digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Valve Software's Co-Founder Explains Why No Mac OS X Support

macrumors.com — Kikizo interviews Valve Software's co-founder, Gabe Newell, about the upcoming Orange Box game compilation due for release in October. The compilation includes Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Episode One, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Portal, and Team Fortress 2 and will only be available for Windows, XBox 3...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rupertmorris, on 10/10/2007, -37/+20This is weaksauce on Apple's part. But hey, their market share is so huge, I guess they can't be bothered.
    • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -32/+12I would bet that Valve's requirements were something along the lines of... Apple you need to license some Microsoft-specific technologies so that we "don't have to be platform agnostic" [So that we don't stop getting under the table funding from Microsoft]
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26Oh yeah it's a big conspiracy. You sound like the Truthers.
        • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He is partly right, I don't think that that the Source Engine is really set up for proper OpenGL support at this point in time for the Orange Box to be released any time soon on OSX.
    • DarkSamus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6it's been that way since half life, there was rumor it was going to come out for mac but never did
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Half-Life 1 WAS being ported to the Mac. Several Mac gaming sites were carrying regular updates about the progress. And then about a week before the game was about to go GM, Gabe Newell announced that the project was dead. Mac gamers were mighty pissed at the time. It was equally hard on the lone guy who was doing the actual porting (his name escapes me at the moment); all the hours of coding that he put into it, including many, many hours of overtime, were now wasted and the product was shelved.

        The reason Newell gave for killing the Mac version was that the PC version was constantly being updated and bug-fixed, which was true. The Mac version of the code would have to wait until the PC patch was released, ensuring that the Mac users would almost always be at least one version behind, and therefore unable to play multiplayer with PC users. Newell said that the PC fans were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the game, and he didn't want to create a situation where another segment of users (Mac gamers) were overwhelmingly negative about their experience.

        I never got enthused about HL2 multiplayer, so I don't know if the same situation existed. If Valve updated HL2 as frequently as they did HL1, then I don't see how they can complain that Apple is to blame here.

        It should also be noted here that Newell made millions as an employee of Microsoft, which he used to start up Valve. His co-founder was also a former Microsoft employee. Read into that what you will.
        • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1"Mac Gamers" "People who wanted the game for their mac", fix'd it for you.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This has been the long history of Apple - as Steve Jobs has said himself, the one thing his company does not do well is work with partners.

      I remember when the DirectX initiative started and people were still kicking back to DOS for gaming, and people were like 'there is NO WAY you will be able to get games to work reliably and perform well under windows' - however, Microsoft took the idea dead seriously and attacked it head on with a lot of money and manpower, and most importantly, worked with third parties on an ongoing basis to insure success.

      In the world of PC gaming, there is a world of difference between a platform 'having the ability' to run powerful 3d games, and the OS having a high level of support for third party developers to help get their work done efficiently, on time, and on budget - thats what Microsoft does well, and Apple does not.

      I think this is no better illustrated then the latest relationship between Apple and third-party development on the iPhone, which has gone from 'lack of developer support' to 'shooting war'.
      • Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"...to help get their work done efficiently, on time, and on budget - thats what Microsoft does well..."

        I'm curious where you got that idea from.
        • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Taken out of context - Microsoft *helps developers* get their work done efficiently, on time, and on budget - better then any other company. The breadth and depth of their developer support is staggering.

          BTW relatively speaking Microsoft is a decent on-time software developer - keep in mind that they have 100's of software products besides Windows Vista ;)
  • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -73/+26This is total *****,
    EA and id seem to be able to make due with what apple has already provided.

    the real reason is laziness (or economical unwillingness) on the part of the Value Software.
    • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -12/+37Making a game compatible with a given platform costs something. If that cost isn't justified by sales then why bother?

      Besides, just boot into Windows on your Mac, problem solved.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -20/+3You just repeated what he said.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -20/+7You just repeated what he said.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So on top of my Top of the line $2000 Mac, I have to buy Windows too...
        then any time I want to play a game I have to reboot my computer!

        Just port the goddamn game!
        • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So on top of Valve's seven year, multi-million dollar development cycle, they have to spend extra time and resources on porting TF2 to the Mac so that they can make a couple thousand people happy?
        • ChildeRoland420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You should've known that when you dropped $2000 on it. If you wanted to play games you could've gotten a PC for much cheaper.
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I love watching Vista blue screen now that I run it on my macbook. Before, I would be pissed... now I laugh as the bluescreen window appears and my vista start bar and apps disappear. I then keep working in OS X or watching TV or whatever the hell I am doing and re-launch vista.
        • Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Oh and OS X is far superior when run on a virtual machine... have you ever considered that some of the bluescreening in parallels or whatever you are using might be due to bugs in the virtual machine?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -17/+13He is absolutely right, what exactly does Valve need? There are plenty of games made for the Mac by a variety of vendors. This guy tries to make it sound liek they are the only people trying to put games on the mac and Apple just isn't interested, absolutely not true.

      What are they really asking for that is different from EA , for example?

      I think miniboss (further down) has hit the real issue.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Really? Name one big name FPS popular on the PC which is out on the Mac as well. Not talking ancient games either. A modern game.
        • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Why would that matter? Are you telling me games are only games if they are on the PC?
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Solitaire, UT2007, Half-life, and Cry sis are all games. Of these games which ones are the ones most people want to play? Which ones are native OSX games? Which ones are not? You have missed the whole point of this discussion.
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1noahhoward is right. What difference does it make? Apple isn't the one releasing the games, companies like EA and Valve are. If Valve doesn't release them or allow third-party ports, it doesn't matter. Having RTFA, he never says exactly what he wanted or expected from Apple or why their involvement was even necessary.
        • Feanor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Battlefield 1942
          • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Great example. That's a 5 yr old game. PC-gamer are already putting Battlefield 2142 behind them and moving to newer stuff.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does Photoshop count? : P
      • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2I can only think of one popular and modern FPS that runs on PCs (BioShock).
        But that's based on my definition of "modern."
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Um... that only runs if you are running "windows compatability mode" correct? http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/ I don't see Mac OS mentioned anywhere on their site as a supported OS. Nice try tho.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Microsoft actually paid big coin to the developer to PREVENT Bioshock from being ported to platforms other than Windows and XBox.
          • ZippyV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@Charlotte_Web: Prove it.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, they did. They spent money developing an efficient, powerful method [DirectX] that made developing games easy.

            MSFT doesn't need to pay developers anything, there job is already hard enough porting games to other systems.
      • spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Microsoft has bent over backwards for over 10 years to make a games development kit, DirectX, based on the requests of the games industry. MS worked very closely with many of the biggest developers to make sure their platform was easy to use, made certain features quickly accessible and configurable, and supported a wide array of hardware automatically.

        Apple hasn't done *****. I conclude from this interview that Apple wants to put the onus on the developers who don't care enough to write new code from scratch to sell an extra 30 copies.

        I agree with Gabe that games would bring Mac converts over in droves. Aside from the relentless snooty advertising, games are the one thing that keep me repelled from Apple.
    • amnesiac096, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28@Me1000
      EA didn't and hasn't ported their games for Macs, instead they did a work around and used Cider which is just a wrapper for running Windows games on Intel-based Macs. I would think that Valve would actually want to do it right the first time, and not use a wrapper or emulator. EA sucks anyway, so don't go saying they did anything spectacular, cuz they didn't.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I know how EA makes games for the mac,
        I will probably never buy a game for my Mac anyway.

        My point it, EA (and iD) have created games for OS X, they deserve more credit than Value software.
        They are just covering up their lack of willingness to make games for the Mac!
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2As long as the game runs decently and doesn't crash, I don't give a rat's ass what developer toolset they used...
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2And where the hell is your evidence for that exactly?
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8Take your mac and suck it.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6sorry but the last time I checked Linux had less games than the mac,

        dont get me wrong I love linux, but at least I can come up with a halfway decent argument other than "suck it"
  • miniboss, on 10/15/2007, -31/+301It's not hard to read between the lines here. Just like many other gaming companies, they don't make Mac games because Mac users only TALK about how they want games but they don't actually BUY them.

