43 replies to this topic

[J'nathus]

charmin, on January 9th 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

Perhaps, but you are way off the mark . . . I was trolling.

And in turn making me feel like one.  Well played sir.  

jackdawsson, on January 9th 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

All's cool, man. Plenty of different discussions go on here most of the time, with lots of disagreements, lots of tongue-in-cheek humour.  Mac gaming?  Some days I think it's struggling, other days I feel that my pessimism is unfounded.  Frankly, anyone who's a hard-core gamer is probably better off Boot Camping it for all the PC-exclusives or owning a console in addition to their Mac. But for many gamers there are only so many gaming hours in a day &, with some exceptions, Mac games offer quality gaming aplenty.  I tend to play games to completion & never use cheats, so it'll be ages before I play through all the excellent Mac stuff, with more Mac gaming excellence coming to the platform shortly.

FWIW, I think the PC games market is wholly over-saturated, riddled with piracy & games lose value too quickly. Mac games are relatively expensive, but they maintain their value & the Mac games market is relatively free of the kind of (said) woes afflicting the PC games market - something that more developers may find increasingly appealing in future as Mac market share grows. As for the growth in console gaming - I think it matters very little to dedicated PC/Mac gamers as there are far too many games that are unplayable without a KB. I think both can easily co-exist. Bear in mind that Sony & MS lost billions (MS about $20 billion) on establishing their console markets - enormous sums that are very unlikely to be risked again anytime soon.

Like "The Deficit" in the US, I wonder HOW that manages to perpetuate.  I listened to this teenager on WoW spout one night about how shooters are best done on consoles and how PS3 is THE BEST console.  I feel like a retard trying to play a shooter with a controller, when on the PC (perhaps more accurately  . .. a computer keyboard / mouse interface) it feels so much more fluid.   Now that there are hard drive installs with the consoles (I know MS just added it, I'm not sure how long Sony has had it), I wonder if gamers will start clamoring for CD-less solutions.  With X-Box Live, how long before we reach a point where things can become Steam-like, where you can log in and all of your games are available to you.  The only down-side to that is that the loads of bandwidth which would have to be consumed when games are re-downloaded.  Then again, I doubt people would be re-formatting their consoles nearly as much as I do reformat my PC (twice yearly usually . . . ).

I was a PC gamer elitist for years, refusing to go to consoles because every game that mattered to me was on the PC or eventually was ported. Games that are big enough like Grand Theft Auto or in a more obscure scene the Soul Reaver series all made it to the PC so I never had to get a console.  Somewhere around the last Soul-Reaver game and the 2nd Prince of Persia game, I began to concede that melee combat games and 3rd person shooters were actually reasonably well done on consoles.  When I finally took the leap to the X-Box 360, one of the main games that I was so into finally came out with news that it was being ported to the PC (Gears of War), almost making me regret the decision. My solution, or at least approach is that they can all easily co-exist, although from a gaming-only perspective, in in the case of the PS3 or X-Box 360, I don't see a huge need for both, as just about everything is cross platform.

With Macs its a bit harder to be so harsh, because a good number of the games come out long enough after they are originally introduced in certain cases that they tend to run fine on the Mac hardware people end up using.  The mention earlier in this thread that Mac Gamers tend to be more casual is an interesting one.  Is that common knowledge?   I change computers and / or laptops ever 2-3 years, so I guess eventually my machine would have to be delegated to more casual games at some point.  

Crysis aside, I kind of like how the cross-platform effect is causing the graphics level in games seems to be leveling out a bit, as being gaming capable on the PC (and consequently the Mac) doesn't require a 'keeping up with the Jones'' type of commitment.  Of course, this is just MY observation, but when my nearly 2 year old 8800 GT is still enough for the recently released Prince of Persia game, it makes me happy that my PC is still relevant.

