Curmudgeon Gamer
21 January 2008
Short Memories Proclaim: "best year ever for gaming and Apple"!
A Macworld Expo report from Ars Technica claims:
I'm having a hard time thinking there's ever going to be a better year than when Tomb Raider 2 was ported, Madden came to the Mac, and, most impressively, Quake 3 Test was Mac-first. I recall some mainstream mag with a cover of a blue & white (iirc) tower asking if that'd be everyone's next gaming box.
Hopefully the move to Intel does mean good things, long term, for Mac-specific gaming. Boot Camp is still a significant barrier to entry for most Mac users. Look, folk, we're mainly talking about one-button mouse, iApp lovers, even if we include Mighty Mouse's hidden right button, MacBook Air's gestures, and FileMaker Pro. I'm happy to see more positive Mac gaming press, but until DirectX is Mac-native, I'll continue not holding my breath.
Which makes me wonder... Why doesn't Microsoft buy out Transgaming and put them down? I can't recall Matt's stance on Transgaming; it seems like something seedy was going on with what they'd "borrowed" from WINE without giving back what common courtesy, if not the letter of the license, says they should. If Transgaming has done enough in-house work to make Cider, wouldn't buying them effectively kill the gaming resurgence on Mac? And we're back to Blizzard and Ambrosia...
(Technically, Mr. Jade said it's "the best year ever for gaming and Apple", which hardly precludes Apple and gaming having great years having nothing to do with one another. What with a recession coming, I'm not sure that's true on at least one count, but it's always good to have a quality fall-back position. And hyperbole sells! Always! It's the best sales tactic EVER!)
It turns out 2008 will likely be the best year ever for gaming and Apple. Who knew?
I'm having a hard time thinking there's ever going to be a better year than when Tomb Raider 2 was ported, Madden came to the Mac, and, most impressively, Quake 3 Test was Mac-first. I recall some mainstream mag with a cover of a blue & white (iirc) tower asking if that'd be everyone's next gaming box.
Hopefully the move to Intel does mean good things, long term, for Mac-specific gaming. Boot Camp is still a significant barrier to entry for most Mac users. Look, folk, we're mainly talking about one-button mouse, iApp lovers, even if we include Mighty Mouse's hidden right button, MacBook Air's gestures, and FileMaker Pro. I'm happy to see more positive Mac gaming press, but until DirectX is Mac-native, I'll continue not holding my breath.
Which makes me wonder... Why doesn't Microsoft buy out Transgaming and put them down? I can't recall Matt's stance on Transgaming; it seems like something seedy was going on with what they'd "borrowed" from WINE without giving back what common courtesy, if not the letter of the license, says they should. If Transgaming has done enough in-house work to make Cider, wouldn't buying them effectively kill the gaming resurgence on Mac? And we're back to Blizzard and Ambrosia...
(Technically, Mr. Jade said it's "the best year ever for gaming and Apple", which hardly precludes Apple and gaming having great years having nothing to do with one another. What with a recession coming, I'm not sure that's true on at least one count, but it's always good to have a quality fall-back position. And hyperbole sells! Always! It's the best sales tactic EVER!)
--ruffin at 09:26
Comment
[ 6 ]
16 July 2007
Why does Blizzard agree with me?
I've ranted a bit about the sys reqs for the latest Tomb Raider, particularly how poorly the thing ran on my ATi Xpress 200 integrated graphics system. To be a big hit on the PC would seem to me to require hitting as wide a set of hardware as possible, including, say, recent discrete card-less lap and desktops purchased for soon-to-be college freshmen. Having seen that the graphics on the PS2 aren't all that kick-arse added to my perception that it was some unnecessary, poorly-placed eye candy that was slowing Tomb Raider down on my IGP and the decision to cut off so much of the PC market seemed an avoidable move.
In any event, I was happily surprised to see that Blizzard has started writing code for WoW that takes better use of the main processor for Macs running WoW without a good, discrete video card solution. Most entry-level Macs have Intel's 950 integrated graphics, which suX0rz: the Mini, MacBook, and lowest-end iMac all sport the 950. Rather than (continue?) to cut out these folk, they've leaned harder on the main proc in the newest version.
From the WoW 2.2 PTR Patch Notes:
So not just the recent Macs get a boost, so does my long in the tooth iBook G4 with a 32 meg ATI Mobility Radeon 9200.
So buried way down here is my reason for writing: Why bother? Eidos didn't. I realize that WoW's about all that's going outside of The Sims and fps for Macs, but it's still arguably playable on my box as is. Why, in essence, agree with me? Why make your game more playable on woefully inadequate hardware? Why not start mothballing your Mac-specific code and start going to Cider like nearly everyone else? What's the point in wasting dough supporting hardware with one foot in the tar pits?
On an only tangentially related note, I finally made the plunge and upgraded to some DX10 video hardware with MSI's GeForce NX8500GT-TD256E OC (no, no Newegg kickbacks from that link). It's pricer than some other hardware that'll outperform it, like the Sapphire Radeon 1650XT, but does ostensibly do DX10 and sure is a heck of a step up from what I was running.
In any event, I was happily surprised to see that Blizzard has started writing code for WoW that takes better use of the main processor for Macs running WoW without a good, discrete video card solution. Most entry-level Macs have Intel's 950 integrated graphics, which suX0rz: the Mini, MacBook, and lowest-end iMac all sport the 950. Rather than (continue?) to cut out these folk, they've leaned harder on the main proc in the newest version.
From the WoW 2.2 PTR Patch Notes:
Additional graphic optimization utilizing AltiVec for PowerPC-Mac and SSE for Intel-Mac. This provides some performance benefit on systems where vertex animation shaders are either unavailable or disabled (recommended on systems with Intel integrated video).
So not just the recent Macs get a boost, so does my long in the tooth iBook G4 with a 32 meg ATI Mobility Radeon 9200.
So buried way down here is my reason for writing: Why bother? Eidos didn't. I realize that WoW's about all that's going outside of The Sims and fps for Macs, but it's still arguably playable on my box as is. Why, in essence, agree with me? Why make your game more playable on woefully inadequate hardware? Why not start mothballing your Mac-specific code and start going to Cider like nearly everyone else? What's the point in wasting dough supporting hardware with one foot in the tar pits?
On an only tangentially related note, I finally made the plunge and upgraded to some DX10 video hardware with MSI's GeForce NX8500GT-TD256E OC (no, no Newegg kickbacks from that link). It's pricer than some other hardware that'll outperform it, like the Sapphire Radeon 1650XT, but does ostensibly do DX10 and sure is a heck of a step up from what I was running.
Labels: mac, video cards, WoW
--ruffin at 17:32
Comment
[ 3 ]
Feedburner
