[rsh]

Slashdot is reporting on remarks by John Carmack at QuakeCon this weekend. Here is the gist (the site that has the actual report is slashdotted):

"A Mac "gamer" asked about the port to OS X. Apparently there is no current time for the release of a port. The game runs, but there is a lot of optimization, and currently they feel the Mac platform can not yet offer the same experience as the PC. Activision will not publish the Mac version of Doom 3. There is no publisher set currently.

Looking at the graphic cards in Apple's current lineup, I'm sad to say that I understand id's position. Unless you buy the $500 Geforce model for a top of the line G5, Apple isn't offering much GPU power. And how many gamers will spring for $500 card in a G5 to play Doom 3? It's a bad situation. If rumors of the GPU plans for the new iMac are true, Apple doesn't even seem to be trying. And of course surround sound, a big part of the Doom 3 experience, isn't even an option on a Mac game.

Me, I'm a Mac user since 1988 and I always will be. But I've been looking hard a building a gaming PC because I'm worn out with the frustrations of being a Mac "gamer". (Yeah, the quotes around "gamer" in the amdzone piece were a pretty lame slam.)

Sigh.

[sideus]

Agreed. If the rumored iMac specs are any indication, Apple's take on computer games is a joke. Games sell computers. Computers sell games. Go to the local computer store. What software is there a more abundance of? Games. I keep my PC around for the sole purpose of games. I would like to someday ditch it and play all my games on my Mac, but that day my never come.

[a2daj]

The GPU situation is fine as far as hardware goes. The 9800 cards can handle the game. It's the rest of the system including OS X. G5s with 9600s and 9800s should be able to handle the game. But the number of G5s out there are a very small percentage of Mac users. The majority of the more hardcore Mac gamers are probably still using G4. The fastest G4 is 1.5 GHz and that's in a PowerBook. The next fastest are the dual 1.42s and upgraded 1.467 G4s of which there are probably a very, very small number. But even those numbers are small.

OS X's OpenGL implementation is probably still missing some ARB extensions. 10.3.5 finally introduced ARB_occlusion_query (which should allow for faster lens flare effects among other things). Maybe the vertex and fragment support needs more optimizations.

[MindFad]

No, wait, that's not a quote that Carmack gave, is it? I didn't get that impression from the article. That's a little misleading. The good thing is it's running. Bad thing is it needs tons of optimization, but that was to be expected. At least it's running! And the publisher problem could be taken care of in no time. MacSoft or Aspyr would pick it up in a heartbeat. Hopefully something gets worked out.

But I agree, Apple's apparent take on graphics is fackin' weak. I have a sinking feeling of a majorly weak showing in graphics department on the new iMacs.

[Link]

ARGH!! No fair!!! #@$*($^&*($^Y&*(#%^@#$@#$

[rsh]

You're right that he didn't say "no Mac Doom 3". That's why I didn't show the phrase in quotes. But it certainly doesn't look imminent. A far cry from the days of Quake 3, which was a simultaneous release (actually finished for the Mac first if I recall correctly.)

Back then, Apple had embraced OpenGL at least partly at Carmack's urging. He was featured in keynotes. Jobs was saying "We love games!" right from the keynote stage. Then the iPod and iTunes came along and games fell to the wayside again.

I have a dual-gig PowerMac and I know that Macs CAN play games. I'm not sneering at the Mac for games. I'm just saying that the current lne-up doesn't look like a gaming platform. A 64 mb card standard in even the flagship G5? And we're potentially looking at a _32 mb_ card in the G5 iMac?? In 2004?? What would it add to the cost of an iMac to make it a kick-ass gaming box? $50? $100?

[Graymalkin]

Yeesh. Does nobody but me remember that Doom III's engine was demoed in 2001 at MacWorld in Tokyo? What people seem to forget about the Doom III engine is that it runs in six different graphic modes. Depending on what sort of hardware is available the engine chooses what extentions to enable and use.

There's nVidia-specific modes for the NV10, NV20, and NV30 cores. The NV10 mode is fully featured but takes five rendering passes per pixel and doesn't have vertex programs, the NV20 mode is also fully featured with vertex programs but takes 2-3 passes per pixel, finally the NV30 mode is fully featured but only needs a single pass per pixel and has roughly the same visual quality as the ARB2 mode.