    If Mac users were so interested in gaming then there would be more uproar as to what vid cards are built into the Macbooks, iMacs and Mac Pro's. But instead you see post after post of people defending Apple's decision to put mid-range cards into high-end systems.
    • Smoozle, on 10/10/2007, -73/+12Your comment is blatant *****. There is a world of difference between not being a hardcore gamer - one that has to have the latest and greatest graphics accelerator and accelerated physics and laser, weighted, jazillion dpi mouse - and not be willing to pay for games.

      If anything, people who have forked a couple of thousand of dollars for a brand name computer are more likely to actually pay (and be able to afford it) for a game (or any other piece of software) than those who spend their last buck for a 10 frames per second more.

      Anyway, porting houses like Aspyr and MacSoft and game developers like Blizzard and iD have proven that there is a market for Mac games(unlike Loki and Linux games market). It may not be as lucrative market as Valve wants it to be but it's still a market.
      • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36Just get windows if you want to play games.
        • bagelpirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly, I can keep all my work ***** on my mac side, and have windows clean, bare, and ready to roll
      • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8You can just boot into Windows to play your games.
        • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4So you want me to buy XP? Why? I already own an OS!
          • slowmotiony, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Because your OS sucks when it comes to games.
          • josell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, the games that are out for the OS run fine. It's the fact that there aren't many that's the problem.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Do you know if there are any DX10 cards out which work with the Mac?
          • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No cards, as such, but the new iMacs and MBPs are all DX10 compliant.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Haha. Have you ever played an Aspyr port? They barely work, in game key binding are often broken, simple menus get messed up, graphics get glitched, etc. I know the task is large in porting a game, but I wasn't impressed. Maybe it has improved since the Intel switch? I haven't tried since my old G4, and the experience was so bad I don't really have any desire to try again with the advent of BootCamp.
      • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Did you even think about your words before you wrote them? If a person spends a few thousand on a computer and as you say is able to afford the game (though I fail to see how that translates) you would think that multi thousand dollar computer would have a graphics card that was worth something. All your saying is that some people are willing to pay thousands of dollars on a computer (they are all Intel now so only the OS is differentiates them now) that is lacking. All I can say is go enjoy playing with Photoshop and making cute little movies and picture slide shows while I snuggle up to my dual 8800 Nvidias on my spyware and virus free Windows XP box.
        On second thought I guess you could go get boot camp and run XP but then you still have to deal with crappy video card.
        • Harq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you can afford a high end Mac, go build yourself a gaming monster and dual boot it with Windows and Linux.

          Macs are overpriced for what you get, its hard to argue against that.
    • YuriSakazaki, on 10/10/2007, -49/+64YOUR comment is blatant *****. There's a difference between a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer. Windows has that hardcore market, people who spend that extra cast on 10 FPS more. Those are the gamers that go out and buy games on release day, the ones who go out and spread the word, who spend all day playing. Meanwhile casual gamers might play 10 minutes a day and go do something else. They're not gonna go preorder Orange Box and beta test like a hardcore gamer would. Because frankly, if you were a hardcore gamer, you'd be playing in Windows and not complaining in the first place.
      • EvilNapkin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+40"Meanwhile casual gamers might play 10 minutes a day and go do something else. "

        If all your going to do is play a game for 10 minutes then i don't even see why you bought the game in the first place.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Well to be fair I'm an avid PC gamer but with a fulltime job and freelance work on the side I don't get to play my games very much. Not everyone has hours to devote to game playing at each sitting. Some of us have things like work and other obligations which demand a large share of our time.
        • MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4He didn't buy the game. That's the original poster's point.
        • gmprunner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's 10 minutes A DAY. It pays to read all the words in a sentence, not just the ones that are convenient for you.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Hate this comment system...
      • cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Ohh, but it's not just 10FPS. The new video cards are much faster then 10FPS more then what you get in apple's "high end" Mac Pro machines. We're talking twice or maybe three times the performance. And, you don't have to buy the absolute most expensive video boards to make that happen either.

        The complaint is that they market the machines as super-high-end, which they are, except for the video. Unfortunately, video performance is extremely important.

        It's Apple's fault that you can't plug in a new PC video card into the Macintosh. They don't provide an open way for vendors to supply video drivers. They have to get filtered through Apple first.
        • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2WOW! That sounds so super different than how Microsoft has driver signing! Wait, it is. Anyone can write to IOKit without needing to pay Apple. CRAZY!
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24You don't need to use signed drivers on Windows.
        • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As a gamer I like to have lots of upgrade choices available to me, thats why I have a desktop tower. On the mac if I want a tower I have to get a Mac pro. (not exactly cheap or geared towards gamers)

          I wish apple would make imac level systems in a mac pro form factor, that (and better video card support) would go along way into making apple more gamer friendly
      • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9But in any business 1 'hardcore' user/client is as valuable as a large number of non-hardcore users. To use a slightly darker example, look at a liquor store: I consume probably only 3-5 drinks a week, a 'heavy drinker(liquor store euphemism for alcoholic and the 'hardcore user' in this case) can easily consume between 12-24 drinks/day and certainly exceed that amount. So for a liquor store it doesn't really matter if I'm a customer, in fact it doesn't really matter if me and 12 of my friends that drink like me are/aren't customers. Same is true with gaming, hardcore gamers don't just have expensive gaming rigs, they also purchase every new top-rated game that comes out. The gaming market is the 'hardcore gaming market' any case where there is a large enough subset of users who vastly out consume the rest, the market is really focused on just that group. That Macs cannot accommodate hard-core gamers is the same as a liquor store that didn't sell drinks with more than 5% abv
        • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I'd argue the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer spent the same amount of money on the product but the hardcore gamer will demand a higher level of tech support as well as fixes for obscure, negligible bugs. A casual gamer wouldn't care. This is why Nintendo is raking in the dough despite using lower-tech gear: hardcore gamers cost the company more money than they make.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I doubt that. Hardcore gamers talk to people and get their friends involved with games they like.

          A hardcore gamer is also likely to have a higher proficiency with the system they are using, so I'd argue tech support while possibly demanding a higher standard, is less likely to be needed.
      • Aiwanei, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2when you talk about "casual" gamers you aren't talking about 10 minute gamers, maybe 30min-60min but never 10 min gamers. The casual market has grown a lot over time, with it going from games like say... solitaire, to maybe 1 big title every 6months to a year, and some older more budget titles when the price comes down. Casual gamers are big into MMOs, they just don't have 4 hours to spend raiding.
      • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why on earth would you buy an FPS and play it for 10 minutes, thats just stupid that is just about long enough for most people to start the game load the level and get not even a quarter of the way through a small level of the game. I would say I am a casual gamer but I don't even bother if i can't spend at least an hour playing a game and I usually get in 5 hours a week if i am not busy.
      • DEADB33F, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer, and long for the day when my choice of game isn't limited by the OS I can play it on.
        I don't own a mac, and doubt that I ever will due to the closed hardware of the machine and limited upgrade paths available. I do however run both my PCs on Linux although regretfully have to dual boot into windows whenever I want to play a game.

        To be fair it's nobodies fault, just that Microsoft have done an excellent job at creating and marketing DirectX & 'Games for windows' to game designers, who'd rather use windows DX inbuilt features rather than code their own. Which is understandable in a way, but limits the OS's that the finished game will be playable on.
        Hopefully one day openGL will catch up with DX and we'll begin to see truly Multiplatform PC games (Mac is still a PC).
    • zigspective, on 10/10/2007, -6/+66I don't completely disagree with this. Mac has been lacking on the graphics card area, you can't really deny that.
      Every day use, I'm on my Mac, but when I want to game, I fire up the PC.
      • Broelke4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Same here, I run a Powerbook for most things (music, photos) and it sits next to my PC that I built specifically to run Half-Life 2 and the like.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9I've got to say your version makes more sense than theirs.
    • bjs3171, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10I currently need to rebuild my windows tower because my motherboard died. if there were a reasonably priced Mac (around 2000) with a decent videocard and whatever you need to play current games, i would buy one. but there isn't, so I have to build another windows machine (and by "I" i mean "my friend"). I wouldn't call myself a "hardcore" gamer, but i'm definitely more than a casual gamer. I think if they just put a decent video card option in their imacs they'd sell a significant number more. doesn't seem that hard to me.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26But if they put better graphics cards into their machines, the prices would be even more outrageous.
        • kelly, on 10/15/2007, -26/+4More outrageous?