[jackdawsson]

J, on January 10th 2009, 01:54 AM, said:

I listened to this teenager on WoW spout one night about how shooters are best done on consoles and how PS3 is THE BEST console.  I feel like a retard trying to play a shooter with a controller, when on the PC (perhaps more accurately  . .. a computer keyboard / mouse interface) it feels so much more fluid.   Now that there are hard drive installs with the consoles (I know MS just added it, I'm not sure how long Sony has had it), I wonder if gamers will start clamoring for CD-less solutions.  With X-Box Live, how long before we reach a point where things can become Steam-like, where you can log in and all of your games are available to you.  The only down-side to that is that the loads of bandwidth which would have to be consumed when games are re-downloaded.  Then again, I doubt people would be re-formatting their consoles nearly as much as I do reformat my PC (twice yearly usually . . . ).

Tell me all about struggling with FPS's on a console & welcome to a very large club, man!  I don't know if there's any difference between the PS3 & X360 controllers for FPS gaming, but if it's as bad as my PS2 I'd just rather not deal with the frustration of unsuitable hardware constantly conspiring against what I know I want to do in a game. I love a gaming challenge, sure, but I don't do masochism.    Yeah, I can see the advantages to games companies of more Steam-like purchases on consoles, but how much of the money companies save will be passed to consumers?  I suspect the majority of consumers will always prefer physical CDs.  Hard drive failures with loads of games on (yeah, I know we should always back everything up on more than one device, but how many of us sometimes don't?) can happen to anyone, anytime. Plus I think the trade in 2nd-user boxed games, often fetching decent sell-on fees, is something many gamers would be loath to lose.

Quote

I was a PC gamer elitist for years, refusing to go to consoles because every game that mattered to me was on the PC or eventually was ported. Games that are big enough like Grand Theft Auto or in a more obscure scene the Soul Reaver series all made it to the PC so I never had to get a console.  Somewhere around the last Soul-Reaver game and the 2nd Prince of Persia game, I began to concede that melee combat games and 3rd person shooters were actually reasonably well done on consoles.  When I finally took the leap to the X-Box 360, one of the main games that I was so into finally came out with news that it was being ported to the PC (Gears of War), almost making me regret the decision. My solution, or at least approach is that they can all easily co-exist, although from a gaming-only perspective, in in the case of the PS3 or X-Box 360, I don't see a huge need for both, as just about everything is cross platform.

Some good points & I've said similar elsewhere. I think that PC/Mac & console gaming can indeed easily co-exist, but I seriously doubt that the console successors to PS3 & X360 can co-exist as easily with each other due to the massive investments necessary to establish these markets.  IMO, Sony have thrown a lot away with dropping backwards compatibility with PS2.  As for XBox: had anyone other than MS owned the XBox franchise, I think it'd would have been terminated years ago as a financial disaster.  I strongly agree that cross-platform gaming for consoles is probably more than a viable option in the long-term. Either that, or I suspect that Sony may eventually become a casualty of the console wars (regardless of how much better their kit may be). Previous console wars have resulted in more than a few good gaming systems being scrapped, for various reasons.  I think we haven't seen the last of that.

Quote

The mention earlier in this thread that Mac Gamers tend to be more casual is an interesting one.  Is that common knowledge?   I change computers and / or laptops ever 2-3 years, so I guess eventually my machine would have to be delegated to more casual games at some point.  

Crysis aside, I kind of like how the cross-platform effect is causing the graphics level in games seems to be leveling out a bit, as being gaming capable on the PC (and consequently the Mac) doesn't require a 'keeping up with the Jones'' type of commitment.  Of course, this is just MY observation, but when my nearly 2 year old 8800 GT is still enough for the recently released Prince of Persia game, it makes me happy that my PC is still relevant.

Difficult to say what percentage of Mac gamers are "casual", but many hard-core gamers want readily upgradeable hardware, sometimes spending serious money on maintaining powerful gaming PCs.  With Macs, that's not really practical - yes, there's the Mac Pro, but even that doesn't have anything like the flexibility of PCs. Frankly, I'm neither a hard-core gamer nor a casual one; probably in between. I suspect that many Mac gamers might fit this medium.  Sure they want more games on the Mac & some Boot Camp it, but running games like "Crysis" at so many FPS isn't as big a deal.  Mind also that even the developers of "Crysis" now feel that making that game so resource hungry was a mistake that cost them significant sales & revenue.  