There's a single ATi-specific mode for the R200 cores (Radeon 8500) which is fully featured and usually only needs a single pass per pixel. Then there's two ARB (official OpenGL) modes. The ARB mode is the most scaled back of the six with minimum extensions, no specular highlights, and no vertex programs. The ARB2 mode allows for OpenGL 1.5 and 2.0 extensions to be used and is fully featured and highest quality of the six and only runs on the higher end cards like the Radeon 9700 and GeForceFX 5600.

There's two things that I can see id waiting for on the Mac, OpenGL 1.5 and some time to optimize the physics engine for the G4/G5. The engine of D3 very likely uses a lot of inline assembly for SSE math for physics calculations. Refactoring these libraries to use AltiVec will take some doing but isn't necessarily difficult. Apple also needs newer OpenGL drivers to support the newer extensions that the D3 engine makes use of on higher end GPUs. I doubt id wants to release D3 with the NV30 and ARB2 rendering modes unavailable to Mac users.

When it is released a little tweaking will get the game up and running on Macs without the latest and greatest video cards. The game is playable on PCs with GF4MXs and Radeon 7500s though doesn't look nearly as good as with a Radeon X800 or GF6800. I'll be happy if I can simply trot around at ~30fps with my 12" Powerbook with its GF4MX.

[sideus]

Doom 3 is heavily CPU bound. You need a fast processor and not enough Macs have them. A G4 will probably not make the minimum specs as a G4 is horrible at integer processing. G5 1.6 will probably be the minimum.

[Graymalkin]

Horrible integer processing? The G4s have three integer pipelines with no instructions requiring more than seven stages. They also have AltiVec pipelines that can handle four integer operations all by themselves. You know not of what you speak. The G4's floating point performance isn't the greatest in the world as they've only got a single FP pipeline but they truly excel at fixed point work.

The G4 is no slouch, especially when a little time is taken to fully utilize its AltiVec pipeline. AltiVec optimization can go a long way to making up for relatively low core clock speeds in the G4s. The minimum requirements for Doom III definitely don't put it out of range of quite a few Macs, especially DP PowerMacs and G5s. The physics engine is highly optimized for a "game" environment so many of the calculations are simple and imprecise yet workable enough for the game mechanics to work properly. Doom III's physics are little more complex than those of Halo and than runs fine on Macs.

[Duo]

Well I think it will run on the mac . But as many have said, there is a lack of video cards for the mac. The 5200FX is a joke, it sucks. The GF4MX is really old, I have it in my DP867 and I have had it for almost 2 years. I was thinking of getting the new imac, but seeing the rumors, I might just pick up a 12inch PB and build a PC.

Duo

[goMac]

Maybe Carmack's quote will get Apple's rear in gear.

[V0ID]

The original article posted is a little misleading. First of all, it's not a direct quote from Carmack. Where the author writes "the Mac platform can not yet offer the same experience as the PC" I think they mean the Mac version of Doom 3.

If you read Todd Hollenshead .plan file you'll see what I mean:

"More remains to be done for the OSX version of DOOM 3 and that will take some time. We won't release the OSX version until it's just as polished as the PC version. The date for OSX DOOM 3 remains "when it's done", but I can confirm that it's definitely coming."

http://www.webdog.org/plans/6/

[MindFad]

Yeah, I came to this conclusion already. This doesn't change Apple's weak-ass video card lineup in the consumer and pro machines, though.

At least it's coming.

[iomatic]

bzzzzzt!!!

games sell computers, but games don't sell Macs. It's the application, stupid. (No insult intended.) Applications don't actually mean just programs, but how they're used. In a creative agency, it's a tool. A great, easy-to-use tool; and we'll keep buying more. Apple knows this; and we are one of their prime targets. Not gamers. Sorry.

I love BF1942, but yeah, it sucks on my Mac. Mostly.

Originally posted by sideus:
Agreed. If the rumored iMac specs are any indication, Apple's take on computer games is a joke. Games sell computers. Computers sell games. Go to the local computer store. What software is there a more abundance of? Games. I keep my PC around for the sole purpose of games. I would like to someday ditch it and play all my games on my Mac, but that day my never come.

[Duo]

Originally posted by iomatic:
bzzzzzt!!!

games sell computers, but games don't sell Macs. It's the application, stupid. (No insult intended.) Applications don't actually mean just programs, but how they're used. In a creative agency, it's a tool. A great, easy-to-use tool; and we'll keep buying more. Apple knows this; and we are one of their prime targets. Not gamers. Sorry.

