are not being told

Its odd, I find myself almost feeling like I am being backed into a corner and have to defend my statements which were, for the most part, true. Already I see the standard nit pick that happens on forums as links to benchmarks and the like are posted to prove that its not the fastest card avaliable, and get this.. becuase this is the funny part, I already said that. It will be a great day when a conversation can be had in a forum enviroment that is constructive, non-argumental, and void of stupid link and grammar nazis. I say that Microsoft has a stanglehold of the gaming market having used leverage it had at the time, and offering a simplified enginer to program for (DX).... which is met with "APPLE DOESN'T GIVE SOURCECODE TO GAME MAKERS FOR THEIR GAMES OMGOMG ****" which somehow has nothing to do with my statement whatsoever.
I say that Apple uses decent highend cards (or it seems DID until that new iMac came out) that are a little older than zeroday cards, but are damn near 100% stable, and do not crash/overheat. I get benchmarks for the latest (unfortunatly) iMac card compaired to the new 8000 series... going completely against what I just said.
I say that the current cards are anything but crippled or poor performers as they are always said to have, judging this by actually using my machine to play games, play them at decent frame rates, and play them with most effects turned on. That, of course, is met with more links to WINDOWS based fps charts. I am not in windows for most my games and even when I use bootcamp, my results are a bit better than the charts you showed me.

Is it that hard to understand that Macs are NOT hardcore gamer machines, and base them for what they are? Why is it the best or its trash? Top end, and hardly working, or its old hat and worthless? Explain to me when a little common sense and looking at a whole picture was abandoned and replaced with close needlepoint details were picked out and used as flamebait instead?

 

[Eidorian]

You forgot to mention EA Games.

EA Games: These games are simply the exact same Windows executables, just running via emulation through a commercial WINE implementation. This is not acceptable. I want my games to run at full acceleration. It doesn't matter that WINE runs ok on Intel Macs.

Cider != Emulation

 

[cliffjumper68]

It would be hard for any Mac's except the pro's to handle valve games. Certainly with weak video cards it would be difficult to develop games for. That is why I have a console though and do other stuff on my Mac's.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

If you look at available GPUs for Macs, you'll see we've generally (though not always) been behind the curve.

For one thing, Apple never releases xxxxxUltraMegaXTX SLICrossFire Super-Duper-magical mega-overclocked Vaporware edition cards, which is fine by me because those cards are a very small corner of the market - and unless you pair them with appropriate mobo, RAM, HDD and CPU components the small advantage over the standard flagship cards is lost and doesn't justify their ridiculous cost and nonexistent availability.

Back when the Radeon 9800 PRO was released, PowerMacs could be had with a card that was pretty much the high end standard. However, Apple was slow to release a Mac version of the 9800XT (and it was never available retail), and we fell behind a little. The 9800 PRO was available retail, but retained it's MSRP long after identical PC cards were priced down by as much as $200 below retail - a shocking state of affairs that led to substantial interest in video card hacking & flashing for Macs, so users could get a new (PC) Radeon 9800 PRO for $120 and get it working on the Mac, avoiding the purchase of the $270 9800 PRO Mac Edition, which offered the same performance...

The arrival of the GeForce 6800 Utra and the Radeon X800XT brought us back up to relative currency with the PC world, but once again prices remained at "launch" MSRP for years after PC cards dropped by hundreds of dollars. Even today, Radeon X800XT Mac Edition cards can fetch sick amounts of money. Flashing cards became more difficult for various reasons as well, partially cutting off that avenue. Apple was slow to update the GPUs again - the Radeon X850XT arrived a bit late and once again was not available retail.

The story goes on...infrequently updated GPUs for lots of money that aren't always even available retail. The flagship cards are usually very good high-end cards, but are updated less than frequently and have lousy price points and availability. Standard-equipment cards are too cheap, leaving us with no middle-range choice. You either spend big and get a gaming card or get the standard card and the shaft.

And that's just with the PowerMac line...with the laptops it's generally been a case of either getting a base machine with an inadequate card or a high-end machine with a middle/low end card that is adequate for gaming, but only just.

