Does anyone else feel like the Mac may actually become a viable gaming platform?

With StarCraft II hitting the Mac and the OSX Steam beta coming soon, does anyone else feel like the Mac may actually become a viable gaming platform in the not-too-distant future?

For me, since I don't play PC games near as often as consoles games and I also operate on a Mac for work, I think it definitely fits my current situation. Obviously, there are going to be many more options available due to Steam but what about community mods? Will they work on Mac as smoothly or even at all? Will the smaller indie developers start focusing some attention to making Mac compatible games or is it just going to be too expensive for them?

Many challenges for Mac to be considered a viable gaming platform are definitely present but I could see some potential. And, much like my situation, I can see many people taking advantage of Steam. What are your thoughts?

It definitely seems that way. I think they got a big taste of success with gaming on the iPhone and they finally are taking gaming seriously.rragnaar

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]It definitely seems that way. I think they got a big taste of success with gaming on the iPhone and they finally are taking gaming seriously.juradai

Nope. Not unless affordable video cards become more available. The Mac Pros cost too much and I feel the rest of the desktop Mac lineup have weak GPUs. Apple needs a tower Mac with PCI-E slot in the US $1000-1500 range.

It can happen if developers are willing to port their games to it, since many game devs primarily use DirectX as their API instead of OpenGL.

Steam for Mac is a step in the right direction, though, and may encourage more third-party devs to start doing so if it's successful (which I don't see why it wouldn't be).

I don't really.

Macs feel like consoles in PC form.

You can't customize them, and can only buy them from one company.

I don't really.

Macs feel like consoles in PC form.

You can't customize them, and can only buy them from one company.

morrowindnic

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

I don't really.

Macs feel like consoles in PC form.

You can't customize them, and can only buy them from one company.

spazzx625

Yes, but compared to PCs I see no reason to get a Mac for gaming.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

With boot camp, coding games for Mac OS X just isn't practical. That and Apple is still around 20% of markestshare and the gaming demographic just isn't there to begin with.

Nope. Not unless affordable video cards become more available. The Mac Pros cost too much and I feel the rest of the desktop Mac lineup have weak GPUs. Apple needs a tower Mac with PCI-E slot in the US $1000-1500 range.

jun_aka_pekto

It's not like the MacBooks are any better. I shouldn't have to pay $1500 for laptop with a weakling video card, not when a true gaming machine can be had for at least $500 less.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

I don't really.

Macs feel like consoles in PC form.

You can't customize them, and can only buy them from one company.

morrowindnic

Yes, but compared to PCs I see no reason to get a Mac for gaming.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

I don't really.

Macs feel like consoles in PC form.

You can't customize them, and can only buy them from one company.

spazzx625

I believe what he's trying to say is that Mac is a PC with all the PC stuff stripped away. So what's the point? We already have three consoles. Mac has never been a viable gaming platform because it's beyond pointless. Not to mention expensive for no good reason.

Steam has proven to be a huge deal in PC gaming essentially creating an entire new platform. So yes, Steam going to Mac is significant. But will it really become a viable gaming platform? I really doubt it. This seems like just another post mortem twitch. You know, like Linux. "This is the year Linux takes off." Tech analysts have been saying that each and every year for the past 12 or so years. And every year Windows tramples its competition harder and harder. After all, it's not like PC games are not being released on Mac already. They totally are. The biggest problem Mac faces is that there simply doesn't seem to be a point to it. That's just the nature of the platform, it's neither here nor there. People know why they're buying a console. People know why they're building a PC. Each side has its distinctive pros and cons, it'd just a matter of discerning what's most important to each person. Mac? Anyone?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not rooting for Mac, either. I've always kind of despised Mac for what it was - a closed computer platform.

The biggest problem Mac faces is that there simply doesn't seem to be a point to it. That's just the nature of the platform, it's neither here nor there.

UpInFlames

Sophisticated artists in coffee shops need to Zerg Rush each other too, don't be hatin'.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

The biggest problem Mac faces is that there simply doesn't seem to be a point to it. That's just the nature of the platform, it's neither here nor there.

QuistisTrepe_

Sophisticated artists in coffee shops need to Zerg Rush each other too, don't be hatin'.

