Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Apple ever support more games?
- Thread starter atarria
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
with the release of app store I notice so many more releases but they are older games that devs know they can make more money from the games so hopefully in the next few years we will see games being released just as much for osx..
wish kotor 2 would get put on the mac app store
wish kotor 2 would get put on the mac app store
Batman Arkham Asylum
Borderlands GOTY
Mafia 2
It might not be this weeks latest release like MW3 or BF3 but 2 of those titles above are Unreal3 engine games and all three games run at over twice the resolution of the console versions with higher textures and graphical effects (on newer Macs). I could name more but I can only list games we have announced
you also have to take into account Aspyr and the other porting companies who have released games recently.All is not doom and gloom
Edwin
Batman Arkham Asylum
Borderlands GOTY
Mafia 2
It might not be this weeks latest release like MW3 or BF3 but 2 of those titles above are Unreal3 engine games and all three games run at over twice the resolution of the console versions with higher textures and graphical effects (on newer Macs). I could name more but I can only list games we have announced
All is not doom and gloom
Edwin
Yeah, but even with these new releases, in terms of graphics or possible other aspects of the game, you get like 75% of the game for 100% of the price.
Maybe you can tell us why the iMac needs to be that thin? It sits on a desk the whole time, or are you carrying your iMac around everyday? That's what laptops are for. The original G5 iMac was maybe twice as thick as the current iMacs but didn't look ugly. Just imagine how much more power and maybe even upgradability a current 27" iMac with the thickness of a G5 iMac would have.
Apples design now is all about form over function. The mirror displays, the ports on the mbp that are so close to each other that you can't plug in 2 regular usb devices at the same time, the obsession with thinner above everything else.
I have a pre unibody mbp and a first generation iPod shuffle, when pluging the iPod into the usb port next to the magsafe both exactly fit next to eachother. That's a level of detail and form follows function that in my opinion is missing in Apples current designs.
Yes Apple could compromise the thickness of the iMac to give it better specs but what would be the point? Those that look for the fastest CPU and GPU are not likely to buy an iMac when there is a myriad of alternatives in the PC market. Those that buy iMacs can appreciate its minimalist design and tolerate relatively modest specs. If you see that as form over function then its a valid view and you have to ask yourself what your priorities are for the computer you want to use. My priority was to have an almost silent computer and the iMac met the criteria.
I though the same but as I happen to have them all within reach I had a quick check. The thickest part (the middle of the back) looks about the same thickness on all of the iMacs, the thinest bits on the edge the latest iMac's are about 12 mm thinner between the G5/First Gen Intel iMacs and the latest ones.
G5/ Intel White case - 39mm
Intel (Black back) - 32mm ~18% thinner at the edges
Intel (Silver back) - 27mm ~30% thinner at the edges
When you have them side by side the new ones do look a lot nicer looking but they are not actually that much thinner just the edges are. I agree though Apple do push the margins to the very limit on iMacs and they can get too hot to touch when playing the latest games
Overall I would not say the actual volume has shrunk in fact for the high end models it has gotten bigger! 20" was the biggest iMac back then and now we have 27" machines with a lot more room to fit higher end cards and hardware.
I have a latest MBP and as long as you have standard usb cables I don't have any problems the only issue I do have on the MBP is using some USB sticks and other oversized devices which don't come with a cable.
To be honest apart from the very handy MacBook Air USB port on both sides feature I have not noticed any difference in USB port access in recent models. As a quick check I compared a G4 iBook and the latest MBP the gaps between the ports on the iBook were 4mm (6mm if you include the plastic around the port), the MBP pro is metal and has no plastic and was around 4mm. The difference is noticeable but any usb memory stick that has a problem on my MBP also has the same issue on the white iBook as well.
This post is not meant to be picking on you, in fact I agreed with your comments but when I actually looked at the machines next to each other I realised the differences are actually a lot smaller than our minds make us think.
Edwin
(All measurements with a cheap plastic ruler)
Absolutely. Mac has been proved to be a very capable platform for running games as well. Blizzard is doing that like forever. Releasing everything for both pc and mac at the same time. If it works for them, it could work for the rest of the companies.
With the App Store and Steam on the Mac, the Mac games market should be enjoying a resurgence. In the past if you wanted a game for your Mac you would propably not find it amongst the meagre selection that made it to specialty Mac store shelves. Now you just need an internet connection so it's worth the effort for developers to make a Mac version alongside their Windows games. Perhaps if a games is made from the start like this, Open GL would be the way to go. Not every game needs to compete with graphics and the people who want those games are probably on Windows anyway.
