Will Macs ever be a force in gaming?

[Yostbeef]

I don't see them overtaking Windows but a venture into the console market may be a better path.The cost of entry into that market is astronomical and it would be years before they saw profit,but If they were interested in becoming a force in the gaming market I think that's the best way to go for a company like Apple.Personally I think a mac console would be pretty cool.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

The amount of misinformation about Mac's and OSX in general in this thread is mind blowing.

The only Mac that costs 4-6 grand is a Mac Pro desktop, that is NOT a consumer level machine, its a industry level machine.

The consumer base model iMac, which is a LOT of computer, is like 1199. Can you build a bare bones power rig for like 800? Sure! But you still have to run Windows as your primary OS...and now you need a display to connect to it.

I use a Mac because I don't trust Windows with my personal data

If a Mac option is available, I'll take that over the Windows version, as its likely to have less overall issues. I don't need to run half my games in XPSP3 Compatibility Mode, for example.

snipped the bits that I wasn't going to refer to, just to keep it easy.

getting an imac for gaming? are you silly? the "industrial" version as you put it is the only one worthy of it, if you are looking to do any kind of serious gaming, my friends imac runs hotter than the sun trying to do some of the stuff my 700 dollar rig does.

and your acting like windows is inferior? i can't stand using OSX unless I have to, which is never the case, so that's completely opinionated there.

There is some slight bit better security sure, but if you are worth your weight in the slightest when it comes to computers, you shouldn't have to worry an ounce about ever having anything get leaked, unless you are that addicted to paying for porn subscriptions and such..

compatibility mode? the last time I used that was probably...4 years ago? with vista? on windows 7 i've played games of all ages, from planescape to witcher 2 to tf2 to fallout, and i have yet to have a single issue involving windows 7 in the slightest. that is an old problem that is near obsolete with windows 7. (not to mention it is the tiniest fix, what is it, two clicks with the mouse?)

i'm not even going to get into prices, because the prices are still outstandingly ridiculous for any kind of apple product, otherwise i would actually consider getting one as a secondary computer.

It runs hot because it uses the casing as part of the heat distribution. This isn't automatically "bad", its just different. Its not like you have to touch the back of your iMac, EVER during use.

No, wrong. The iMac is pretty beefy for a desktop gaming machine. I can run nearly anything released today on max settings with no issue, if you can do that, what more machine do you need?

I had boot camp installed for Windows gaming, SWTOR for example. If I don't run the game in capability mode for XP-SP3, the game crashes every 30 minutes. Thats not an issue with the iMac, its an issue with the game or windows.

Okay, so if you're good with computers, you can MOSTLY protect yourself, but the fact is fairly simple to understand.

Windows gets Virus
OSX does not.

Occasional Trojan? Maybe, but there has been no functional virus for OSX since its release.

Price? Couple hundred dollars more for a better OS. You might not like OSX, but I sure do. Windows sucks to use.

which imac are you using then? just curious.

that's an issue with swtor or your driver issues, that has zero to do with windows, as i have yet to see that problem encountered ever on a windows computer (my own let alone my friends who play TOR)

yes that is true, it's been heard enough times thanks to apples commercials for the past decade, but most people are highly vulnerable to trojans as the average user has no fucking clue what they are doing, googling it would bring up thousands of news articles showing just that.

couple hundred? my rig is 800 including everything minus my gaming keyboard and mouse, which i have the free ones i got in my closet with the bundle, regardless of that the hardware stomps any mac remotely close to the same price or hardware. and once again your giving a highly opinionated answer as if it is fact, twice in the same little spot there.

 

[joe-h2o]

couple hundred? my rig is 800 including everything minus my gaming keyboard and mouse, which i have the free ones i got in my closet with the bundle, regardless of that the hardware stomps any mac remotely close to the same price or hardware. and once again your giving a highly opinionated answer as if it is fact, twice in the same little spot there.

I don't doubt that your rig could stomp my iMac (I'm not the OP btw), but I didn't get this thing purely for gaming, but I do game on it fairly often and it's reasonably good at it, alongside the other things I do with it. For me, buying a separate PC just to game would be a waste of money when I can do it reasonably well on the iMac (either in Windows via dual booting or playing Mac native games via steam or other means).

You also had to build your rig, which I used to do but I simply haven't got the patience for any more. I'll repair this iMac (and have done a couple of times for hard drive upgrade etc), but I don't really want to buy and build all the bits for a gaming rig.

It's a compromise that I have made in selecting this computer, but it doesn't make me any less of a valuable consumer of games on the PC/Mac platform (as opposed to the console). You and I are alike - you just have a more powerful machine - I'm not doubting that I could game "better" for less money, but only less money if that gaming rig was also my main machine, which it would not be.

Like I said before, there's no reason for Mac and PC gamers to be hostile - we're all in it together! With the new Macs in the past couple of years shipping with decent (not cutting edge, but decent) GPUs, Macs are in good shape for the non-hardcore but still reasonably frequent gamer.