Surely you mean artistes.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] The question in the title is if they are viable gaming platforms...I'm pretty sure that consoles are viable gaming platforms...spazzx625

Yes, but compared to PCs I see no reason to get a Mac for gaming.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

THe question is if it a viable platform. Compared to PC it is not. You get lesser parts for a higher price. As a gaming platform there is no point in buying a Mac over building a PC.

I like the 'I would never own a Mac or game on a Mac, so no developer should waste their time on it' argument.:P It ignores the fact that there are people who own Macs, and that they might buy games if their computer could run them.rragnaar

Why didn't you buy Civilization IV for your Mac? Baldur's Gate II? Battlefield 2142? Dragon Age? Because it's not a viable gaming platform. Nobody even thinks about the Mac when buying games, not even Mac owners. Why? Because there's no reason to buy the Mac version. You either get the PC or the console version. Even not getting it at all will prevail over the Mac version. That's the only argument. And all you Mac owners with no games are living proof.

The last paragraph of my post is just my personal viewpoint.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I like the 'I would never own a Mac or game on a Mac, so no developer should waste their time on it' argument.:P It ignores the fact that there are people who own Macs, and that they might buy games if their computer could run them.UpInFlames

Why didn't you buy Civilization IV for your Mac? Baldur's Gate II? Battlefield 2142? Dragon Age? Because it's not a viable gaming platform. Nobody even thinks about the Mac when buying games, not even Mac owners. Why? Because there's no reason to buy the Mac version. You either get the PC or the console version. Even not getting it at all will prevail over the Mac version. That's the only argument. And all you Mac owners with no games are living proof.

The last paragraph of my post is just my personal viewpoint.

I'm not currently a Mac owner. My Mac Mini bit the dust a couple years back. That is the sole reason why I don't own any Mac games. "No one" thinks about games on the Mac currently because there aren't many options. Juradai clearly thinks about buying games on the Mac. Valve has clearly thought about selling games on the Mac and decided it is worth the trouble. I'll agree that Apple has sent mixed messages about gaming on the Mac over the years, but considering that Steam is coming to OSX, I'd say that is a big sign that things are changing.

I'm not currently a Mac owner. My Mac Mini bit the dust a couple years back. That is the sole reason why I don't own any Mac games. "No one" thinks about games on the Mac currently because there aren't many options. Juradai clearly thinks about buying games on the Mac. Valve has clearly thought about selling games on the Mac and decided it is worth the trouble. I'll agree that Apple has sent mixed messages about gaming on the Mac over the years, but considering that Steam is coming to OSX, I'd say that is a big sign that things are changing.rragnaar

Civilization IV came out five years ago. :wink:

EA is also releasing pretty much everything they publish on Mac. "Worth the trouble" doesn't exactly equate to "viable gaming platform".

We'll see. Hey, who knows, Linux might take off next year. :P

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I'm not currently a Mac owner. My Mac Mini bit the dust a couple years back. That is the sole reason why I don't own any Mac games. "No one" thinks about games on the Mac currently because there aren't many options. Juradai clearly thinks about buying games on the Mac. Valve has clearly thought about selling games on the Mac and decided it is worth the trouble. I'll agree that Apple has sent mixed messages about gaming on the Mac over the years, but considering that Steam is coming to OSX, I'd say that is a big sign that things are changing.UpInFlames

Civilization IV came out five years ago. :wink:

EA is also releasing pretty much everything they publish on Mac. "Worth the trouble" doesn't exactly equate to "viable gaming platform".

We'll see. Hey, who knows, Linux might take off next year. :P

I guess the problem I have is still that you guys aren't saying 'I wouldn't buy games on the Mac.' as much as you are saying 'No one in their right minds should buy games on a Mac.' What is the harm done to gaming by having another platform out there by which people can buy games?rragnaar

No, what I'm saying is that no one is buying games for Mac and I don't see anyone proving me wrong. The games are already out there and clearly Mac owners aren't that interested.