I love BF1942, but yeah, it sucks on my Mac. Mostly.

I agree that for the most part, gamers are not apples market, and they are really not trying to sell to gamers. But I think they should, only because gamers buy more computers, and they are willing to spend more money to upgrade there computers. My parents still use the original imac, and they are happy with it, and have no reason to upgrade. So I think it would help apple to at least try and get video card makers to release more video cards to the mac market.

Duo

[sideus]

The G4 is crappy when it comes to integer instructions. The G4s main strength is in its floating point execution. The fact the G4 tops out in current Macs at 1.5GHz doesn't help. Motorola hurt Apple tremendously because of this.

Anyway, there are articles out there that discuss this and current issues as to why D3 and Macs won't get along. It pretty much has come to the conclusion that the majority of Mac hardware in use today can't handle D3.

I have an AMD 2800+ (2GHz), 512MB DDR400 RAM, Geforce 4Ti 4600 128MB, 80GB SATA Hard Drive. The system is no slouch. Running the Doom 3 time demo at 1024x768, medium graphic settings results in about an average of 18FPS. Thats horrible. However, I think time demos aren't that great of a benchmarking tool since I can play the game just fine at those graphic settings. It is probably in the range of 20-25FPS with slowdowns in a few spots.

A majority of Macs in use are probably G3 and G4s running less than 1.2GHz. The minimum processor requirement for Doom 3 is a Pentium 4 or AMD running at 1.5GHz. I believe that Doom 3 will scream on the Mac if it is running on a G5. The way I'm seeing it right now is that John Carmack and id don't want to spend too much time with a Mac Doom 3 port if the current Mac user base is using G3/G4 processors when this game is clearly going to have a minimum specification of a G5 processor. At a business standpoint, it makes no sense for them to waste their time and money if only a few people will purchase this game.

[sideus]

After reading various posts here on MacNN its hard telling what is wrong with the G4 processor. There are posts on how the G4 is weak or the G4 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Who knows what to believe.

This thread is a good read on G5 v G4.

[iomatic]

No worries. It's coming:

http://www.macgamer.com/news/item.php?id=8778

Looks like most of us will have to upgrade.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by sideus:
After reading various posts here on MacNN its hard telling what is wrong with the G4 processor. There are posts on how the G4 is weak or the G4 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Who knows what to believe.

This thread is a good read on G5 v G4.

Graymalkin was correct.

The G4 has very powerful integer but somewhat weak FP.

Your point is still moot though as Doom III is not CPU bound. It is very GPU bound. Everybody with a 1.0-1.5GHz processor and a modern video card is getting good performance, including my friend who has an Athlon 1.2GHz with a 128MB GeForce 4 Ti4200 that runs the game just fine at 1024x768.

And frankly, there is nothing wrong with the G4 processor. After having been out for 5 years, it is still one of the most efficient processors on the market and is superior to the much-overhyped G5 on many levels.

[TheDeathman]

A little off-topic but I'm pretty sure the thing that held G4 chips back was the level 3 cache , I heard Motorola internally dropped that and the G4 chips reached 2ghz+ speeds, but sicne all Apple FSBs for G4s are slow, by dropping the level 3 cache the clock speed enhancement is very noticable. Just my 2 cents.

The G4 is crappy when it comes to integer instructions. The G4s main strength is in its floating point execution. The fact the G4 tops out in current Macs at 1.5GHz doesn't help. Motorola hurt Apple tremendously because of this.

Anyway, there are articles out there that discuss this and current issues as to why D3 and Macs won't get along. It pretty much has come to the conclusion that the majority of Mac hardware in use today can't handle D3.

I have an AMD 2800+ (2GHz), 512MB DDR400 RAM, Geforce 4Ti 4600 128MB, 80GB SATA Hard Drive. The system is no slouch. Running the Doom 3 time demo at 1024x768, medium graphic settings results in about an average of 18FPS. Thats horrible. However, I think time demos aren't that great of a benchmarking tool since I can play the game just fine at those graphic settings. It is probably in the range of 20-25FPS with slowdowns in a few spots.