Devs (including Blizzard) are not "mac-friendly". They are customer friendly. The only time when you see serious effort to release a game on the Mac within a reasonable amount of time is if there is a big market for the game so that it's worth it to devote 2% (maybe 1%) of the production line to it.
And I'm sure "digital downloads" help a bit, but if you haven't followed recent holiday business news, retail shopping is more alive and kicking than ever. Add to that fact that a tremendous percentage of game sales happen during the holiday season. This is where someone who knows nothing about games can actually talk to a person who will recomend and show them something they can buy right there while passing through to grab other deals / gifts / food or while waiting for "the women to finish" etc.
And I'm sure "digital downloads" help a bit, but if you haven't followed recent holiday business news, retail shopping is more alive and kicking than ever. Add to that fact that a tremendous percentage of game sales happen during the holiday season. This is where someone who knows nothing about games can actually talk to a person who will recomend and show them something they can buy right there while passing through to grab other deals / gifts / food or while waiting for "the women to finish" etc.
True. The Mac gaming market is much smaller than the PC market; which means unless it costs very little to port a game then it's simply not worth it because you'll not recover the costs involved in porting it. Low demand = few games.
In some ways the Mac market should be easier to develop for since you have a know, limited, set of configurations compared to PCs. Of course, PC development also means you can go for the xBox market as well; once you've done those the Mac market probably seems pretty insignificant and not worth the costs.
Even when a port is done, Mac gamers want a Mac version - not a PC port that still looks like a PC game (which I find odd since they will play the PC version in Bootcamp or a VM).
IF MS were to create a gaming VM that the big game developers would wrap around a PC game to make it run on the Mac the Mac market would be much more desirable; I'd even say it makes more sense to make the wrapper for xBOX games since the specs are probably more in line with what a Mac can handle vs a high end gaming rig. Of course, that would potentially cannibalize xBox sales so it's a non-starter.
OTOH, the Mac market should be more indie developer friendly since there is no blockbuster games that would crowd them out.
Its the same old story more power, It should be noted that Left4Dead(Mac) plays real nice even on a 2010 Mini with the 320m and the ram bumped up. I threw in 8 gb and its real smooth and its played on a HDTV at 720p or 1280 x 720. The technology is here, the problem is license agreements and lawyers. I think thats the real reason its such slim pickings on the mac as far as games go. Very happy with the game play and those zombies really can come at you fast......with no lag at all. Only Lag may be those agreements between Apple and software makers.
VM's to date often nerf the programs that they run. Even a "Windows VM" that runs on OSX has to share resources and is limited to what it can support Windows-wise. You simply can't do this reasonably when OSX is based off Unix...which hasn't changed much in 20 years. And Windows has a team devoted to gaming on Windows...releasing an entirely new version every couple of years...while working with the leaders of the graphics industry.
On that note, it would be my guess that if you want to hire Mac (Unix) programmers, you would be competing with perhaps 2 main industries where they exist. Wall Street, and scientists. Wall Street will lure them with higher pay, and most scientists wouldn't be satisfied with making toys. So you have a small pool to chose from. So the question becomes...will you sell enough Mac copies such that it's worth it to make a team? Often, it's NO...so there you have it.
Ultimately, I think it is pretty straightforward. As Macs become more popular and continue to grow a larger user base, more games will come out for them. All the other issues noted in this thread are very real, but will definitely be sorted out in time.
I don't know about how long the "rising Mac users" will last. Because even though the iPod revolution has brought many users into buying Macs, what you have now is a lot of competition from Android in handhelds and Android, RIM and soon Windows in Tablets. Not to mention Amazon. Now that Steve Jobs is gone, his vision might go with him so who knows. But what I do see is Windows making a pretty big effort into media consumption...via deals with the Verizon XBox, Windows Media Center devices getting more popular, XBox as a smart DVR, etc. Their Windows Phone sux right now but who knows when they start getting their entire arm into the TV barrel. And as it is now...Apple TV sux! rofl!
At least in America, all walks of life are glued to the TV. I mean ppl trample eachother on Black Friday to get discounted ones! lol You get your product to easily enhance their idiot tube life...it would make an easy sell.