          Macs cost the same or less than equally equipped PCs.

          http://www.systemshootouts.org
          • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7But most people don't compare computer prices to see if they're "equally equipped". They care more about stuff like "does it run the same software" or "is it as cheap as possible" or "can I upgrade the video card".

            A PC that runs the same software as other PCs (eg runs Windows) isn't hard to find - the majority of all PCs qualify. PCs are very cheap $2000 for a Mac Pro).
      • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even if you needed to start from scratch you can build a nice dual core system with a gig of RAM, big hard drive, dvd burner, and a video card capable of playing all but the very newest games on the highest settings and spend under a grand. You can spend more if you want the high end of everything, but I've always been happy with my $800 computers. There's a sweet spot between price and performance that is easy to hit if you just do a little reading on Ars or Tom's before you hit up newegg.
    • cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Hey now they've got WoW, what more do you need?
      (Who am I kidding?)
    • sakuraz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22More like, people want to try out Macs, but they realise their favourite games don't run on it, so they give up.

      It's a vicious cycle.
      • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13If Mac OS supported games like Windows did and if they made their OS an open platformthat you can install on any machine I would most likely be using Mac OS right now instead of Windows or at least I would give it a run. Until they do that, Apple doesn't have my money.
        • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I would at least have it dual booted.
        • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1The funny thing is, Windows users think they have this massive amount of choice in hardware when it's really just more OEMs for the same hardware.
          • Terr01, on 10/14/2007, -1/+8Uhm... What are you talking about? Take motherboards. You can get one for AMD/Intel, or with AGP or PCI, or with one or two CPU sockets, or with various onboard sound, or onboard Ethernet, 100 or Gigabit, etc. etc. etc.

            With a Mac... well, can you even build your own anymore and have other Mac users recognize it as a Mac?

            --Typed from the latest iMac
      • nicktripp, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Games run just fine on my Mac. I use BootCamp to boot into the "gaming console" (aka Windows), play my game and then boot back into Mac OS X when I'm done.

        Best of both worlds. Only on a Mac.
    • surf314, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just out of curiosity what is wrong with the video card in the macbook pro? I thought a GeForce was good enough to play most games at a decent resolution and framerate. And please give me an honest answer cuz I want to buy the orange box to run on mine through vista and I need to know if I'm wasting my time and money.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4The MacbookPro does indeed have a pretty decent card (for a laptop). It's just that some gaming laptops offer higher end cards, and desktop video cards will always be more powerful.
        • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Yeah, for $1000 more. I just price a Dell XPS and it still costs way more than my MacBook Pro. If Stevie boy considered Apple to be a gaming platform he could put better cards in it, and it wouldn't cost that much more.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You do know that laptops are really meant to be used for work not gaming right?
        • Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Agreed. The only laptop I can think of right now with a MORE powerful card would be a Falcon Northwest which runs dual 7950's. The machine also costs well over the $4000 mark if memory serves me.
      • woodcoxcb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1some steam games will run through my vmware fusion box with a little tweaking, so it should run in a boot camp no problem...
        • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I have a friend that plays Bioshock on a Mac. Oh, it is a MacPro. LoL! So it is a damn good computer, but I would like to see him run it on a iMac.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2iWhat?
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Running it through my WTF filter, he's saying a friend of his dual boots into Windows to play Bioshock and apparently does quite well with it, but doubts that the experience would be as good on an iMac.
            I have a 24-inch Intel iMac, but I don't bother dual-booting with it since games would be the only reason. I would probably buy one or two Valve games if they were native Mac ports
      • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Depends on what model said GeForce is. They make all kinds of different models for all different types of usage and price brackets. Sort of like cars, just because you have a Chevy let's say, doesn't mean it runs like a Corvette.
        • surf314, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's an 8600M GT and I got the 256 MB one so I been out of the loop for awhile what does that get me? I don't need my mind blown I just want to hook it up to my TV and play it decent with the bluetooth keyboard and mouse.
          • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That should be fine for most games at modest resolutions with most settings on High. You probably won't get to enable AA, but it's not a bad graphics card by any means for a laptop. My friend currently uses a 7600GS and plays Bioshock with all the settings on HIgh at 1024x768, so you should be fine as long as you aren't playing at 65465464x654654654
      • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Also, remember that HL2 and the source games are really well written and will run on older hardware. I used to run HL2 at 1600x1200 with just about everything maxed out and that was on my old geforce 5200. Unless you are talking about turning all the settings up on a demanding game like Oblivion or Bioshock, you can max things out on most games as long as you are using a fast dual core cpu, a gig of ram, and something like a geforce 7900 or higher. That's all I've got and I can play anything I throw at it, just not all on the super highest settings. There is a high price to pay for the high end video boards so I usually find that it's not worth it until the latest and greatest card gets knocked down a peg by a new release.
    • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I agree - I was excited about the new iMacs when they were announced - until I realized Apple included (yet again) sub-par graphics chips. What the??? It's ludicrous that the brand new iMacs are *blown out of the water* by the old 7600 upgrade for the 24" iMac in 3-D gaming.

      What's the point of all these great games coming to the Mac if the hardware can't provide a satisfying experience?

      Apple needs a consumer-level tower with a replaceable graphics card. Period. The current iMacs are worthless for gaming, and the MacPro is way too expensive.

      Guess I'll be holding on to my original 20" Intel iMac with the Radeon X1600 for a long while, and missing out on the latest, greatest games (Unreal Tournament 3) in the process.

      Boo, Apple.
      • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4People have been saying for years that Apple needs a midrange desktop tower mac. But from what I can tell, Apple doesn't want to go after the gaming market. They're happy with their niche that they got.
        • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Gamers cost too much money to support and as this topic shows, they bitch too much.
      • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The problem is that Apple relies on the "one-size-fits-all" approach so that idiot users will feel the same using each machine. The moment you give consumers the option to (*gasp*) modify their own machines, the experience would not be the same on each and every Mac, which is what Apple wants.
      • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They are primarily a hardware company and don't make much money hitting the price/performance sweet spot. That's why I always build my own rather than buying one from any vendor be it Dell, HP, Gateway, Apple, or whatever. Apple wants to sell you on a name and an image in addition to a machine so that they can specialize in more "boutique" computers. They want easy, pretty, and generally powerful. They make no money and dilute their brand if they sell something mid-range that gets most people everything they need for a fraction of the cost of one of their high end machines. They want to be seen as the high end to be shot for and they do this well through marketing and form factor/design. Sell something for $800 in a mid sized ATX case and suddenly it's just another Dell running OSX.
      • josell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I agree. What's the point of releasing games if the hardware can't keep up? But, at the same time, what's the point of adding hardware that isn't necessary to run anything on the market.
    • mypenis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i guess i really believed that...until i heard there was plans to come out with a mac version of Gears of War and I'm TOTALLY gonna buy that. Now if only they came out with a mac version of Bioshock (crossing fingers).
    • evenson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5You make it sound like the Apple user base has to pay some kind of tax in order to get game developers to make games for OS X. I'm sorry, but it's up a company to make it's products palatable to the consumer. That's the way it works. The fact that games, with rare exception, are released close to a year late for OS X is the primary reason sales are poor IMO.

      There *is* a Mac software market. Ask Blizzard how many copies of WoW for OS X they've sold. A whole lot I'll bet, and it's because they treated us like first class citizens. You have to make an effort to server your customer. Giving us a crap port a year late and expecting us to be grateful is pretty damn galling.
      • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Blizzards WoW ideology was "lets not have a single person in the world not be able to play WoW". Also, WoW is not graphically demanding...seriously...
        • evenson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Good strategy, don't you think?

          And my Mac Pro is more than capable of playing "demanding" games. I get 40+ fps in Bioshock @ 1900x1220 with everything turned all the way up. Thanks for playing.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2I see more half assed comments about mac hardware than just about anything else.