As for the harm, Mac is essentially a $2000 console. I don't want to see such a concept to succeed, no way, no how.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I'm not currently a Mac owner. My Mac Mini bit the dust a couple years back. That is the sole reason why I don't own any Mac games. "No one" thinks about games on the Mac currently because there aren't many options. Juradai clearly thinks about buying games on the Mac. Valve has clearly thought about selling games on the Mac and decided it is worth the trouble. I'll agree that Apple has sent mixed messages about gaming on the Mac over the years, but considering that Steam is coming to OSX, I'd say that is a big sign that things are changing.rragnaar

Civilization IV came out five years ago. :wink:

EA is also releasing pretty much everything they publish on Mac. "Worth the trouble" doesn't exactly equate to "viable gaming platform".

We'll see. Hey, who knows, Linux might take off next year. :P

Games coming out more often on the mac now? GREAT!

But!, what's the point of owning a Mac over a PC for JUST gaming. There is none, thats why its not viable to use a gaming machine.

Viable to sell games for? Sure, but not to play them on.

No, what I'm saying is that no one is buying games for Mac and I don't see anyone proving me wrong. The games are already out there and clearly Mac owners aren't that interested.

UpInFlames

Juradai's thread is more about what is coming down the line regarding the Mac. I'll agree that the current situation is dismal, but I think the future looks brighter for gaming on the Mac.

As for the harm, Mac is essentially a $2000 console.

UpInFlames

I won't argue that Macs are cheap, but that is a misrepresentation.

I don't think Juradai was suggesting at any point that people will start buying Macs specifically to play games, as much as he was making the observation that it is about to become a much more gaming friendly platform.

THe question is if it a viable platform. Compared to PC it is not. You get lesser parts for a higher price. As a gaming platform there is no point in buying a Mac over building a PC.

morrowindnic

I won't argue that Macs are cheap, but that is a misrepresentation.rragnaar

Hmm, they're much more expensive over here then (iMac is just below $2000). We can rule out Macbooks since they're unsuitable to be called gaming machines. So we're left with a $1200 entry-level machine. Entry-level towers start at $2500. Wasn't really far off. Especially considering how many consoles and PC's (much more powerful ones at that) you can get for that kind of money, I'd say my point stands. Firmly.

I won't argue that Macs are cheap, but that is a misrepresentation.

rragnaar

It really isn't Rag. Specs wise, you're going to be paying least $1500 just for a model with a 512MB DDR3 video card. That makes gaming merely serviceable with a Windows install in boot camp, but there's no point when someone can purchase a computer with far greater capability for several hundred dollars cheaper without having to worry about purchasing a separate OS license.

This isn't an either/or situation.spazzx625

Of course it is. When buying a game machine (or pretty much anything, really), people look at everything that's available and make their decision. PC, Mac, 360, PS3, Wii...unless you're getting everything off the bat, it's always an either/or situation. That's why I have a PC and 360 and you don't have a PC (sorry, I don't know what you do own or I'd try to be more specific).

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]This isn't an either/or situation.UpInFlames

Of course it is. When buying a game machine (or pretty much anything, really), people look at everything that's available and make their decision. PC, Mac, 360, PS3, Wii...unless you're getting everything off the bat, it's always an either/or situation. That's why I have a PC and 360 and you don't have a PC (sorry, I don't know what you do own or I'd try to be more specific).

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

The biggest problem Mac faces is that there simply doesn't seem to be a point to it. That's just the nature of the platform, it's neither here nor there.

QuistisTrepe_

Sophisticated artists in coffee shops need to Zerg Rush each other too, don't be hatin'.

Hahahah, that comment made my day.

Why buy one when you can get a supercomputer at the same cost as a new MAC (and I mean super) or one with roughly the same specs for half the cost?GodModeEnabled

because windows sucks ass?

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"] Why buy one when you can get a supercomputer at the same cost as a new MAC (and I mean super) or one with roughly the same specs for half the cost?S0lidSnake

because windows sucks ass?

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"] Why buy one when you can get a supercomputer at the same cost as a new MAC (and I mean super) or one with roughly the same specs for half the cost?S0lidSnake

because windows sucks ass?

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"] Why buy one when you can get a supercomputer at the same cost as a new MAC (and I mean super) or one with roughly the same specs for half the cost?GodModeEnabled

because windows sucks ass?

XP was fantastic. the best operating system ive ever used. i loved it!

Vista is the worst pos operating system i have ever used. it uses up 800MB just to boot up. the last two years with vista have been the most frustrating of my life. I envy you.

i do want a Mac, but u r right, i could probably get a badass PC for that price. I could probably run Crysis on Max and see what the fuss is all about.