AFAIC, my HD 2600 iMac will run every Mac game out there at full settings & could easily run all the PC games I'd want to play if I Boot Camp it.  I play mostly RTS games on my Mac, other stuff on my PS2, so I'm not that bothered about games like "Crysis".  In 2/3 years time, I'll probably also upgrade to a more powerful computer & expect to be able to say the same, but my HD 2600 iMac would still be able to play most of the best games out there at more than acceptable levels.    You're right about the bigger picture & how as each new generation of Macs becomes more powerful, 2nd-user Macs become increasingly viable options for gaming, whether "casual" or more so. The transition from PPC to Intel (with many Mac games now being Intel only) has slightly messed up this process, but otherwise I see significant progress being made here. Those buying new alum MacBooks have themselves a useful gaming laptop. Apple might release new Minis with the same 9400M chipset soon, along with video card updates for iMacs.  Snow Leopard will bring some interesting graphics-enhancing capabilities in how video cards & processors work together (a development I don't fully appreciate yet).  Overall, as long as enough Mac gamers support Mac developers, the future might better than just good. As Mac market share grows & console game sales eat into the PC market, I can see a lot more developers finding it harder to ignore the Mac platform. Whilst it's very unlikely to ever be on a par with Windows PCs for game releases, if we still end up with games like the "Total War" series, be it later than PCs (besides, decent Mac ports tend to be less buggy anyway) & with the Boot Camp option for the stuff that'll never be ported, for me & I suspect many others, that's more than good enough.    I'm no Apple fanboy, but put it this way: Windows 7 would have to be very good indeed for me to switch altogether & that remains to be seen.

EDIT:  By "cross-platform gaming for consoles" I mean, IMO, ALL games should be available for ALL consoles capable of running them, even if that means having to standardize console architecture & licensing the technology to whoever wants to make those consoles - similar to Windows PCs.

[J'nathus]

jackdawsson, on January 10th 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

Yeah, I can see the advantages to games companies of more Steam-like purchases on consoles, but how much of the money companies save will be passed to consumers?  I suspect the majority of consumers will always prefer physical CDs.  Hard drive failures with loads of games on (yeah, I know we should always back everything up on more than one device, but how many of us sometimes don't?) can happen to anyone, anytime. Plus I think the trade in 2nd-user boxed games, often fetching decent sell-on fees, is something many gamers would be loath to lose.

The only bit that I agree on is the second-hard market.   Speaking from a console perspective, I think that backing up would be less of an issue as random crashes don’t tend to affect the hard drive data (in the 360 case it is internal hardware).  In addition, there could be mitigating steps that would make the download less unpleasant, like downloading enough of the game that it can play and downloading the rest in the background or just later.  I’m just making this up here, but the fact that data can stream from an optical disc suggests to me that this is possible.

Quote

As for XBox: had anyone other than MS owned the XBox franchise, I think it'd would have been terminated years ago as a financial disaster.  I strongly agree that cross-platform gaming for consoles is probably more than a viable option in the long-term. Either that, or I suspect that Sony may eventually become a casualty of the console wars (regardless of how much better their kit may be). Previous console wars have resulted in more than a few good gaming systems being scrapped, for various reasons.  I think we haven't seen the last of that.

I think Sony indicated or someone from Sony indicated that they were planning on getting 8 years of life out of the PS3.  For cross-platform gaming and the slight stagnation of hardware requirements (which I think is a good thing) for cross-platform PC games, I see this as a win win for consumers.  If we’re forced to see this hardware for that long a term or longer, I really think that’ll be a good thing overall.

Quote

also that even the developers of "Crysis" now feel that making that game so resource hungry was a mistake that cost them significant sales & revenue.

That’s an interesting point.  I upgraded around the time that game came out, but I pretty much set this ‘if this isn’t enough then I guess it’s not enough’ standard, as I’m only going to pay so much for a PC build.  I know people that buy Voodoo machines and such.  I’m happy they have that kind of money.  I unfortunately don’t.

