Valve Hopes for Thriving Mac Game Community
- Thread starter Austin MacKenzie
- Start date
Kind of nice to see companies like VALVe and Blizzard expand their audience. I for one play on a PC though, so this won't effect me in any way.
Blizzard's always provided support for the Mac OS.thatstheguy said:
Anyway, I'm very excited to finally play some of the great games available on Steam. Finally, someone takes Mac gaming matters into their own hands.
On a side note: Just a little pedantry, but to those who type "Mac" in all-caps are misunderstanding something. "Mac" isn't an acronym in this context. MAC is actually a computer-related acronym that stands for "Media Access Control". Sorry.
Or they can change the mouse settings so that the right side of the mouse functions as right click. bit awkward at first, but you get the hang of it.Random Argument Man said:
OT: I'm very excited for this. Now I can stop wondering if Microsoft will ever let Valve release content for TF2 on the 360.
Additionally, now I can play MW2 and BC2 without having to worry about my disc scratching!
EDIT: Also, what did microsoft do to tick Valve off so much?
They Rage-quit and get a PC for less money that CAN do it? (with anti-aliasing)Mr.Tea said:
I dont know how well this is gonna take off. Everyone i know who has a mac uses it only at work, or has somthing against video games
Meh, most people on the site who game on computers own a windows machine because of the EXE file availability. I guess few people will get excited about this. Kudos if you do.
What Mac gaming community? there's no such thing. Gamers don't buy Macs to play games. because no one ever makes games for Mac, there's no market for it. If you wanted to play computer games, you would buy a PC.
How old is the Macbook?Simalacrum said:I use a Macbook... which isn't exactly very powerful
If it's from the last two-three years or so it should be fine with Valve's own games. The Source Engine's turned out to be pretty good at running on old hardware. Even L4D2 runs fine on ancient single core machines with less than 1GB of RAM, it's not very pretty, but it's stable and it works.
Other developer's stuff... not so much.
They said: Of course you can put game updates and new content on Xbox live, you just have let us charge money for them...Baron Von Evil Satan said:
Which is fair enough, it's MSoft's system and their network, but that's not how Valve do things, thus a stalemate was reached. Expect a retail disc or similar when TF2 becomes nominally 'finished' on PC.
Eh... That kind of contradicts those stupid mac vs PC adds though doesn't it?Lordmarkus said:
In any event, the whole argument is kind of dumb, since Macs are PC's, especially these days. (the whole Intel processor switch killed the last major difference.)
The fact that Boot Camp is possible is precisely because the hardware, while more controlled than a typical PC, is fundamentally the same.
Look at the specs of a mac and it's just like reading those of a PC. Only difference is the OS.
(and several people have proved OSX can run on 'normal' PC's too, not that Apple likes that idea much.)
I think this is a good thing though;
I doesn't bother me as much as it used to, but it has always gotten on my nerves that gaming was tied so directly to Windows and Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about the average Apple product, but if it helps break Microsoft's stranglehold on 'PC' gaming, I'm all for it.
Hmm, I'm happy for Mac fans... but this doesn't make the platforms much more appealing:
It is still a locked down monopoly, Apple has absolute control over the OS, Hardware and Software which makes it inflexible and generally much more expensive than competition of the same specification. Sorry but a slick interface is not worth the 50% Apple-tax. Apple just charges too much for their products, an iPhone costs £400 in the UK... that's TWO Playstation 3's. No way is ANY phone worth that much, especially one that will be obsolete in 2-3 years.
I can easily upgrade and swap around components in my PC, the ideal graphics card, memory and CPU balancing processing power, cost, features and future-proofing.
Macs are not even very good gaming platforms in the first place, take the Top of the Line iMac 27-inch, it only has an ATI 4670 graphics card which is outperformed by a 8800GT ($100 graphics card) and only dual-core processor but the iMac retails for $1700 or £1380 (something wrong with THAT exchange rate) which is a VAST sum of money and good luck trying to upgrade the card when a new more demanding game comes out.
ATI 4670 is so weak it can't even play COD4 with the same detail settings as the console version at the iMac screen's native resolution, or at least not at an acceptable frame-rate.