A majority of Macs in use are probably G3 and G4s running less than 1.2GHz. The minimum processor requirement for Doom 3 is a Pentium 4 or AMD running at 1.5GHz. I believe that Doom 3 will scream on the Mac if it is running on a G5. The way I'm seeing it right now is that John Carmack and id don't want to spend too much time with a Mac Doom 3 port if the current Mac user base is using G3/G4 processors when this game is clearly going to have a minimum specification of a G5 processor. At a business standpoint, it makes no sense for them to waste their time and money if only a few people will purchase this game.

[sideus]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Graymalkin was correct.

The G4 has very powerful integer but somewhat weak FP.

Your point is still moot though as Doom III is not CPU bound. It is very GPU bound. Everybody with a 1.0-1.5GHz processor and a modern video card is getting good performance, including my friend who has an Athlon 1.2GHz with a 128MB GeForce 4 Ti4200 that runs the game just fine at 1024x768.

And frankly, there is nothing wrong with the G4 processor. After having been out for 5 years, it is still one of the most efficient processors on the market and is superior to the much-overhyped G5 on many levels.

Article I was reading (HardOCP or someplace like that) stated the CPU speed is very important in Doom 3. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: It was Anandtech. Probably wasn't exactly what I was thinking of though.

[arekkusu]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
There's two things that I can see id waiting for on the Mac, OpenGL 1.5 and ...

OpenGL 1.5 is here now in 10.3.5.

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by arekkusu:
OpenGL 1.5 is here now in 10.3.5.

Which was just released recently. The comments in the various .plan files of id people were all written before the release of 10.3.5. Vis � vis when their comments were made referencing the need for OpenGL 1.5 those needs were still valid.

[V0ID]

Here we go again. 1.5Ghz P4 != 1.5Ghz G4. And a GeForce 4Ti is an old card by today's standards. If you don't like the cards Apple ships with their systems, then upgrade, just like everybody else (even PC users! ).

[sideus]

Originally posted by V0ID:
Here we go again. 1.5Ghz P4 != 1.5Ghz G4. And a GeForce 4Ti is an old card by today's standards. If you don't like the cards Apple ships with their systems, then upgrade, just like everybody else (even PC users! ).

What are you talking about?

[Johnny_B]

What about Linux (x86), is Doom III for Linux out yet ? I have thought about building a cheap pc and use it with Linux. What distro does ID support with Linux ? And will it work unsupported on all the "regular" distroes ? I wanted to use it with Debian

[bobablob]

I read this article with some interest mainly because I have a strong PC rig that I use for gaming (Doom 3 in particular right now!) The guys over at Gamespy.com posted this summary of the Q&A session:
How about the Mac Port?

"The Macintosh port of the game is up and running, but still needed some significant optimization. id Software is working on this with Apple as we speak."

This doesn't really contrast with the Slashdot.org quote, but it puts it into a greater context. The problem doesn't seem to be any underlying foundation between MACs and PCs (well, maybe it is!!!) but likely something akin to the recent difficulties Blizzard was having with World of Warcraft performance. Difficulities no doubt still abound, but they've been working hand in hand with apple to correct them and from reading the forums here, it seems like 10.3.5 was a step in the right direction.

Hope to see more soon, though I doubt the game will perform as well on my Powerbook as on my PC, i'm still excited by the prospect.

Doom 3 - a visual, visceral delight.

Oh, and one other thing: John Carmack wasn't even at the Q&A session and so far as I know he made no mention at all of the OSX port. Carmack was home with his newborn baby, delivered a taped address regarding graphics rendering enginges and the near future for the graphics card industry and iD Software. This thread is completely misleading.

[sideus]

Originally posted by bobablob:
This thread is completely misleading.

Only because it was based on the quoted article and comments posted on /. about QuakeCon. Not our fault.

[rsh]

Originally posted by bobablob:
Oh, and one other thing: John Carmack wasn't even at the Q&A session and so far as I know he made no mention at all of the OSX port. Carmack was home with his newborn baby, delivered a taped address regarding graphics rendering enginges and the near future for the graphics card industry and iD Software. This thread is completely misleading. [/B]

I stand corrected. It was the id software team present at the address who responded to the question AFTER Carmack's videotaped remarks. I had read (incorrectly) that response as part of the body of his remarks.

Regardless... the near future doesn't appear to bode well for a decent game of Doom 3 on a non-G5/GeForce Ultra-equipped Mac.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by iomatic:
bzzzzzt!!!

games sell computers, but games don't sell Macs. It's the application, stupid. (No insult intended.) Applications don't actually mean just programs, but how they're used. In a creative agency, it's a tool. A great, easy-to-use tool; and we'll keep buying more. Apple knows this; and we are one of their prime targets. Not gamers. Sorry.