At least in America, all walks of life are glued to the TV. I mean ppl trample eachother on Black Friday to get discounted ones! lol You get your product to easily enhance their idiot tube life...it would make an easy sell.
Last edited:
Umm. GTA4 runs crap on almost anything. Differences will be minimized and even good systems may run poorly. GTA 4 is not a good system benchmarking tool.
I put most of the blame on Apple.
Microsoft has put a 3D graphic API into Windows and works WITH Nvidia and ATI on designs of future cards based on the API. This is how they come out with new versions of DirectX.
The GPU's in Apple's desktops and laptops have DX10 or DX11 instructions that never get used, unless running Windows. This is because of Microsoft.
This is why I blame Apple on not engaging gaming and working with Nvidia and ATI on things other than power efficiency.
All games have a graphic engine that in most cases is coded for DirectX, they'd have to recode the engine to work in OpenGL, because that's all that OSX supports. This is where the blame on game companies comes in, but can you blame them? That would be a serious undertaking for each game and add to development cost.
Blizzard codes both Windows and OSX versions of their games in DX and OpenGL, so the work for OSX is easy.
Microsoft has put a 3D graphic API into Windows and works WITH Nvidia and ATI on designs of future cards based on the API. This is how they come out with new versions of DirectX.
The GPU's in Apple's desktops and laptops have DX10 or DX11 instructions that never get used, unless running Windows. This is because of Microsoft.
This is why I blame Apple on not engaging gaming and working with Nvidia and ATI on things other than power efficiency.
All games have a graphic engine that in most cases is coded for DirectX, they'd have to recode the engine to work in OpenGL, because that's all that OSX supports. This is where the blame on game companies comes in, but can you blame them? That would be a serious undertaking for each game and add to development cost.
Blizzard codes both Windows and OSX versions of their games in DX and OpenGL, so the work for OSX is easy.
The fact that playstation 3 also uses OpenGL does mean that most games are developed for both DX and OpenGL.
DX is microsoft property so apple would have to license it from MS,
which I doubt will happen.
The good news, Dungeon Defenders will be getting a native mac version, in jan/feb according to their forum!
DX is microsoft property so apple would have to license it from MS,
which I doubt will happen.
The good news, Dungeon Defenders will be getting a native mac version, in jan/feb according to their forum!
I'm pretty sure the larger brunt of porting lies in the actual game itself rather than just the graphics engine. It's just the fact that DX is a much better show-off arena anyway so that devs who want to claim the cutting edge will devote more effort to the Windows version...and consider the OSX version an afterthought if they wish to take the risk.
They are making their own APIs so of course they work with... how is this Apple's fault? OpenGL is more than capable. Nvidia and AMD has full access to OpenGL specs and could make their cards much better with OpenGL, but they choose not to.... I blame Nvidia and AMD for their poor OpenGL support.. and the fact they let it stay behind on purpose focusing mainly on Direct3D.
OpenGL does not "belong" to nVidia nor Apple nor AMD. How do you propose they not "let it stay behind"? If you're talking about picking up the job of turning OpenGL into nVidGL or AMDGL (for OSX) why exactly would they spend millions of dollars per year on such a project for an OS that doesn't even belong to them when Microsoft does it for free on Windows? Which leaves the job to turning it into iGL. Which would be Apple's responsibility if they want to be competitive.
And if OpenGL is "more than capable" as it is...why exactly does everyone use Direct X? OpenGL works on Windows too you know...
I don't know of any Playstation 3 game that actually uses the OpenGL call stack that Sony made available. This means that usually the PS3 is not any help in terms of OpenGL support for the Mac port.
I have an imac but am i doubt whether to buy a new one next year.
Very happy with it, except for the rather limited graphics power (but I can live with that to a certain extent) and the glossy screen (which I'm really starting to hate).
But I can't do without OS X. So unless I can find the money for a Mac Pro, or I can build a hackintosh that REALLY works (which means updates and everything work problem free), I guess I'm stuck with the iMac (the macmini is laughable as a far as graphics go)...
Very happy with it, except for the rather limited graphics power (but I can live with that to a certain extent) and the glossy screen (which I'm really starting to hate).
But I can't do without OS X. So unless I can find the money for a Mac Pro, or I can build a hackintosh that REALLY works (which means updates and everything work problem free), I guess I'm stuck with the iMac (the macmini is laughable as a far as graphics go)...