I mean for $1700 you could get a ridiculously powerful gaming rig and throw in a massive HDTV as well, especially with the almost £1400 that Apple charges for the iMac 27-inch in the UK. I don't see what unique software or interface Macs have that are worth such gargantuan price-gouging. MacBook Pros are equally priced ridiculously high with low gaming performance.
Macs just seem to be for people that are VERY RICH and are not interested in "best bang for your buck" but rather paying (or getting daddy to pay) the highest price for the shiniest, slickest looking things that "celebrities" are toying with.
It is still a locked down monopoly, Apple has absolute control over the OS, Hardware and Software which makes it inflexible and generally much more expensive than competition of the same specification. Sorry but a slick interface is not worth the 50% Apple-tax. Apple just charges too much for their products, an iPhone costs £400 in the UK... that's TWO Playstation 3's. No way is ANY phone worth that much, especially one that will be obsolete in 2-3 years.
I can easily upgrade and swap around components in my PC, the ideal graphics card, memory and CPU balancing processing power, cost, features and future-proofing.
Macs are not even very good gaming platforms in the first place, take the Top of the Line iMac 27-inch, it only has an ATI 4670 graphics card which is outperformed by a 8800GT ($100 graphics card) and only dual-core processor but the iMac retails for $1700 or £1380 (something wrong with THAT exchange rate) which is a VAST sum of money and good luck trying to upgrade the card when a new more demanding game comes out.
ATI 4670 is so weak it can't even play COD4 with the same detail settings as the console version at the iMac screen's native resolution, or at least not at an acceptable frame-rate.
I mean for $1700 you could get a ridiculously powerful gaming rig and throw in a massive HDTV as well, especially with the almost £1400 that Apple charges for the iMac 27-inch in the UK. I don't see what unique software or interface Macs have that are worth such gargantuan price-gouging. MacBook Pros are equally priced ridiculously high with low gaming performance.
Macs just seem to be for people that are VERY RICH and are not interested in "best bang for your buck" but rather paying (or getting daddy to pay) the highest price for the shiniest, slickest looking things that "celebrities" are toying with.
This is actually very true, as far as I'm concerned. I, myself, am a Mac user and I love my MacBook Pro to death, but as I've never been much of a computer gamer (I prefer consoles), it seemed like the better choice. If I would've wanted to play computer games, I most likely would've opted for a PC. I can't think of many people I know who will really be all that happy about this. Don't get me wrong, it's great that those Mac users who want to play games on their Macs can now, but I just can't see there being all that many. I, for one, am perfectly content using my consoles for gaming and my Mac for... well, everything else*.BioRage1920 said:
[small]*I realize that the Mac isn't capable of doing everything that a gaming console cannot, but rather than list everything I use my Mac for, I decided it would be quicker and more efficient to simply make a cheesy joke based on Apple's ads. That is all.[/small]
Okay, are you done with your little anti-Apple rant?Treblaine said:
Obviously, nobody will buy a Mac purely for gaming. What this does mean, however, is that more developers view the Mac OS as a platform worthy of their time (most of my Apple-owning friends do have an interest in gaming, and are definitely going to utilize Steam - there will be sales). Once more people start noticing that Apple computers are viable for gaming, there will be more of an incentive for Apple to use graphics cards that are more suitable for games. This will then be used as a sales point for future Macs.
I won't really address your general anti-Apple shlock, as it doesn't belong in this thread, but I will say that Apple's design philosophies (hardware and software) appeal to me greatly. As a user, I find their OS comfortable and efficient to work with. As a prospective developer, I find that their meticulous planning and groundwork greatly benefits me and makes my life easier.
That's why I use their computers, and that's why -as a gamer- I'm excited about the coming of Steam.
(underline emphasis my own)Neptunus Hirt said:
Why not?
Why will you refuse to address the very reasonable criticisms I have made about iMacs and MacBooks as them being almost universally underpowered and incredibly overpriced?
It is utterly asinine and disingenuous to dismiss real criticisms as prejudice by labelling it "Anti-Apple". That's like very much LIKE Fox-news dismissing the critics of the War in Iraq as "Anti-American".