I love BF1942, but yeah, it sucks on my Mac. Mostly.

Sorry, seems shortsighted for a company with Apple's commanding market share and revenue stream to turn their corporate backs on a segment of computer users. Sure, Apples are easy to use, and wonderful for creative types. But let's not lose sight of many of these creative types milking their old G4s and spending their computing dollars on a Beige Box just to play games. How many of these people would be spending their dollars on Apple (or Apple compatible) hardware and foregoing the beige box if it was viable?

It's a circular arguement. No games on Mac. So gamers don't buy Macs. So Apple doesn't cater to gamers. So no one games on the Mac. So no one developes games for the Mac...

Think it would be worth a shot for Apple to take the gaming crowd seriously. Betcha they'd sell more G5 iMacs if the system has a kickin' (and replaceable) video card and some quality games available for it. 'Cuz you know no one is going to say "And look! I can play Deimos Rising on my brand new G5 iMac!"

[Link]

If there were more mac games, I'd already have gotten a new video card, or perhaps a new mac altogether.

It's true in a small part that games drive innovation, after all most of the original computer systems got pushed by games. The Apple ][ was a glorified nintendo and pretty much every other system at that time was advertised as a toy as well as a computer.. they even plugged into your TV!

Today, the only hard pressing apps are for video editing. There's hardly any 3d rendering or professional CAD apps, and there's very few games!!!!

Part of this is because apple's devkit SUCKS. It's no wonder simple apps tend to end up as $10 shareware and the like because it's a pain to make them. This not counting the fact that apple keeps making 'revolutionary' changes to their OS to where if a company made a game today, it probably wouldn't work on say, 10.1, or if they waited for 10.4 to come out it wouldn't work on 10.3!

On the PC side there's half life 2, doom3, halo2, stuff like rollercoaster tycoon, need for speed, all kinds of racing/simulation games you just CANNOT get on a mac... sure they can be played on a console but some people like to play their stuff on their laptops..

And I think the doom3 thing is a cop-out. Most apple computers have video cards comparable, if not better, than their PC counterparts. The radeon 9600 is standard in pretty much all mac towers at the moment and most people have at LEAST a 4mx, which can play even doom3, if not at minimum settings.

Apple's powerbooks carry the Radeon 9700 mobile. Dell still sells the 9600 mobile with their TOP END GAMING LAPTOP THAT WEIGHS >9LBs.

Alienware bundles either the 9700 or FX5700, but only in their $3000 and up laptops.

The $1099 ibook comes with a radeon 9200, most $1400 PC laptops have intel integrated graphics.

I can go on and on about this. Heck even the emac has a freaking 9200. Not enough graphic card my ass.

Not to mention pretty much every G4 tower back to the Dual 533 can take and make use of a radeon 9800. You're talking at least half-decent performance on a 4 year old computer.

These people would be idiots to miss out on the 15+ million people using OS X, especially when THEY ALREADY HAVE THE PORT PARTIALLY THERE.

[a2daj]

Halo 2 hasn't been announced for PCs. Plus the speculation that it's the GPUs that are holding us back has been from Mac users, not id.

[iomatic]

I'm not quite sure what point you were making, but I'll refute some issues nonetheless. First of all, Apple does not have a commanding market share-- last I checked it was hovering somewhere under 5% -- at best -- of total global PC sales. That definitely means, from a business point of view, you milk your larger base; i.e., creative/marketing agencies, schools and science. No surprise there.

Expanding market share is another issue. You have to weigh all of the variables. Example: say I were a creative type who's milking an old G4 for gaming. (I'm not entirely clear what you're defining as "viable", but I'll assume it's market share, i.e., dollars). Would I today still go out and buy a G6 because it can play Doom V? Perhaps. But would I go out and buy a G6 and make a good ROI, knowing I'll get jobs done quickly and productively for my team, thereby decreasing my overall cost of doing business? Much more likely. Do you see where I'm headed? If I can make money (that's another thing creative types also think about), or if it will offset the cost of sales, is it then worth it? Yes. Do I make purchasing decisions like others in corporate environments (small and large)? Is my opinion worth more, in dollars, than investing and acquiring a handful of potential gamers?

I'm also not sure dollars to donuts (whatever that means) if it's worth the investment to forge ahead with an acquisition strategy of a parts-driven niche market, i.e., gamers.