 

[Freechoice]

Let me google that for you [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=27+inch+1080p+monitor]

That doesn't help. I know how to search for 27 inch 1080p monitors but I've no idea which one you looked at specifically, and I don't care to guess either.

I went looking for a 1080p/1440p comparison and there is no real consensus on whether it's significantly better or not. What was discussed was a 60hz refresh rate and a 120hz refresh rate with many people noting that 120hz was far and away superior to the 60hz.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241839

At 27 inches 1440p is much better -- said display has a PPI of 108 while at 1080p the same size monitor only has a PPI of 88. At 21.5 inches, 1080p is 102 PPI -- so going to 88 is a substantial downgrade in sharpness. Pixels will be more obvious, and aliasing in games more noticeable, whereas a 27 inch 1440p display will improve it slightly as well as giving you a mighty large display that fills your field of vision.

Here's a thread discussing the issue: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18373885

EDIT: an additional pro to having 1440p on a desktop is the additional screen real estate, it's just great.

Doesn't matter which monitor it is, it's the cost comparison.

Spending 1000 dollars on a monitor that has slightly better quality than a comparable 23' 1080p is just idiotic. You were complaining about the price of building your own computer and yet you want to justify to me the difference between monitors whose sole differentiating quality is an increase of 4 inches and 6 extra dots per inch. I've said you could get a monitor with a higher refresh rate that is justifiably superior for gaming. The Thunderbolt is not a 120hz display. With the money left over from not buying that paperweight, you could get two 580's to run in SLI. Ironically, going with that setup would actually enable you to run a 1440p monitor with a better framerate and less hiccups because the GPU would be suitable to handle it.

It's just 4 inches. That might make a significant difference in orbital trajectories and dicks, but not here. Not at 2-3 times the price.

 

[joe-h2o]

[
Yeah, and then I need a display -- and a 27 inch IPS 1440p display would run me about $1k so that's $1800 already. Why not just get the iMac at that point? I get a nice display that I know I like, a great CPU, a great GPU, OS X (for work and general use), all in a very tidy all-in-one form factor.

I dual boot Windows 7 so I can play all the games. I own The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Crysis 2, etc., to name a few.

I've considered building my own rig, and if I had the $1500 for the rig I'd probably do it and just keep my current iMac but I don't.

An iMac doesn't have a great GPU and unless you have the i7 you are getting a Dual quad Core i5.

Don't fool yourself.

EDIT Was wrong on the CPU side of things.

That is changing though. There is clearly a compromise, since the current 27" tops out with a 6970M 2GB... but driving that massive display. Most mobile cards don't have a run a display of that size. The new ones that are possibly launching in June (but definitely some time this year) should be running the 7970M, which is a pretty potent card for its weight class.

In terms of the difference between an i5 and an i7, for most uses there really isn't much point paying the extra for the i7. Most real world use, even reasonably heavy CPU load, you're not going to see that much benefit going with the i7 - I'd much rather spend the money that the i7 upgrade would cost on an SSD (put one in yourself in the spare bay - Apple's upgrade price for SSD is too high).

 

[Wintermoot]

wasn't the Apple II a major gaming system back in the day?
and I don't really think it ever would Apple machines easily cost $1000+ and why would you spent that if you have a decent pre-built system for $500 ish?

 

[Charli]

Weirder things have happened, but for hardcore gaming? It's looking grim.

 

[zehydra]

No, probably not. The core Apple audience isn't really too concerned with anything beyond simple flashgame-type games (PopCap/Angry Birds)

Also with how much Apple is pushing with the tablet touch-screen... Touchscreen's just aren't really a good interface for gaming, particularly 3d gaming. It's perfect for something like angry birds or a strategy game, but not for shooters, rpgs and other 3d adventure games; games that typically have controls for both player movement and player orientation.

(Obviously this also applies to any other tablet, not just the iPads)

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

couple hundred? my rig is 800 including everything minus my gaming keyboard and mouse, which i have the free ones i got in my closet with the bundle, regardless of that the hardware stomps any mac remotely close to the same price or hardware. and once again your giving a highly opinionated answer as if it is fact, twice in the same little spot there.

I don't doubt that your rig could stomp my iMac (I'm not the OP btw), but I didn't get this thing purely for gaming, but I do game on it fairly often and it's reasonably good at it, alongside the other things I do with it. For me, buying a separate PC just to game would be a waste of money when I can do it reasonably well on the iMac (either in Windows via dual booting or playing Mac native games via steam or other means).

You also had to build your rig, which I used to do but I simply haven't got the patience for any more. I'll repair this iMac (and have done a couple of times for hard drive upgrade etc), but I don't really want to buy and build all the bits for a gaming rig.

It's a compromise that I have made in selecting this computer, but it doesn't make me any less of a valuable consumer of games on the PC/Mac platform (as opposed to the console). You and I are alike - you just have a more powerful machine - I'm not doubting that I could game "better" for less money, but only less money if that gaming rig was also my main machine, which it would not be.