      First, let me say that mac graphics cards are NOT underpowered by ANY means. They offer the highest end STABLE card avaliable, and update pretty quickly, save their laptop line (as the same with any other company). "But there no 8800 GTS 5gig overclocked etcetcetc" no *****, and judging by the shoddy drivers and issues with multiples of games already, I doubt it will be ready for "primetime" anytime too soon. Yeah, you beta test hardware and drivers in windows. I would not call a ati x1900 or a 7600gts underpowered. I am pulling better fps on my mac in WoW than MOST the feedback I see on their forums, and a full 20fps faster than in bootcamp on the same system. other games like CoD2 I get 30fps faster than the same in bootcamp, using latest drivers. Hell, I am pulling better fps than most 8800 users in WoW. Stop saying Mac has "*****" cards becuase it doesn't have the zero day latest. I have yet to find a game I cannot get better than 30fps with my current 7600gts in my iMac 24". I agree that you should be able to upgrade you system to faster cards as they come out however. Even if that means shipping it to Apple and they do it for free or something. There is no reason a iMac 20" that had a x1600 cannot change that to a x1900 later down the road, and with the glarring emptiness that should be a mid-powered stand alone system, not just the expensive mac pro, I think Apple should look into that. Apples retain their value with age quite a bit better than a pc, so with little value loss, why are you using a 2-3 year old mac? I thought it was common knowledge that you have to upgrade every 1-2 years. Also, who the hell buys a laptop FOR gaming? I keep hearing this OVER AND OVER. I do not see anyone buying Dell laptops exclusivly for gaming, who is apple different?

      Don't say Apple is fully to blame for the lack of games on OS X either. I am sure porting would have been quite a bit better had Microsoft not used leverage, customer base, and $$ to get game makers to switch from opengl to directx (see HL1 for instance). Microsoft does NOT release the dx engine to anyone, and they will not, of course, release source. They have locked game makers into using DX7+ and game makers cannot redo all of their code to port to other systems, it would be an entirely new game. Microsoft is not releasing any way to port DX APIs to any other system, be is opengl or whatever. So just what is Apple supposed to do at this point? They are stuck with OpenGL as their only gaming platform, they could make their own which would probably rock, but no company is going to pick it up, uprooting all their development on new games just to re-release older games for macs. They would have to make the switch for their new games.... and again the problem comes in. Most games use a gaming engine, then the game is developed around it, and we are back to the problem of totally rewriting the engine for them = not going to happen.
      Apple is not the only one in this boat. I do not see linux versions of these game at my standard EB. Don't go after the next "big" player in the field and not point to the other guys that are in the same boat. Where is my DirectX for linux? No, you are stuck with wine and the like, just like mac.
      Congrats to the companys that are trying to make a port system to port the calls for directx directly into opengl, but that is a bandaide. Any emulation or realtime conversion will cut performance drastically.

      So, you're a hardcore gamer. Ok, then mac is NOT right for you. Apple wanted to create a system that WORKS, always. No bluescreens, no crashes, no irq conflicts, no driver updates every day, none of that ***** you go thru as a windows gamer. The system "Just Works" and it works well. Its FAST, and I have had ONE crash since I started using mine, which was due to a 3rd party program accessing fan speeds. Part of the stability macs give you is becuase they do NOT allow you, the moron that THINKS he knows pcs but really doesn't know dick, out of the hardware and drivers to keep you from dicking it up to hell and back. They do NOT have the latest flimsyware graphics cards that are greatly unstable with shoddy drivers just to give you 5-10fps. They sacrifice zero day hardware, for slightly slower greatly more stable and reliable hardware and drivers. They get nvidia and ati to load special firmware on the cards to allow their hardware/software leech everybit of performance WITHOUT overclocking and lessesning the life of the product. I hear ALL THE TIME, "Well I blew my MB overclocking this or installing that, etcetc" and I have YET to hear that with macs. Yeah, I cannot FORCE it to produce 3x the heat to gain 1fps... somehow I will not lose sleep over that. So, all that said, yeah, its NOT a hardcore gamers box. That hardly means its NOT a gaming machine though. You get microsoft to release or even license (they will not do ANY of it!) their proprietary dx engine, and I GARUNTEE you 50x games will be released for mac within a month. Microsoft knows that games are holding the macs back, and they intend to keep it that way, even if they have to PAY companies like valve to continue using ONLY windows.

      • MikeCerm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Microsoft doesn't need to license DirectX. What would be the point? Unlike the Mac OS, you can already use DirectX on any x86 computer you want. You just have to pick up a copy of Windows XP, which is easy to find for less than $50 these days, and there you go.

        Now, if Apple would license their OS... they might stop getting ignored by game companies. Furthermore, Microsoft licensing DirectX would be like Apple licensing Quartz Extreme. Nonsense.
        • BobOki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Explain to me how you can use directx on a linux box.

          With this entire thread being about how Apple does not have a lot of games for it, and all those games are coded in directx, how is microsoft not allowing anyone to use their engine, or APIs to convert their code not relevent? You say nonsense, I say you have no clue what the hell you are talking about, what code is involved in making games, or how they even work. Microsoft would have to license code to apple so apple could make a conversion gateway to take dx calls and apply them to their own systems. Companies like aspyr are "hacking" if you will this right now, but MS would have to do something to make it truely work flawlessly.

          Why would Apple need to license their OS? Do you even have a clue what the hell you are saying? Anytime you BUY their OS you get a license. Perhaps you want source code? maybe an SDK thats already avaliable?

          Apple uses OpenGL and a coca engine.... game makers do NOT need anything else from them ecpect the SDK and opengl. Please explain to me in a little more detail than the typical FUD what Apple needs to "provide" to game companies.
      • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know, I'm always hearing people complain about how non-Mac computers are virus-ridden machines that crash daily and have bad drivers. This is absurd. I've never had a Windows XP machine that didn't "just work". I build all of my computers myself, without any advanced technical knowledge, and they all work great.

        You know what causes 99% of virus infections? Users clicking "OK" on every single prompt they see, never stopping to think about anything. You what causes most crashes? Badly written third-party software. As for drivers, they work great for me almost every time.

        You see, it's not "Windows" that causes computer problems, it's the users.
      • Urzeitlich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27600GTS? That was low-end LAST generation. It can hardly even keep up with the weakest DX10 cards of today.
    • Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I still don't understand why the highest end Mac Pro, which can run north of $15,000 the last time I checked, runs on the cards it does.

      NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
      2 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
      ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
      3 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
      4 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
      NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)

      So the Quadro FX is a high-end card, but why is it all 7300's up until that point? One 8800GTX/Ultra would probably take out at least two SLI 7300GTs, if not three or four.
      • ZaZ2137, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Quadro series cards are for hardcore video editing and video proccessing, they're not for gaming, and they're extremely expensive in most cases.
        • capran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sure...it's $15000....if you CTO it with a bucket load of FB-DIMMs, hard drives, dual quadcore Xeons, and 30" displays and top of the line (from Apple) graphics cards.

          Meanwhile, a base model Mac Pro,

          * Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
          * 2GB (4 x 512MB)
          * 250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
          * ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
          * One 16x SuperDrive
          * Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
          * Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
          * Mac OS X - U.S. English

          is $2827. Hardly $15Gs. (But I will grant a comparable generic gaming PC can be had for much less. You need to compare this machine to something like Dell's dual-Xeon workstations.)

          And, yes, I will mention yet again that I, too, would kill for a "consumer" level Mac with upgradeable graphics and top graphics cards for choices.
          • Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yea, that's what I said - the highest end Mac Pro. Without any displays, actually, that's just the tower and whatever accessories come with it whether you opt for them or not.

            @ZaZ2137, I know that - but doesn't it make sense that there should be something in between? Quad SLI wouldn't be necessary if they'd use better cards, they really don't cost that much more. The price difference between a 7300GT and a 7900 or 7950 is usually under $100, not much more for an 8600.
    • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have an excellent point miniboss, but what bothers me more is the lack of linux support. The linux community has been screaming about lack of Steam support for so long and so hard that mentioning, or starting a thread about linux support is a fast ticket to getting the thread locked and the account banned. The worst thing is that they offer linux builds for servers, but not for the game clients, so it's almost as if they're teasing us.

      Valve, for the love of God, please release a Steam version for Linux!
      • 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Linux has a serious problem on this front. The success of Cedega (and to a lesser extent Wine and CrossOver) shows that there _is_ a viable market for Linux gaming, but at the same time, because Cedega (and, again, to a lesser extent, the others) does what it does so well, the companies don't see any point porting code.