Re: the iMac, I have to say that the only iMac ever to truly make the grade as a gaming machine was the 24" Intel iMac with the GeForce 7600GT. Every iMac before and after that one has been a machine fore casual gamers only, or serious gamers with a second machine other than the iMac dedicated to games.

 

[boboki]

A better comparison:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html



Imagine a Porche that has very good performance, but instead of round wheels, has square wheels. Its overall performance will be crippled. Think that of the iMac.

*sigh*
How is 40.9fps in battlefield crippled?
Read my post please, you just did exactly what I said was stupid to do. You posted a chart for WINDOWS with my card vs. the lastest omgcrazyninjafastbut$1000 card which shows me yet again that its getting more then decent fps, and is not crippled. What point are you trying to make?

*Imagines a Eagle Talon that has a few mods done to it making it totally lose to a lambogini diablo, yet still being more than fast enough to break any speedlimit*

 

[boboki]

If you look at available GPUs for Macs, you'll see we've generally (though n
Re: the iMac, I have to say that the only iMac ever to truly make the grade as a gaming machine was the 24" Intel iMac with the GeForce 7600GT. Every iMac before and after that one has been a machine fore casual gamers only, or serious gamers with a second machine other than the iMac dedicated to games.

Go figure, thats what I have
I considered getting the x1900, but figured that in the mac world, ati cannot play with love with drivers to produce better fps like they do on the pcs.... so raw horsepower will in the longrun pan out better.

 

[Stella]

It doesn't matter if the benchmarks were for windows ( this - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html ) , its all relative with a broad range of graphic cards. Its a good indicator of performance.

Today's Macs ship with ATI-2400 / 2600. Its irrelevant what graphic cards shipped with last generation iMacs because they aren't being sold

1. What version of Battlefield are you running ( which is very important, a 2 year old game that can achieve 40fps on today's Macs doesn't impress me - I want to know about performance of recent games ).
2. In battlefield, what level of graphics were you using - min, meduim, max , full shadows etc etc
3. At what resolution?

EDIT: Saying you can achieve 40fps is meaningless unless more information is given.

*sigh*
How is 40.9fps in battlefield crippled?
Read my post please, you just did exactly what I said was stupid to do. You posted a chart for WINDOWS with my card vs. the lastest omgcrazyninjafastbut$1000 card which shows me yet again that its getting more then decent fps, and is not crippled. What point are you trying to make?

*Imagines a Eagle Talon that has a few mods done to it making it totally lose to a lambogini diablo, yet still being more than fast enough to break any speedlimit*

 

[mdriftmeyer]

All Apple GPUs supported by Apple are EFI aware:

Apple is using Intel's EFI standard.

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

They don't use the older BIOS standards.

If you visit the presentations:

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm

Choose the latest Intel-HP Pdf presentation.

Slide 2: Overview of UEFI 2.1 and PI 1.0, Microsoft plans for UEFI and 64 bit OS, Linux Plans for UEFI support. UEFI and China.

Slide 7:

Unified EFI Forum, Inc.
A Washington non-profit Corporation
- Develops, promotes and manages evolution of Unified EFI
Specification
- Continue to drive low barrier for adoption
Promoter members:
- IBVs: AMI, Insyde, Phoenix
- OEMs: Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo
- AMD, Apple, Intel, Microsoft
Tiered Membership:
- Promoters, Contributors and Adopters
More information: www.uefi.org

Just read it:

http://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/pdfs/EFIS001_ENG_Spr07.pdf


AMD it appears will take the leap first. Not surprising that Apple will use more ATi products as present in the new iMacs.

When Nvidia joins UEFI Forum then expect Apple to rapidly gain industry wide GPU support.

 

[BlackMax]

You show me a game thats "crippled by poor graphics" on a mac.... and I'll get it, install it, and post my fps results.

