WoW on 21" iMac
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Small Caps in Pixelmator
Next: The Mac Sale
From: Roger Merriman on 13 Nov 2009 05:29 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > > > It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it. > > They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster > maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked. > i have a old though not that old game that I play for time to time but then it's a good ten years old so laptop is quite happy playing it. > But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games. I'm not sure they do, in that "gamers" rather than folk who play some games I suspect are not that common and to apeal to them would require some very differnet thinking by Apple. my mate back in wales as a long time Gamer thinks that sadly (for him) the future is consoles. I'm not sure that the gaming PC will die out but may become less and less. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: David Kennedy on 13 Nov 2009 07:22 Peter Ceresole wrote: > David Kennedy<davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > >> It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it. > > They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster > maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked. > > But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games. Not only that, they're supposedly used for high end graphics, how can that be? Is this more Jobs stupidity? what's wrong with offering a choice? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 13 Nov 2009 07:54 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:29:56 +0000, NEWS(a)sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) wrote: >Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >> >> > It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it. >> >> They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster >> maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked. >> >i have a old though not that old game that I play for time to time but >then it's a good ten years old so laptop is quite happy playing it. The current low-end nVidia 9400 Macs will play the latest Half-Life installment at 1920x1200 and one-off-highest settings. World of Warcraft is a curious one, it's *really* hard on graphics cards for what it does. No idea why. But still, the 4650 at 1920x1200 should be perfectly playable on pretty high gfx settings if not full. Turning the shadows down is the biggest frame-rate win. >> But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games. > >I'm not sure they do, in that "gamers" rather than folk who play some >games I suspect are not that common and to apeal to them would require >some very differnet thinking by Apple. There's not that many of them. The hardcore gamer market is better served by Xbox/PS3 and their very functional online multiplayer matching, and console titles are far more lucrative because people by and large have to buy them rather than steal them. >my mate back in wales as a long time Gamer thinks that sadly (for him) >the future is consoles. Yup. I switched (currently Wii, PS2 and Xbox360) three years ago. I do still use Windows for gaming (and VMware Fusion 3's 3D Windows support is fantastic) for stuff I can't play anywhere else. Tales of Monkey Island currently; if I waited I could play that on the Wii too. >I'm not sure that the gaming PC will die out but may become less and >less. The main thing for me was that every time you wanted to play a game it took an hour of faffing about downloading updates to the game that required updates to the video card drivers. Three reboots later and you're out of game-playing time. Consoles, you put a game in and you play. Well, that's the Wii. The PS3 can spend up to an hour installing a new game to the internal hard drive. The Xbox, amazingly, only takes a few minutes to do the same process for the same game. Cheers - Jaimie -- Beer has food value, but food has no beer value.
From: Pd on 13 Nov 2009 08:15 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Consoles, you put a game in and you play. Well, that's the Wii. The > PS3 can spend up to an hour installing a new game to the internal hard > drive. The Xbox, amazingly, only takes a few minutes to do the same > process for the same game. Xbox seems to exist in a strange little eddy of competence and coolness at Microsoft. Their games are cool, their ads are cool, and generally they seem to have avoided the klunky mediocrity that is the rest of MS. -- Pd
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 13 Nov 2009 08:20
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:22:42 +0000, David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >Peter Ceresole wrote: >> David Kennedy<davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >> >>> It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it. >> >> They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster >> maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked. >> >> But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games. > >Not only that, they're supposedly used for high end graphics, how can >that be? 1) Games are far, far, far more demanding of the graphics hardware than photo/video manipulation. This may change over the next few years as openCL and CPU/gpGPU convergence continues, but not yet. >Is this more Jobs stupidity? what's wrong with offering a choice? 2) The 4670, while not a top-end video card, is quite sufficient for 98% of games out there. 3) The 9400, while not even a mid-range video card, is quite sufficient for 95% of games out there. Really. Even the GMAX3100 will handle 93% of them. Most people play Peggle or The Sims, not Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2. 4) Top-end video cards are expensive (not a major problem) and bloody hot (problem). We're talking up to 350 watts dissipation here, for maybe a 50% faster frame rate than an 80W part. 5) Most games are for Windows anyway, further cutting into the cost-benefit analysis that all the necessary design, parts, driver testing and warehousing says make it not worthwhile. Mac releases of cross-platform games tend to be either much later, somewhat crappy "cider" ports using WINE technology and all its limitations, particularly graphical (dx9) and audio (stereo). Or both. When Macs get up to 20% market penetration, I suspect there'll be more higher-gfx SKU/BTOs on offer. And more interest from the game industry, too - the ROI is lousy for Mac ports of flagship games currently. Yes, I do pay attention to the industry and its economics... Cheers - Jaimie -- The physics and scientific approach of Armageddon was criticized for its poor adherence to the laws of physics. This has led NASA to show the film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can. |