        I remember a while back I read a Blizzard forum rep talking about how their developers work with Transgaming to get WoW working well in Cedega; that's a hell of a lot less work than actually making a native client, so why would they bother when the end result is still a sold game for them? Pretty-damned-good Not Emulation is a double edged sword.
  • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -25/+68Macs don't need games! they have fun stuff like iLife...and..and..hmm...World of Warcraft?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ...
      http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ...
      • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Oh! Windows games with wrappers! Not actual ports. They most likely run at a lower performance level.

        Get real.
        • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I don't care if you don't like they, fact is they are there.
        • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No they aren't. We're discussing ports. ***** off.
    • morallaurels, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Command and Conquer? Screw that, I have Photobooth.
      I'm a mac user and I could care less about video games.
      • Butros, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The you bought the right system, for that I digg you good sir/ma'am. For anyone who bought a mac and bitches about lack of games - you really didn't think about your purchase did you? You wouldn't buy a mac to play games just as you wouldn't buy a pc to pick up chicks at panera.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A nice relistic view of the situation.

          I digg you.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9The phrase you tried to use was "I couldn't care less about video games." This says you care the least possible. What you said "I could care less about video games" implies there is still room for you to care less. It just buggs me when people mess this phrase up.
    • ninja0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3thats the gayest thing i've ever heard anyone say.
      if macs get games... linux gets games. damn you apple!
      • dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I've heard X11 makes a GREAT platform for graphics acceleration.
    • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Now just make World of Warcraft fun and you have a great start...
    • killerofkiller, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3"mac has tons of great games.. like that apple puzzle game, that's a great game.. and then there is breakout.. superbreakout... photoshop"
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...and every windows game when you boot to windows or run windows in parallels.

        I only run vista for games and streets and trips, otherwise its just a flawed OS that crashes all the time and basically sucks huge ass. Try OS X. You'll be surprised.
    • fungible, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I use my mac to actually make *****. Who has time for games?
      Playing windows on a mac is like using the Mona Lisa to masturbate.
      • HouseCentipede, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that never occurred to me, i will go try it
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -29/+128http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
    • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -24/+18yes, please apple fanboys, stick to that and shut the hell up about it.
    • toxicityj, on 10/15/2007, -16/+47that won't do you any good if the hardware sucks...
      • skatastrophy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38I don't know why he's getting dugg down. Apple notoriously has sub-par video cards in their machines, even the higher end ones.

        • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Seems to me there are 3 or 4 people who go around to every comment and digg them all down. lols.
        • Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, ever try to play a game on a Macbook?
          I can play... uh... well... I can play... Diablo! I can play that!
      • MikeWeller, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Well I can run half-life episode 1 and bioshock and Oblivion pretty much maxed out on my macbook pro. So I don't know where this stuff about underpowered graphics cards comes from.
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It comes from the fact that the graphics options *are* underpowered compared to what's available out there.
          Apple has consistently chosen stripped-down, mid-range, and/or "lite edition" versions of the cards they use to build their systems -- the *one* exception being the X1900 for the Mac Pro, which was actually kind of "with the times" when it was first released... but that was ages ago, and it's well behind the times now.
        • conorkirk, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1I don't know why people are digging him down, what he says is true, I run those maxed on my MBP...
    • joshzweig, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31As great as BootCamp is, it's that people want to play games natively in OS X, without having to reboot into a new operating system, or splitting their resources between OS X, and a Windows in Fusion/Parallels.
      • Raian, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4would you like some cheese with your whine?
      • Phil13, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6wow you get dugg down for having a valid point. I don't want to buy Windows and have to dual boot to play games. I consider myself hardcore in the games I love, mainly the UT series (hence why I don't miss the games Macs don't get).
        Seriously, to tell someone to just dual boot is retarded. You have to pay for Windows and don't give me the piracy crap; I don't do that.
        Native games are what I care about, screw WINE (and anything like it), screw parallels and screw booting into Windows.
        The video card crap is also a stupid point, hardcore Mac gamers are the ones buying the Mac Pro with a X1900 in it. Don't give me the BS that it isn't the newest card, so what? The x1900 is still a *great* card and still trumps a lot of things.
        • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3So what're you doing with that X1900...Are your desktop icons prettier or more flashy somehow?
        • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah I agree with the x1900 being a great card, but it's now being phased out of the market by the x1950 series, and more so by the HD 2k series. Apple should at least keep up with the series changes. I can understand not going for the latest and greatest, next model up, but when a whole line gets revamped it should be included.
        • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is what happens when a company is the only one making a particular product with no actual competitors. Sure the PC you could say is a competitor, but I'm talking about buying a Mac from someone other then Apple. Watch how quickly many mac users would go with the competition if the competition didn't care about looks and aesthetics and made a mac that was just as upgradeable as a PC and was cheaper.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You have a great point. I used Bootcamp explicitly to play through Bioshock - but frankly I find games on Windows so annoying I would never take that route again. Either a native port like we get from Unreal Tournament, or even a wrapped Windows version like we get with EA games - I don't really care, I just want the game to be able to run from native OS X without a lot of fuss.
      • zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Keep an eye on VMWare Fusion. It won't be long before this gets solved. I think they have a beta right now that supports DX9.
    • LowFuel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I dont mind the bootcamp solution, I am willing to reboot in order to play a game. But, I'm not going to drop 2.5k on a Mac Pro until I can get it with a geforce 8800.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1When do you think Mac OS will have DX10 support? My guess is never.
        • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5DirectX is a Microsoft product. Macs use OpenGL 2.0. So yea, never.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Exactly my point. Unless MS and Apple work out a deal. Which is entirely possible. Just an FYI OpenGL sux to code for which is why most games use DirectX.
    • zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Boot Camp? Might as well run Windows on a nicely build PC, its got everything you any mac offer for lower price if you know what you're doing.
      • rajb245, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2except then you are missing out on the mac side of things. you get both with boot camp. unless you want to deal in the shady osx86, you can't do the same from a pc perspective.
        • PJBovoNox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1It's not shady. It's Mac OS X the same as it is on a Mac. It's just hacked to work on the same hardware that Apple gives you, just without the Apple tax.
    • chugger1992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5this solves OS X support how, again? Seems like it's WINDOWS, not OS X.
      • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can have the stylish Mac's, but with windows accessibility to gaming.
    • joegibes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2http://www.ubuntu.com/
      and
      http://www.winehq.com/
    • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I love the new iMacs, but honestly can't use any Mac OS, so I will be following the bootcamp for vista or even stick with my XP Pro.
      • PJBovoNox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Just save your money and buy a PC, which is the same thing except it's not eyecandy for *****.
  • Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -65/+112Awesome...Steve Jobs/Apple is too busy figuring out how to plastic/steel coat last years technology, repackage and sell it at a huge markup to the trendy kids. Support for gamers...why? We have mindless drones that buy our products for look and 'cool factor' no real gamer would buy our systems anyway.
    • nunofgs, on 10/10/2007, -16/+41Sadly, I find this to be absolutely true. That's why I just keep a windows desktop in my room.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -21/+15Except, you know, plenty of games ARE made for Macs with no problems... why is Valve having such a hard time?
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Development cost vs. ROI

        It's not that they can't, it's just that they won't.
      • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5What games? I think you mean the games that were made for Windows then had a Mac OS wrapper put around them. The EA games aren't native OS X games.
        • dgp1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So what? So many people here are bitching about that same thing. I'm not a gamer, so tell me, do these non-native games burn your eyes when you play them, or something? What's the difference IN PRACTICE (not just in terms of philosophy please).
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2http://www.apple.com/games/

          Everything there except EA's latest offerings run native on OS X (the EA ad of "six games for your Mac" are all that are wrapped with Cider).
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Which makes them in reality non-OSX games. EA took the lazy cheap way out instead of coding the games for OSX. It means they didn;t see any justification for the cost of porting the games over to OSX. It was just a PR move for Apple so they can say "See? We too have nice games!"
          • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course it was a PR move. But they work better than other porting efforts had done (Aspyr ports sucked), and there is nothing wrong with it as long as the final product is the same thing.

