Jump to content


Quake Wars - Wait some more?


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#21 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 01 February 2008 - 01:03 PM

What are you talking about. The linux is downloadable only, the PC version is the only one "for sale". Unless of course, they started including the linux version in the box, which I sortof missed out on.

But my point is not that DVDs dont need to be in the drive (for PC and Linux, they dont need to be), just for using accounts. And it's highly likely that the accounts won't be different for mac, they'll just track the accounts that use the different kind of clients. Which sounds -to me- a lot easier to do than make "accounts different".

That and I heard somewhere that the PC & Mac versions will be priced similarly. i.e. PC-starting price for mac. (which was at about 49€?)
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#22 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 01 February 2008 - 01:46 PM

what I meant was that the Linux version requires having a PC copy of the game. So effectively its the same package, as its dependent on the PC version. though they wont really be able to track how many sales are for Linux other than by trying to monitor the traffic on the internet. Though I wasnt aware (maybe i forgot) that you dont need DVDs in drive.

The problem here, then, is piracy. How will Aspyr stop people simply buying the PC version and using that serial for an illegally downloaded copy of the Mac version? theres a couple ways I can think of, such as tying the install process to a serial (either completely separate, or run of mac serials that are similar looking to the PC ones, but distinct in the system), which then doesnt matter afterwards, making you create the user account with a mac serial (obviously, you should then be able to pass that account on to another person should you want to switch like you do).

oh, and the PC version has now been dropped to bargain price in most places. 18 or less here (obviously, thats in the UK, so itll be even cheaper in the states), so theres not really going to be price parity there when the mac version is released at 35 RRP. Standard fare for a mac port really.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#23 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 03 February 2008 - 02:35 AM

True about the price, but I was happy to hear that it was going to be in a "pc range". :D


And I guess they'd have to do some kind of copy protection, but piracy on a mac has been easy, it's just not *that* widespread to the public in comparison to PC. Although torrents sure made it easy.

In any case, however, I'm happy that I can now "sell" my PC copy, and get a mac one. aahhhh.. not booting for ETQW mayhem.. or installing to an external HD for that matter. (which works like a dream, btw)
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#24 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 03 February 2008 - 05:04 AM

Funny thing, once again UT3 and Quake Wars will be released on mac at about the same moment. Kind of reminds me when it was Quake3 VS UT.

I played UT much more than Quake3, and I still think it was a better game... but it died. You can't play that game on a new Mac (intel). Whereas Quake3 works peeeeeerfectly, and networking between PPC mac and Intel is not an issue.

Therefor... this might not be the right thread (as anyone in here might answer "QW duh !!",... anyway) WHICH ONE ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY ? ETQW or UT3 ?

#25 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 03 February 2008 - 05:14 AM

I think a some are playing ETQW already, so it's not really a "vs" kind of thing. They aren't similar at all. Yeah, its an "online shooter". That's about it though.
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#26 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 01:53 PM

Very little similarity. I look forward to both.

If you want class-based team tactics, ranks and levels to earn, objective-based fight zones, and two distinct sides, you want QW--which takes the acclaimed WET formula to the next level. Also if you want an engine that looks great but runs a wider range of machines than UE3. Also if you like "realistic" sci-fi or the Quake universe.

If you want tons of free mods, UT's exotic weapons, simple DM and CTF, and vehicle battles without class-based subtlety, then you want UT3. Also if you want the latest, most-detailed game engine. Also if you like exaggerated pro-wrestling sci-fi and a sports-event theme.

A lot of people will be wanting both. Especially if they arrive a month or more apart. I for one will have to have both :)

QW will have longevity because the tactics and strategy has depth proven by WET. It may not have the same size commnuity, but that community will stick around.

UT3 will have longevity because of a broader established user base and masses of user-built content. UT didn't die because of the Intel change (which was a unique situation). In fact, my Intel iMac plays the old 1999 UT quite well, with the OS X patch. What took users away from UT was UT2004--which is alive and well, but UT3 will keep drawing people away.

#27 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 February 2008 - 05:22 AM

View Postteflon, on February 1st 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

oh, and the PC version has now been dropped to bargain price in most places. 18 or less here (obviously, thats in the UK, so itll be even cheaper in the states), so theres not really going to be price parity there when the mac version is released at 35 RRP. Standard fare for a mac port really.

ok, i decided to look properly, and one site has got the mac RRP at 40 ($80), but is pre-ordering it at 25. all the while the PC version sits at 18... though for some reason the collectors edition is at 15, a full 10 less. Even so, im quite impressed that the game is pre-ordering for less than 30, despite the RRP.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#28 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 02:05 PM

US$80! That's harsh! (I suppose that includes tax, but still!)

#29 calroth

calroth

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 February 2008 - 03:22 PM

Quick speculation: ETQW is taking a while to release because on Mac, they plan to have r_useThreadedRenderer defaulted, but it still has bugs which they're solving for the rest of us. (Or it plays weird with the Apple multi-threaded OpenGL.)

#30 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 February 2008 - 04:57 PM

View Postnagromme, on February 4th 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

US$80! That's harsh! (I suppose that includes tax, but still!)
RRPs never get stuck by. Usually Ill see somewhere between 30 and 35, in this instance its 25, which is a nice change. Console games cost lots in this country....


View Postcalroth, on February 4th 2008, 09:22 PM, said:

Quick speculation: ETQW is taking a while to release because on Mac, they plan to have r_useThreadedRenderer defaulted, but it still has bugs which they're solving for the rest of us. (Or it plays weird with the Apple multi-threaded OpenGL.)