Apple computers already make up a very small minority of home-computers, and a cursory examination shows an even higher proportion of Mac OS X based PCs have extremely underpowered Graphics cards compared to Windows based PCs.
Yes, I called a Mac a PC. I don't buy a single ounce of that Apple bullshit "They're a PC, and we're MACS!". PC stands for Personal Computer, all Macintosh Computers fit within that definition. I don't know why they shortened their names to "Mac", it just makes everything awkward, especially with plurals.
What I am trying to say is that Valve has served the ball into Apple's court but for Macs to become a REAL gaming platform where all the other developer will follow Valve, then Jobs is going to have to completely change his current strategy of milking his little niche of exorbitant amounts of money and open it up.
Valve is taking a risk other developers won't.
Macs are already a minority of PCs and judging by the (back)-catalogue of Apple's PCs they have sold a much higher proportion are critically underpowered compared to windows based PCs (just look at numbers of DirectX certified Graphics cards that have been sold). So developers will have to got to a lot of effort developing for Macs to a very small demographic.
Worse than that, I don't think the typical mac-owner is in any position to judge how well a game will play on their system. And that is not something for Apple to decide, it is a personal judgement based on preference in graphics fidelity, resolution, frame-rate and so on.
A lot of Mac users, myself included, don't buy our computers based on specs. We buy them because they run OSX, which is integrated with the hardware. Granted, you pay more than you would for a PC of comparative specs, but everything works without needing to screw around with complex stuff like BIOS. PCs are great if you know your components and how to get the best deal on a bunch that work together, but I don't have the time to put up with that. I've had one PC and within two years it was obsolete as a gaming platform and the monitor, motherboard and video card all needed replacing. My Mac on the other hand has been completely fine aside from a minor crack in the casing, and it's just so much easier to navigate than Windows' clunky interface.Treblaine said:
Because frankly, it's both off topic and completely pointless. I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. Your points are irrelevant to Mac-owners who are pleased that more games are coming their way, sorry.Treblaine said:
Because I've done it all before, too many times to want to bother any more. It's as simple as that. I have my reasons for using these computers (no, it's not to pass myself off as "hip" in internet cafes. No, it's not because I'm too stupid to use a "real" operating system. Quote marks referencing often-heard flames on the internet). I do not regret my purchase, and I don't care what computers or systems other people use.
No, it's really not. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with America as a sentimentality or even culture (it's much too diverse for that, if I understand the place correctly). People who rant about Apple computers and Apple as a company, however, generally have something against it. That's anti-Apple.
I really don't see what you're trying to prove by flinging out Fox News here, but okay.
I know all about the graphics cards. I know about the market-share, and I presume that Valve does also. Interestingly, they have opted for putting Steam on the Mac in spite of that. What's your point? Underpowered today really doesn't mean all that much - people have gotten very good results playing games on their Macs (Blizzard games and other native games, along with Boot Camp usage), so I don't see a problem there.
Yes, I see that you are familiar with correct terminology! Very good. I think those ads are pretty stupid too, y'know, although some of them are quite amusing. I don't see what this has to do with anything, though. This is what I mean by "anti-Apple". You're bringing in completely irrelevant points just to dig at the company.
I'm not affiliated with Apple, but I do own a couple of their products. So, again, what's your point?
(by the way, I do suppose they decided on "Mac vs PC" due to most people actually referring to the different OSes as such. People are immediately familiar with the terms, so they fit well in the ads. This, however, is all very off-topic)
Finally, you bring in some valid points. As I said earlier, this move by Valve might well be the push Apple needs to start catering to people who want powerful graphics cards in their computers. It's pretty exciting, really, and not negative at all.
However, I highly doubt that Mac computers will become very open. Steve and co. have shown in the past that they like to be able to control what the user gets from their machines. As a result, there are less hassles with drivers and such, which is part of the appeal of the computers. However: Apple might decide to open just a little crack in the systems, and modify their designs so that Apple-certified personnel can switch to (supported) better graphics cards when one brings one's computer to them.
Who knows? I sure as hell don't, but it doesn't really matter to me either way.
To finish up: I'm not going to continue this discussion any longer, as it is off topic and horribly banal. I'll read your response, though if it comes along.