            And really, if you want to nitpick, you can use your argument about any game that's released on consoles and PC simultaneously too. Which one gets to be called "native" and which is the port, because obviously PC games aren't just going to recompile for the PS3 as easily as they do with the xbox, something has to be altered.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.metacafe.com/watch/48013/apple_gamer/
    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5You need to price computers. They aren't so overpriced when you compare them. MacBook though is overpriced.
    • zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Apple users being called mindless drones. My, how times change.
      If you believe that selection of a computer makes you trendy (or not), you have self-esteem issues. Believe it or not, 98% of the population don't give a ***** about making a statement with their computer, or think that a computer makes a statement at all. They're too concerned with having lives and getting stuff done. Really.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12As a longtime Mac laptop user, I really never even thought about it being a "statement of trendiness" until I got to college as I'm certainly not a trend follower, and it wasn't until I got to college I even encountered another Mac user, and even then, the stereotype doesn't fit. Most of the PC vs Mac battle only exists on the net, and the "Macs are only for trendy kids" seems to only exist here on Digg or maybe in some big city or something. I've certainly never encountered the stereotype holding true.

        Digg has a massive distortion of reality for the most part, kinda like there is almost no sarcasm detection here.
        • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly. I am in law school, and no one here gives a ***** about "trendy geeky laptops." People use MacBooks because they come with OSX and just ***** work. I run XP Pro (and formerly Gentoo as well) at home, but I have an OSX laptop because it kicks ass. The benefits are intangibles; I cannot really point to any one thing that makes it a must-have, but once you use a MacBook Pro (like I have), you'll realize you should have sold a kidney or three years ago to be able to afford one.

          Personally, one of my favorite things that I can do (even though it's almost insignificant) is drag images from Opera browser to other programs in OSX. I can't do that in XP Pro. I run a library program on my MacBook Pro and I can go to Amazon, search for a book, and drag the book's cover straight from my browser to the library program's interface for that book. It's those little things that make the laptop awesome, not some huge thing like triple-Xfire Windwaking ***** Graphics Cards!!!111eleven!exclamationpoint!
        • ddorent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1are you being sarcastic?
      • ddouglas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Believe it or not, 2% of the population (world population anyway) is more than 120 million people. Really.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but that's not the *population of people with computers*. You need to have a computer before you can "give a *****" whether it makes a statement.
      • WarBloodlust, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Eh, I'd say it's probably because of Mac evangelists that these opinions arise. I'm one myself, but that whole "I HAVE A MAC!" thing faded after three days or so. Like any new product, it's exciting to get, who can blame them?
    • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Like game makers don't just change a few images and rehash the same game engine over and over. Hello black kettle, meet the pot.
      • Christbait, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Shut the hell up. Source and Goldsrc are two completely different engines.
        • GhostFreeman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He was talking about gameplay, you insensitive clod.

          And in that department Valve has been pretty innovative (see Portal) for fps titles.
    • atomicfireball, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Boy, it took me a second to parse your response, there. You said "mindless drones" and "real gamers" in the same sentence, and you weren't referring to the same people. I mean, it's hard to watch people slugging back Halo-branded Mountain Dew while spending hours sitting in front of their big screen TV playing games and not realize that you're watching mindless automatons who have almost perfectly programmed to be mindless little consumer-bots. My lord. Get a life. Or more importantly, start realizing that there's more to life than being a ***** consumeristic puddle sitting in front of a god damned glowy box 18 hours a day. Go out and get some exercise, get laid, create something, DO something. Anyone playing games for more than a few hours a week is wasting their ***** life. How you could even consider calling anyone else a "mindless drone" is beyond me. Want to compare what you've accomplished with all your gaming with what i've accomplished on my Mac?
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Halo Mountain Dew?" "Big screen TV?"

        You're thinking of CONSOLE gamers. (Are they more likely to own Macs since they don't play games on the PC?)
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Console gamers and PC gamers are merging into synonyms. When the same titles are released on the consoles as the PCs, and you can play them together online, the only real difference becomes the interface used to play the game, aka, personal preference.

          Game pad or keyboard/mouse?
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I theorize that Console vs. PC reflects in part the traditional divide between the Jocks and the Geeks. Anyone who knows how to program anything? They've more likely got a PC.
      • cojerk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you're an applist. just because i use a mac doesn't mean i'm some drooling hipster *****. apple pro apps. end of story.
  • Motocompo, on 10/10/2007, -14/+65Maybe the reason is that I don't have any cash to buy games after I pay out the ass for a semi-decent video card for a mac.
    • badenglishihave, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I'm not a big fan of Apple, but to give them some credit decent video cards cost a good chunk of cash for any configuration nowadays.
  • rectifier, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10I don't want to play games on my mac - that's what my pc is for. That and lashings of bovine love.

    oh and my god captcha sucks..
    • muldoonaz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2oh its not that bad.
    • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah captcha ***** me all the time, but at least we don't get spam for penis enlargement pills.
  • rectifier, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7I don't want to play games on my mac - that's what my pc is for.
    • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Like Kerry, I dugg your comment, right before I buried it...
  • minivanmegafun, on 10/10/2007, -11/+20Buried for low-content
  • HiddenCanuck, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18that's what boot camp is for!

    Heck i run ubuntu but i still boot into windows for my TF2 goodness.
    • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"Best use of Windows" award given to you, sir!
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9But, what are you going to do about running games with mediocre hardware? Belive it or not, videogames are pretty hardward-taxing compared to most normal use (web and such). Low and Mid level macs will be very substandard game machines.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Totally untrue, processor-wise mid level macs have great offerings and the video cards they use are not the best possible, but pretty decent choices.
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Graphics cards are what make or break gaming though. MacBooks certainly hold their own in processor power, but the Intel GMA 950 just doesn't cut it. The new iMac does have a decent enough graphics card though to play games (but you won't be maxing out the game settings).

          Then again, most intelligent people don't buy laptops for gaming, it turns it into a mobile desktop with the weight and dimensions gaming hardware adds.
        • kesin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1TF2's requirements are not that intensive in the first place. Secondly, I run WoW and have raided in TBC and pvped extensively and not had one problem on my macbook pro with maxed out settings. It would be nice to have support from Apple for more games instead of just giving us bootcamp though.
  • scoobycarolan, on 10/10/2007, -14/+34Mac users aren't used to having decent games. Blizzard used to sell Mac games like hotcakes until someone decided they needed a hot FPS to start selling consoles. Unreal Tourney sells well, and Carmack doesn't have any trouble porting IDs engines over to OSX. Doesn't sound like Valve is committed to the Mac, why should the Mac be committed to them?
    • Crimsoneer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Erm...because frankly, Valve doesn't particularly need hte mac market. The mac market could really use valve games.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The Mac market is expanding fairly nicely without Valve. The gamer market is actually fairly small, they just tend to be the most vocal on the internet. Most Mac users who casually game aren't going to ***** bricks if a certain title isn't released for their platform.

        EA just started really marketing their games for Mac, and I'm willing to bet it won't increase market share at all.
        • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7...but who likes EA games?
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Enough to make EA one of the most sucessful game makers? Doesn't matter to me, none of what they released interested me. Being a father, having a job, and writing takes up most of my time.
        • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You don't like Command & Conquer 3? Come on now..
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure what people are reading into my comment. I didn't comment on the quality of EA's offerings, I said that having more games available isn't going to affect marketshare. As vocal as "hardcore gamers" are, there aren't enough of them that would switch just because of Mac gaining game titles, EA, Valve, or whoever. Most would want the ability to upgrade all hardware as needed, and have some way of gaining full compatibility with every possible game out there before they would consider it, and that's not something Apple caters to.
      • Zergo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+113 year old pre-pubescent boys who run around screaming "HAX#!!!!11" after you kill them for the 15th time in CSS?