I think Apple will enter the console market next generation. I'd imagine its design will depend on the success of the ipad--ipods and ipads could end up being an extension of the console. They would also have a large headstart if they released it sooner rather than later, which would make the console leaps and bounds more powerful than both the 360 and ps3. Appleheads and techheads would eat it up.

I am quite happy that Mac games are starting to come out.

In fact, I am upgrading to snow leopard so I can play SC2 and bioshock. Not to mention Steam will be coming out with a mac version soon....

If they do then us PC users wont be able to use half of our Mac jokes.

As an addendum to my first post....

Looking from a developer's perspective (I'm imagining myself to be one), The Mac is an untapped platform. I can't remember how many Mac (only) users there are. But, there's probably enough for a developer to think it may make a profit, especially on older games that have run their course earlier on the PC and consoles.

On my first post, I lamented how a top end Mac would be quite expensive along with vital accessories such as video cards. Those would limit any serious chances of the latest games being released for the Mac at the same time as on the PC.

Older games, on the other hand, can be made available as the default Mac components become capable enough to play those games. It's not unlike myself who just finally played Crysis and a few other games from 2006/2007 recently.

From a sort of retro-gaming perspective, I guess the Mac can be viable.

Right...So I already have something (a Mac) so I don't need to decide on anything. If gaming was a priority or even a factor in my decision to purchase something, I would have opted for a PC, but it wasn't/isn't.spazzx625

Erm, yeah...PC's and Macs are multi-purpose machines, but since we ARE talking about gaming...

I looked at your profile and you apparantly have a 360. That indicates that you chose a 360 for your gaming needs. Not a PC, not a Mac, not a PS3 - you bought a 360. What's most interesting (and which is what I'm talking about) is that you chose a 360 even over a Mac which you also own.

In my example, since I'm a PC gamer by default, as always, I chose not to buy a console for the first few years of this generation (I got a 360 about a year ago). So yeah, in the vast majority of cases, it is always an either/or situation.

Sometimes. I remember getting a new computer back when millenium edition was the latest and greatest, and great jesus did that thing ever make me swear like a banshee. It had a mind of its own. After that though I never had any problems with XP and now Vista (which ive had since release) its all been smooth sailing for like the last 10 years.... the only times I have problems is from virus from visiting sites I probably shouldnt. So Vista is great, and for the same money you could get likley get twice as good a gaming PC as you could a gaming mac.GodModeEnabled

Millenium was a trainwreck. Vista--though not nearly as bad--is much like Millenium - a subpar transitional OS. XP was really great. I've moved to Windows 7 about a week ago and it's been awesome so far. Everything Vista was supposed to be and then some.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Right...So I already have something (a Mac) so I don't need to decide on anything. If gaming was a priority or even a factor in my decision to purchase something, I would have opted for a PC, but it wasn't/isn't.UpInFlames

Erm, yeah...PC's and Macs are multi-purpose machines, but since we ARE talking about gaming...

I looked at your profile and you apparantly have a 360. That indicates that you chose a 360 for your gaming needs. Not a PC, not a Mac, not a PS3 - you bought a 360. What's most interesting (and which is what I'm talking about) is that you chose a 360 even over a Mac which you also own.

In my example, since I'm a PC gamer by default, as always, I chose not to buy a console for the first few years of this generation (I got a 360 about a year ago). So yeah, in the vast majority of cases, it is always an either/or situation.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Right...So I already have something (a Mac) so I don't need to decide on anything. If gaming was a priority or even a factor in my decision to purchase something, I would have opted for a PC, but it wasn't/isn't.UpInFlames

Erm, yeah...PC's and Macs are multi-purpose machines, but since we ARE talking about gaming...

I looked at your profile and you apparantly have a 360. That indicates that you chose a 360 for your gaming needs. Not a PC, not a Mac, not a PS3 - you bought a 360. What's most interesting (and which is what I'm talking about) is that you chose a 360 even over a Mac which you also own.

In my example, since I'm a PC gamer by default, as always, I chose not to buy a console for the first few years of this generation (I got a 360 about a year ago). So yeah, in the vast majority of cases, it is always an either/or situation.