Like I said before, there's no reason for Mac and PC gamers to be hostile - we're all in it together! With the new Macs in the past couple of years shipping with decent (not cutting edge, but decent) GPUs, Macs are in good shape for the non-hardcore but still reasonably frequent gamer.

(i noticed you weren't )

that's perfectly fine, part of my frustration is people (like my mom for example) that buy a imac for the simple fact of the brand name, when all she does is browse her e-mail and play an occasional solitaire...spending 2-3x for something like that is unneeded and it frustrates me when they are too damn stubborn to admit it >:/

that's fine that you don't want to (personally i find it to be my favorite hobby, but different strokes) do the bits yourself, just saying there ARE options, and i'm glad you at least selected it for reasons other than the apple logo on it, which is fine by me. Macs are definitely catching up, but as i stated a while back it'll only be a good secondary market until they open up their software/hardware more, otherwise it won't keep up with the PC side of things.

 

[The Lugz]

You wanna know why Macs will never be a good gaming set?
Go to apple.com and look up the mac pro.
no really
go do it.
See it? the cheapest one? with one quadcore non hyperthreaded 3generations old CPU one HD 5770 3GB RAM no overclocking yeah that peice of crap costs you...2.5grand
now go to alienware, no dont rebute just do it.
see their aurora? For that same price.. 2500$ from alienware you can get a SIX core CPU 16GIGS of Ram TWO 7870 graphics cards WITH overclockability LIQUID cooling ALL the latest games at MAXED graphics, with enough power to record 1080P fraps videos.
THEN go to Newegg.com, match the parts to that alienware, and watch the price of the same power drop.

Mac wont make it beyond a few developers if they dont stop trying to rip of customers.

That's one major aspect (even if you're example is a massive waste of money ;-) ).

Let's see what the future brings us.
Many people say that Windows 8 is a colossal failure. Valve comes to Linux and therefore supports all three platforms.
I don't care how, I just want Microsoft to lose its position as monopole. I'd already be happy if the market share would be something like 20-20-60.
Does anybody think that Android would be that good if iOS never existed or vice versa?

windows 8 isn't in release yet, so i'd wait on that one.
hell vista was a piece of crap till sp1 was released :S

i'd love to see lunix flourish, and allot more games for it having some spare hardware around myself i'd set up a lunix box if i could do anything fun with it, but not being a programmer or even code proficient myself that is difficult
what it really needs a top notch graphics engine 'And' support from the gaming industry
FOR EXAMPLE:
http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/description.html
just think if that got onto lunix, with decent backing from say steam/valve
they could cripple microsoft's direct-x vicegrip on gaming and produce beyond aaa gaming experiences
turning lunix into a pot of pure gold for them and the gaming crowd
how amazing would that be?
pretty amazing.

 

[Johnson McGee]

I think because of Mac's limitations when it comes to hardware upgrades and the resulting fact that their hardware is either extremely expensive at the release of a new model or out of date that they have little chance of becoming the main system for gaming.

 

[II2]

I think PC gaming has had it's ups and downs but is very entrenched and expanding on a solid, long-tail business base at this point. Also, MACs have always been more expensive, especially compared to what a competent user can build their own PC rig for, so the price point remains an issue.

I think it would be healthy to see more competition, though, and if the rumors are true about future MAC and MAC OS integrating iOS support, I think it would be a more appealing platform.

I think while Steve Jobs did an excellent job building and ultimately rebuilding Apple, it's actually for the best that he's out of the way now and more concessions can be made to consumer demand over Job's tunnel vision.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I'm willing to bet no. Not for hardcore gamers anyway. It's just not an accessible market. With all the legal jargon, and control issues that apple will no doubt slap on a product, there just isn't enough incentive for developers to develop for the mac. And even they did, there'd be no market in the first place. People don't buy macs for gaming. In the same way you don't buy an iPhone for blackberry messenger.

 

[Freechoice]

I think while Steve Jobs did an excellent job building and ultimately rebuilding Apple, it's actually for the best that he's out of the way now and more concessions can be made to consumer demand over Job's tunnel vision.

Too soon?

that's perfectly fine, part of my frustration is people (like my mom for example) that buy a imac for the simple fact of the brand name, when all she does is browse her e-mail and play an occasional solitaire...spending 2-3x for something like that is unneeded and it frustrates me when they are too damn stubborn to admit it >:/

Build her a custom rig with the same performance specs as the imac and then tell her all about how it can run Crysis with over 9000 FPS or something. Make it seem like it's this big monster of a thing.

When she inevitably asks, "I'm never gonna need to do that. Why would you get me something like this?" do your best trollface and ask "GOOD QUESTION. Why'd you do the same thing for yourself at 2-3 times the cost?"

 

[The]

Nope. Thing is though, they were. Bungie, before being bought by Microsoft, were a Mac developer.

Ah, the good old Marathon series.