        As a mac user, I don't need that.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Blizard still puts out all games on the Mac. There's a little game called WOW, perhaps you've heard of it? Native Mac. Also the new Starcraft and any other title from Blzzard, offers native Mac support.
      • Balanced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think the poster meant Bungie.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4And Bungie can go ***** themselves for selling out. Those assholes got started making Mac-exclusive titles such as Marathon, which was a great series of games. Now they're XBox and Vista only. Eat *****, Bungie.
          • Jorg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11What a stupid attitude. Bungie made games for a living. MS offered them the chance to make games for a much bigger audience withough having to beg a publisher for cash. They made the right decision.
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think you're confusing dedication with reality. Bungie had a hot game coming (Halo) and were offered an incredible amount of money to make it XBox/MS exclusive. They made the choice to be wealthy and sucessful. Am I sorry they didn't release it for the Mac first? Yeah, but hey that's life and it's only a game.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think you meant Bungie instead of Blizzard. Ah, the days when Halo was a Mac first game...
  • BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41Talked to an Apple guy recently when they were at a MIT career fair. I tried to convey to him the importance of the gaming segment, and what Apple could do to bring in that audience. I layed out 3 things they could do myself - 1) A Mac between the Mac Pro and the iMac 2) Mac video cards closer to PC video card prices 3) Have a game distribution system, whether it be iTunes or Steam

    All of this was promptly ignored. I was then told that a Mac between the iMac and the Mac Pro isn't needed, and Apple likes to 'keep things simple'.

    Here I am ready to leave Microsoft with Vista, and Apple says FU to me as well. I guess I'm stuck with XP for gaming. ( Don't even bring up Linux gaming. That's a sad, sad, sad tale. )
    • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The Apple PR/HR rep probably has little control over those decisions and ideas.
    • jdavid, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2its called a used mac pro.
    • woodcoxcb, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1the new iMacs come with HD cards...

      iTunes for GAMES? i thought keeping that name was silly when they put videos in it, but honestly....
      • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Sorry.. HD cards? What is this a console?
    • felderado, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It can't be that sad Brandon... Linux is going to get the UT3 port before OSX will, haha....
      • TheNik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's taking an awfully long time for some people to realize that UT3 will be the same as every one before it. That's some repetitive developments right thurrr.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I can't believe he would ignore your expert consulting.
    • mabhatter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the macbooks & mini with only integrated video are what's killing mac gaming... because those are the macs people BUY. Even the $300 Apple TV gets an Nvidia Go 7400!!! For the $100 price premium every Mac should have discrete graphics without exception. This is very clearly Apple's fault because they rebuilt their entire line of machines... without considering gaming at all!! Even low end cards would put macs into the running but porting a good game to intel GMA is to much work for a game company to do. The hottest selling macs are macbooks and they're totally cut out. Bad Apple.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Honestly, some Mac guy sitting at the table at a career fair probably knows about as much about Apple's hardware plans as some random guy on the street.
    • Bytor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yep. I feel the same. I am getting a new computer. I waited for some sign that new Macs would change, but no dice. No mini tower with graphics upgrade capability. New iMacs are no better than old iMacs for graphics performance. I'll be getting another windows box.
  • Rileyper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+42Real gamers use windows, thats why its on my apple
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3DX10
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Which installs just fine when you install Vista with BootCamp.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are you running Vista in your bootcamp? How well do the most recent games run? Bioshock and World In Conflict both make some use of DX10 in Vista if you have a DX10 card. Please let me know performance wise how this works for you.
          • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My only Mac is a MacBook, so I'm not in a position to tell you how well those games run in DX10, but a Mac Pro running Windows will recognize any graphics card you put in it (OS X may not), so there's no reason the performance should be limited by anything other than the hardware. Vista doesn't care that it's running on a Mac.
        • chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That would be good if Apple offered a real DX10 card.
          • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1...which they do. Well, not for the Mac Pro, but still...
          • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple doesn't use DirectX, why should they offer a DX10 card specifically?

            Also, if you have a Mac Pro, you can drop in any graphics card you want. OS X may not recognize it, but a Windows install will (has to do with BIOS vs EFI).
      • andyakadum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1DX10 sucks. Use OpenGL, it looks sweeter and is CROSS PLATFORM!
        • PJBovoNox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Ok... I'll remember to select OpenGL in all my Windows games. Oh, wait...
        • PJBovoNox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Ok... I'll remember to select OpenGL in all my Windows games. Oh, wait...
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ditto. But for everything else, I use OS X. I rarely boot Windows Vista, only to play HL2 or something like that.

      Once more games are available for OS X, I will free up the 40gb on my drive that windows is wasting on bluescreens.
      • umbra, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2am i the only one that doesn't get blue screens? I use Macs and PCs, but my PC runs fine.
  • Carsonauto, on 10/10/2007, -11/+42Bootcamp is basically Apple's excuse for poor game support.
    • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, BootCamp is the solution to all compatibility problems and to put at ease people looking into switching. Games aren't the only reason. AutoCAD, games, company's internal applications, certain tools, cross platform development and testing, etc.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No it really is Apple's way of not easing up it's death grip on the OS and still try to provide access to the applications people need to run. You still have to buy a copy of Windows.
    • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Bootcamp is the solution for the guy that has an IT staff that won't support Macs.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bootcamp is the... "I guess I could buy this Mac... if OSX completely sucks at least I can use windows".

      To convince beyond the shadow of a doubt, it's at least as good as a Windows PC. (To a casual buyer of course)
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bootcamp turned this Mac hater into a Mac user. I bought a macbook to run vista, and ended up realizing that somebody actually made an OS that doesnt crash. I found out that frequent program and OS crashes aren't part of everyday life.
  • everfresh59, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4BOOTYCAMP FTW! Macs are good with no games, get more ***** done.....
    • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah Photoshop and making quicktime movies is sooooooooo on the edge of your seat fun.
      • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3According to Apple commercials, Macs have the "fun" on lock, man. Macs can play music and movies which are totally the most fun you can have!

        PCs can do that plus play all the latest games, but they always seem to leave that part out...
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Getting ***** done and edge of your seat fun don't match up anyways. You missed the point.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sorry but nope. A good multimeadia workstation is also a great game rig. At least in the PC world it is. In the Mac world not so much.
        • shadowpr0ph3t, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1MACS RUN WINDOWS. WHY DOESN"T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT!
  • ike6116, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23The thing is is that he is right. Apple has not done much to make the game developer's life easier. Ryan Gordon's (read: Icculus, the man solely responsible for a lot of Mac / Linux games) comments on this are well documented.

    The thing is as annoying and entitlest as Mac users are, Gamers are just about as bad. Personally I am thankful the two have never combined forces, forum servers across the world would buckle.
    • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hasn't Apple been beefing up OpenGL and OpenAL? I sought out Ryan's comments and the ones I found didn't seem all the damning of Apple. And while Apple is not using the top of the line video cards, they aren't that crappy (after all, Apple now uses the video card to help do all its magical effects).
      Like most things (and especially on digg), there's not much discussion of potential solutions -- just complaints.
  • thedonsmp3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6This has been an issue for apple for years. Now that they are kicking ass they should revisit this issue and get their asses in gear! We are getting the UT3 engine...hopefully it will run native.

    C'mon apple your OS and hardware rock...dump some of the ipod cash in to gaming on the Mac.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OS is great no argument there but just what part of those lame ass video cards rock?
    • n00854180t, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Or the $1000 OSX/white plastic premium you pay for them either.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid. Those were the days...
  • dethl, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6I have never had the desire to purchase a copy of any of Valve's works because of their arrogance towards the Mac platform. They decided with HL1 that it would be too much hassle to troubleshoot both Mac and PC so they dropped the Mac port. Great thinking there guys.