Quote

You're right about the bigger picture & how as each new generation of Macs becomes more powerful, 2nd-user Macs become increasingly viable options for gaming, whether "casual" or more so. The transition from PPC to Intel (with many Mac games now being Intel only) has slightly messed up this process, but otherwise I see significant progress being made here. Those buying new alum MacBooks have themselves a useful gaming laptop. Apple might release new Minis with the same 9400M chipset soon, along with video card updates for iMacs.  Snow Leopard will bring some interesting graphics-enhancing capabilities in how video cards & processors work together (a development I don't fully appreciate yet).  Overall, as long as enough Mac gamers support Mac developers, the future might better than just good. As Mac market share grows & console game sales eat into the PC market, I can see a lot more developers finding it harder to ignore the Mac platform. Whilst it's very unlikely to ever be on a par with Windows PCs for game releases, if we still end up with games like the "Total War" series, be it later than PCs (besides, decent Mac ports tend to be less buggy anyway) & with the Boot Camp option for the stuff that'll never be ported, for me & I suspect many others, that's more than good enough.    I'm no Apple fanboy, but put it this way: Windows 7 would have to be very good indeed for me to switch altogether & that remains to be seen.

My first MacBook Pro was the Intel Core Duo with the Radeon X1600 video.  It was a smooth machine, but gaming prowess in OS X or in Windows (in Boot Camp) was sub-par by my standards.  I’m on my second MBP and I still think it’s a bit lower than I’d like for gaming power.  The latest WoW expansion really showed the limitations of the hardware in that machine and Call of Duty 4 ran really low for me, even using the default detail settings.   I begin to believe that serious gaming is the realm of the desktop, or perhaps I just have very unyielding standards.

I hear Windows 7 is quite good (compared to Vista).  I’ll be able to tell you next week, when I’ll be installing it.  I have my official beta 1 64-bit ISO and key (got it just this morning), so on my next day off, I’ll spend some time getting acquainted with the new (beta) OS.

[jackdawsson]

J, on January 10th 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

The only bit that I agree on is the second-hard market.   Speaking from a console perspective, I think that backing up would be less of an issue as random crashes don’t tend to affect the hard drive data (in the 360 case it is internal hardware).  In addition, there could be mitigating steps that would make the download less unpleasant, like downloading enough of the game that it can play and downloading the rest in the background or just later.  I’m just making this up here, but the fact that data can stream from an optical disc suggests to me that this is possible.

I'm sure you're right from the companies perspective & interests on at least two major fronts, ie. curtailing both piracy & the 2nd-user market.  If piracy becomes more prevalent on X360/PS3 with regular cracking of the latest anti-piracy firmware, I'll be surprised if future consoles don't employ Steam distribution much more so.  It'd be great if the companies pass on some of the financial savings to consumers, but I doubt that they will.   But it seems almost inevitable that when download services are improved sufficiently for enough people, this will be a standard way of buying games in future.

Quote

I think Sony indicated or someone from Sony indicated that they were planning on getting 8 years of life out of the PS3.  For cross-platform gaming and the slight stagnation of hardware requirements (which I think is a good thing) for cross-platform PC games, I see this as a win win for consumers.  If we’re forced to see this hardware for that long a term or longer, I really think that’ll be a good thing overall.

My fingers are crossed for Sony, whatever my doubts for their gaming future.  However, until we see more PS3 price-cuts, I see X360 making even more headway. Blu-ray is undoubtedly a fine, cutting-edge technology, but how long before it's superseded by something better? Samsung reckon the useful lifespan of Blu-ray is about 5 years max.  I assume MS will have a X360 successor out well within the expected lifespan of PS3. Hard to predict how things may turn out for Sony here.

Quote

I hear Windows 7 is quite good (compared to Vista).  I’ll be able to tell you next week, when I’ll be installing it.  I have my official beta 1 64-bit ISO and key (got it just this morning), so on my next day off, I’ll spend some time getting acquainted with the new (beta) OS.

Look forward to reading any thoughts you'll have about Windows 7. I know that there's loads of info on the net, but the opinions I value particularly (for obvious reasons) tend to be from OS X users. It's also probably preferable that this happens in the Windows 7 thread.  We have some cool, but vigilant moderators on this forum (one particularly so  ), & as we've already gone well off topic, I'll just add that I genuinely welcome Indiana Jones & all the LEGO games being ported to Mac! Most of the reviews I've read are at least good or better, the games suit all ages & retail for fairly decent prices.  IMHO, the Mac gaming platform is far richer for having them!