I kinda doubt that. The main area where youre going to be limited with this game is with the GPU... MT OGL only really shows any kind of benefit when youre CPU limited. And if youre not GPU limited, then youve got a machine fast enough where it doesnt really matter.
As has been mentioned earlier, Apple have got new GPU drivers ready for 10.5.2 (probably to be split off as a separate download), which is what I personally believe to be the last hurdle on Apple's end before ETQW gets released.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#31 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 09:11 PM

View Postteflon, on February 5th 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

As has been mentioned earlier, Apple have got new GPU drivers ready for 10.5.2 (probably to be split off as a separate download), which is what I personally believe to be the last hurdle on Apple's end before ETQW gets released.

May we see the performance just come back into our other D3 games? quake 4 particularly?

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#32 calroth

calroth

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 February 2008 - 11:49 PM

View Postteflon, on February 5th 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

The main area where youre going to be limited with this game is with the GPU... MT OGL only really shows any kind of benefit when youre CPU limited. And if youre not GPU limited, then youve got a machine fast enough where it doesnt really matter.
I can't speak for the type of configurations that Mac users play on (I don't have Boot Camp installed), but many users have seen a fairly substantial speed boost from the threaded renderer... along with crashes, graphics corruption, mouse lag, etc. etc.

Maybe those users had amazing GPUs that were CPU-bound after all. Who knows. It's the sort of question that you need to answer with benchmarks.

Glenda Adams spoke of the problems of getting the Mac performance to within a certain range of the PC version, on the same hardware. This may help close the gap.

#33 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 05 February 2008 - 02:06 AM

View Postcalroth, on February 4th 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

I can't speak for the type of configurations that Mac users play on (I don't have Boot Camp installed), but many users have seen a fairly substantial speed boost from the threaded renderer... along with crashes, graphics corruption, mouse lag, etc. etc.

Maybe those users had amazing GPUs that were CPU-bound after all. Who knows. It's the sort of question that you need to answer with benchmarks.

Glenda Adams spoke of the problems of getting the Mac performance to within a certain range of the PC version, on the same hardware. This may help close the gap.

Well its hard to test since no-one has the option to turn MT OGL on or off (except the developpers).

I have NOT seen a measurable speed boost from MT OGL. Only mouse lag ! I have Doom3 timedemo result from almost since I got my hands on it, and results never increased. But I feel like the minimum fps got higher, which is most important, although that might just be me. Mouse lag kind disappeared in Doom3 now, but not in Quake4 (maybe I should recheck Q4).

I too placed a prayer for a performance boost from the next Graphics Driver update from Apple  :happy:

#34 Who Knows?

Who Knows?

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 12:54 PM

View PostiRolley, on February 5th 2008, 02:06 AM, said:

Mouse lag kind disappeared in Doom3 now, but not in Quake4 (maybe I should recheck Q4).
Open the console in quake 4 and type in "\r_finish 1" to try and lower lag.
This isn't the signature you're looking for.

#35 calroth

calroth

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 05 February 2008 - 03:15 PM

View PostiRolley, on February 5th 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Well its hard to test since no-one has the option to turn MT OGL on or off (except the developpers).
It's worth noting that the threaded renderer and threaded OpenGL are different (but complementary) things. As I understand.

#36 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 06:39 PM

View Postcalroth, on February 4th 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

Quick speculation: ETQW is taking a while to release because on Mac, they plan to have r_useThreadedRenderer defaulted, but it still has bugs which they're solving for the rest of us. (Or it plays weird with the Apple multi-threaded OpenGL.)

Maybe they were waiting for The Fastest Mac Ever, that gets 33.7 FPS in Quake 4. It's just been released, though, so they'll be releasing any day now.

#37 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 08:02 PM

Assuming that's a serious post, note that it was tested without much of a 3D board. Not a meaningful max.

(It does remind us that the 8-core machine is not aimed by default at gamers. Good thing it has options.)

#38 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 05 February 2008 - 09:35 PM

Last night I read that in synthetic benchmarks at low resolutions (800x600) with games that can utilize 8 cores (Crysis and Lost Planet) an 8 core system such as Intel's new "Skulltrail" platform is significantly faster. However, most games out now (on windows anyway) including those two are mostly GPU limited at the moment so in real world benchmarks the a Quad Core and the SkullTrail benchmarked equal and in some cases the Quad Core beat the skulltrail because of the slower RAM that is needed in the motherboards needed for a dual processor Quad core system. So for now a more average consumer Quad Core with an awesome GPU or SLI is the way to go but eventually there will be a system that has 8 or more cores and games will take full advantage... mark my words. It might take next gen GPUs so that the GPU isn't the bottleneck.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#39 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 10:12 PM

My next Mac after an Air wll be an 8- or 16-core Mac Pro with summer 2009 GPU(s). Or whatever it takes to drive idTech 5 to 2560x1600 with AA :) I've always gone low-end or midrange, but for once I'll aim high! And hopefully have the CPU headroom to get 4-5 years out of it, with a GPU upgrade halfway.

#40 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 06 February 2008 - 01:47 AM

View Postnagromme, on February 5th 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

My next Mac after an Air wll be an 8- or 16-core Mac Pro with summer 2009 GPU(s). Or whatever it takes to drive idTech 5 to 2560x1600 with AA :) I've always gone low-end or midrange, but for once I'll aim high! And hopefully have the CPU headroom to get 4-5 years out of it, with a GPU upgrade halfway.

Hopefully by then Apple will have released a more gamer oriented mac than then the Xeon Mac Pro.  :cool:

I have a Core Duo iMac and I don't ever remember seing (MenuMeters) my cpu reaching 100%. Not even in games. Let alone both cores. Smoke Testsu is right on : I'll add that even todays CPU exceed the requirements for most games.

Only thing I see for Quad core, would be to have the game split in multiple threads, like running Physics on another thread. But the trend seems to be using a dedicated Card for that, not a CPU core.

I still beleive a good iMac with an upgradable GPU would be ideal.