    I just upgraded my Power Mac G5 up to 3.5 Gigs of RAM, nVidia 6800 GT (overclocked to 370/500) and 2 brand new 300GB hard drives - to better my WoW experience as well as have a kickass development rig. Blizzard gets my money for their continued support - Valve gets *****.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9A mac user upset by arrogance. That is new.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Looks more like someone with money who is voting with their dollar.
    • CountBrass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I agree (I play WoW on my Mac but I'm recovering now.... 8 days since I last logged in).
      My reason for not giving Valve anymore of my money is Steam. Really the ultimate in developers ***** over game players. Why do I need an Internet connection (I don't like being connected to the Internet when I'm booted into XP) to play a game single-player? Why does a game need to send any information about me to the developers? It's none of their ***** business.
      So even if Valve did create OSX games I still wouldn't buy them.
    • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And that is how a capitalistic society should work:
      Support those you like and don't support those that don't comply.
      IF Valve sees that their profits are being hurt because of their lack of support - then they will make changes. Not because someone at Mac is not willing to talk to them...
      • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Apples market is not large enough for it hurt so it will not change.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, the assholes at Valve ditched HL1 while it was in ***** BETA, and then didn't even sell their current progress to a porting house like Macplay, who I'm sure would have been overjoyed to finish and support it. ***** Valve.
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What does 2 300 gig hdd's have to do with gaming. It is the speed of the hard drive that matters. And who uses 3 and half gigs of ram. get the extra 512 and make 4 gigs.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0If they're RAIDed in a stripe, that would definitely boost loading times, but framerates wont see a change.
  • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9There's not much of an explanation here. Apple doesn't cater directly to them. Ok. Blizzard and EA/Cider show that modern games run on OSX without too many hiccups. My guess is that they aren't willing to invest money in OS X development since the market is so small. Not that I can blame them for wanting to maximize profits, but this just sounds like hearsay. Tell us what Apple won't improve and what you aren't porting games because of, and potential customers might help you convince Apple.
    • CountBrass, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I'd happily see Valve go bust. Their continuing solvency only encourages others to emulate Steam. Sooner that crashes and burns the better.
    • jonahan52, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know it's funny a few of the 10.4 updates actually made WoW run better it's even in the update documentation like from http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 ... "Resolves an issue in which Blizzard World of Warcraft character graphics could be distorted on an Intel-based Mac with a built-in graphics processor when vertex shaders are enabled." so I'm really doubting that Apple is shrugging things like this away.
  • toxonix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12If I could run OS X on the hardware that I chose, then yeah. I can't do SLI with any apple hardware yet. I can't build the system from the bottom up and then overclock the crap out of it. I'm not all that excited about mac hardware because its packaged. I like to build frankenmachines that I can upgrade as newer, faster stuff becomes cheap. From an API/driver perspective, I'm not sure what OS X is lacking. Too bad OpenGL is not more popular or extensive.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But it would be ***** hardware, and drivers. I like that my computer doesnt crash and runs smooth as *****.
  • klisejo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23There are Mac gamers?
    • ronaldst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2They still make Macs?
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm a Mac gamer, my Powerbook is great with games - especially when I play them on the PC I bought
  • jeeky, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Oh, but us Apple users can't take away the last thing PC users are proud of!
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Oh do shut up, silly fanboi.
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Liek what? Total system customizability? Last I checked Mac's are a static hardware platform. OSX would have a fit if it were more dynamic.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More dynamic? They don't have bleeding edge graphics cards, but I'm afraid OS X supports a huge array of hardware combinations. It supports multiple CPU architectures with different optimizations (G3/4/5, Altivec, x86, 32 bit, 64 bit, SSE, etc) , translation of different architecture instructions, dozens of revisions of graphics card from ATI, NVidia, and Intel, and just about any USB or Firewire device you throw at it, PCMCIA devices, etc. OS X handles hardware combinations equally well as Windows does, the only thing that makes Windows superior is that many of the custom hardware devices don't write drivers for OS X, while they do for Windows. Both operating systems are pretty agnostic to what you install as long as you give them a driver.

        Each machine is fairly static, but the operating system is not.
  • GregOP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Its pretty obvious. The amount of money Valve as a business would have to put into designing their games for Mac can't be justified. Valve wants Mac to do some in house changes to make it easier and cheaper for Valve to design the game for the Mac. There is no incentive from Valve's standpoint to make a game for a system that will barely recover the cost in developing for said system, if it does at all. PS3, xbox 360, PC, thats more then enough revenue, and each system is worth the development cost. =/
  • jdavid, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2its hard to get two pre-madonas to work on something together.
  • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The thing is, gaming is moving to consoles anyway so support does not matter as much as it used to. Some console games support keyboard/mouse so even that reason for using a PC for gaming is gone.

    I can kind of see why Valve is reluctant to support the Mac, and if someone really wants Orange Box, think about a PS3 or 360.
  • petebert, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5there's a typo, poster says "Team Fortress 2 and will only be available for Windows, XBox 3..." after waiting for whats it been 7+ years? It should say "Team Fortress 2 will never be available."
    • Guspaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What're you smoking? TF2 ships October 10th, and the public beta has been out for some time now. You speak as if it still isn't coming out. 7 years isn't particularly long for a game. HL2 took 6 years, and STALKER took 10.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1To be fair, the TF2 they showed off almost a decade ago at E3 will remain vaporware. I kind of wonder what it would have been like.
      • foooey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yeah, the TF2 they're releasing is TF Classic 2, not the TF 2.0 they'd been talking about for the last decade.
  • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13Who needs games when you can play with PhotoShop and make movies with Quicktime? In fact wouldn't you have more fun taking a picture of someone playing a video game, cleaning it up on PS then piecing together for a QT movie. That sounds like a blast.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Photoshop is 'free' on the PC too :).
  • polypropglop, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7EA games for the Mac?! no thanks
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4EA games? no thanks
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I like Battlefield 2142.
      • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, because it's nearly the same as the winning formula they had with Battlefield 1942. The graphics improved, but the gameplay is the same.
      • andyakadum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12112
    • Jereso, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Valve isn't owned by EA, they just publish the game. Valve doesn't suck.
  • lcmatt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Skip the blogspam
    http://games.kikizo.com/features/gabenewell_valve_ ...
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14I'm calling ***** on Valve here. Aspyr, Macplay, Blizzard, EA, and others have successfully worked with Apple to help enhance their OpenGL implementation. Either Valve is just not being diplomatic or they're asking something outrageous from Apple, liking making their OGL implementation more DirectX-like. Maybe Valve should be asking themselves why they are failing where many others have succeeded.
    • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Go and read the full article - http://games.kikizo.com/features/gabenewell_valve_ ...

      I'm more willing to believe the word of a credible development house than that of a so-called computing company that revitalised it's business by making pretty music players and not computers.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Really? I'm more willing to believe what my own eyes tell me, ie, all the other gaming companies that are able to work successfully with Apple to make great games that actually run pretty darn well under OS X. And you've shown yourself to be grotesquely ignorant with that iPod comment. Take your ill-educated ***** elsewhere.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And if YOU would actually read the article, you'd find that he's whining that Apple doesn't care about games, no games for OS X...pure, uncut *****. The aforementioned companies have shown that Apple does indeed care about gaming (not their top priority, but it's there) and that they do work with developers to make things better. There are plenty of games for OS X as well. Not as many as Windows, but a lot of major titles get ported.
      • jonahan52, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's funny cause I'm pretty sure the cute colored iMac's helped a bit too.
  • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10This is blogspam - The full, far more indepth article, is available here - http://games.kikizo.com/features/gabenewell_valve_ ...

    Buried as spam.
  • FHKE, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Gaming? Boring!
    You should do fun stuff like music, movies, podcast, website an so on! ;)
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and where in there do you get to pwn noobs? You're forgetting how important that is
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yes, because pwning noobs has led to my sucessful career in...um...noob pwning?
    • Christbait, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The last time I checked, it was a free country. People can do what they want with their systems,
  • drakino, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I just wish more companies would support the Mac like Blizzard does. They don't ship 2 different SKUs, they ship a single box, with a single disc that installs on a PC or Mac. Thats the best way to do it in a market now of potential switchers. People can run out and buy a Mac, maybe a laptop to start out with, then begin installing the same games they played on the PC without buying a new game box. Patches come out at the same time, and neither platform gets ahead of the other.

    id and Epic are decent with Mac support, but id seems to be leaning more towards making Aspyr doing the heavy lifting, so this now leads to gaps between patches. Quake 4 for example wasn't playable on a Mac online for a few weeks until the 1.4 patch came out later. Quake Wars is out today for PC users, but no sign of even an announcement on a ship date for the Mac version. I'm torn as to what version to buy now. Epic is similar, releasing different boxes for PC and Mac, but their patches seem to be better.

    And then there is EA, brining their games over on Cider, and so far it's not been a great experience. They too have the dual SKU issue as well.

    I can understand companies desires to measure how well the Mac gaming market is doing with separate SKUs. The issue is though it creates an artificial rift that may not represent the actual market properly. The interesting numbers would be from Blizzard on how many accounts have played on PC only, Ma