Please install and test the following games on your Mac at your monitor's native resolution and medium to medium-high graphics settings:

• FEAR
• Company of Heroes
• Oblivion: Elder Scrolls 4 (outdoors)
• Battlefield 2142
• BioShock
• Halo: Combat Evolved

Anything below 40 FPS is unacceptable.

I understand some people reduce their resolution to 800x600 or such to play these on a Mac, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[Kosh66]

Valve doesn't want to support the Mac, they'll give you any excuse they can, in the end they're all excuses. It's all about money, THEY DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT THE MAC. They proved it when they created the Mac port of Half-Life and killed the project when the game was finished. They didn't want to spend money, like they were on the PC version, keeping it up to date.

As many others have said, Epic, Blizzard, Aspyr, Westwood, and a ton of other SMALL companies easily live off of creating games on the Mac. Bungie used live off of making games exclusively on the Mac before they went into the PC arena, and eventually got bought out by Microsoft.

Valve can complain, AFTER they've created and actually released a Mac game, they have no valid foundation on which they can complain before that.

 

[ViveLeLivre]

blizzard games run much better in windows

Some of them, perhaps. I get much better FPS in WoW for OSX than I do in the Windows version running on the same last gen iMac.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Nice to see one of the oldest and hottest debates about the Mac being fuelled by this...

Not knowing any facts about this, I do feel Apple's arrogance towards gaming and Valve. I'm sure Apple does see "something" in gaming (they have shipped a couple of "cute" kids games in the past... Bugdom etc.), but Steve just doesn't seem interested in the latest and greatest games.
The no-noise and coolness-slim factor of the Alu iMac is far, far more important than 3D performance of its grfx card.
The Mac Pro is seen as a workstation, and therefore the high-end grfx card is NOT a gaming card. The X1900 XT is all right, but by today's standards an old card and doesn't have DirectX 10 support.

IMHO Apple is giving us consumers a problems. A consumer Mac should be able to play games at least at a decent level. What do consumers do with computers? Right:
- Internet (dah Pr0n)
- Mail (dah commu)
- iLife (dah fun wid pix and moviez)
- Games (dah fun!)

Boot Camp even amplifies the problem. In Windows, running the good ol' games, which ran on their sub-$ 1000.- Alienware PC, like HL2, or Doom 3, on their spanking brand new iMac 24" 2.8 GHz shows a performance decrease.....
In OS X you could blame the OS, but not with Boot Camp, I'm afraid.

Personally, I think a high-end consumer computer (the high-end iMac) should be able to run the latest and greatest games with ease.
Not everyone wants to run the most demanding games, but that should be part of the reason why different spec'd iMacs are available.

The iMac line-up is great, except for one small thing: grfx.
Just give us one extra iMac option....
Buy the most expensive iMac now, and be sure future games will run horribly on it.

 

[b0ned0me]

Just to throw a bit more fuel on the fire - IMO Macs will never be a platform for major games because:
- Developing a big, complex, flagship game (e.g. BioShock) costs five metric assloads of money for one console platform.
- Porting it to PC costs you another metric assload, plus half a metric assload to support it, since PCs are such a dogs dinner of random software and components.
- Console sales generate six assloads of money, PC sales maybe two and a half assloads. So you've spent 6.5 assloads and earned 8.5 assloads, making a profit of two AL.
- Porting the game to Mac costs a bit less than the PC port, and a bit less in support (since the platform is less variable) but would only generate one assload of sales. So you would lose money if you were dumb enough to do such a thing.

Bear in mind that BioShock PC was badly badly bugged on release, that it was basically an X360 game running on a PC - and it was still Shooter of the Year so Far. It's getting to the point where ALL big games are written for consoles, and ported to PC if the economics look good. Once the next gen of consoles come along PC games will be either niche (flight sims, strategy), casual, or ports of 2-3 year old console games. Macs will be even worse off, unless they get to parity market share.
For companies like Ambrosia etc. this is all gravy, since they can make a living out of making small games for the unserved niche. But for anyone thinking of a big game (the kind where you have dozens and dozens of people working full-time for several years) consoles are basically the only way to make a profit.