I've said my bit. Doom 3 is coming, though.

If this makes sense, great.

Originally posted by Rev-O:
Sorry, seems shortsighted for a company with Apple's commanding market share and revenue stream to turn their corporate backs on a segment of computer users. Sure, Apples are easy to use, and wonderful for creative types. But let's not lose sight of many of these creative types milking their old G4s and spending their computing dollars on a Beige Box just to play games. How many of these people would be spending their dollars on Apple (or Apple compatible) hardware and foregoing the beige box if it was viable?

It's a circular arguement. No games on Mac. So gamers don't buy Macs. So Apple doesn't cater to gamers. So no one games on the Mac. So no one developes games for the Mac...

Think it would be worth a shot for Apple to take the gaming crowd seriously. Betcha they'd sell more G5 iMacs if the system has a kickin' (and replaceable) video card and some quality games available for it. 'Cuz you know no one is going to say "And look! I can play Deimos Rising on my brand new G5 iMac!"

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by iomatic:
I'm not quite sure what point you were making, but I'll refute some issues nonetheless. First of all, Apple does not have a commanding market share-- last I checked it was hovering somewhere under 5% -- at best -- of total global PC sales. That definitely means, from a business point of view, you milk your larger base; i.e., creative/marketing agencies, schools and science. No surprise there.

Expanding market share is another issue. You have to weigh all of the variables. Example: say I were a creative type who's milking an old G4 for gaming. (I'm not entirely clear what you're defining as "viable", but I'll assume it's market share, i.e., dollars). Would I today still go out and buy a G6 because it can play Doom V? Perhaps. But would I go out and buy a G6 and make a good ROI, knowing I'll get jobs done quickly and productively for my team, thereby decreasing my overall cost of doing business? Much more likely. Do you see where I'm headed? If I can make money (that's another thing creative types also think about), or if it will offset the cost of sales, is it then worth it? Yes. Do I make purchasing decisions like others in corporate environments (small and large)? Is my opinion worth more, in dollars, than investing and acquiring a handful of potential gamers?

I'm also not sure dollars to donuts (whatever that means) if it's worth the investment to forge ahead with an acquisition strategy of a parts-driven niche market, i.e., gamers.

I've said my bit. Doom 3 is coming, though.

umm... thought the sarcasm inherent in using 'commanding market share' and 'Apple' together in one sentence would be obvious. My bad.

Is actively supporting gaming cost effective for Apple? Short run, probably not. Still have an uphill battle getting PC users to buy a Mac. Granted, most of the revenue generated from a gaming market would line developers pockets, and not be a cash cow for Apple, but I believe that existing Mac users would upgrade at a faster cycle which would bump sales marginally. Over a period of a few years, it could potentially pay off, tho. Is gaming going to jump Apple's market share to 20%? Of course not. But as a stragey for incrimental gains in sales and share, could gaming hurt?

Suppose you are a college student. You can afford one computer, what with all the beer and XTC you gotta buy as well. Is OS X, iLife and the iPod enough to grab these dollars? I don't think so. Give the Mac the same killer games available on the PC, then sweeten the deal with OS X, iLife and the iPod and I think Apple would be on to something. Of course, the easiest rebuttal to all of my assertions is that, at 2 grand for an iMac and 3 to 5 grand for a PowerMac with a display, Apple hardly seems concerned about selling computers to these folks. Which is a fine subject for a different rant.

And I'm psyched about Doom 3. Am planning on picking up a monster vid card and the Mother Of All Displays, and can't wait to play all that bloody goodness!

[sideus]

Mac Version of Doom 3 Sees Setback?

[MindFad]

[Update] Another report in the Quake3World forums from the Mac user who attended the conference and asked the question gives a slightly more optimistic view on the matter. His takeaway from the Q&A was that only lower-end machines needed optimization still, and that it is simply a matter of time before id finds a publisher besides Activision:

My question: Who took over the Mac programming when Graeme left?


The answer: Tim Willits, lead designer. He's also the one handling the Linux port. He said the Mac port was playable, but was still in need of optimizations, especially for the lower-end systems. He said he was working directly with Apple to address the issue.

What was most intriguing of all was that they stated that the Mac version would NOT be published by Activision as previously assumed. Instead id would have to shop around for a new publisher. The bright side of this is that they MUST be putting out a retail version, otherwise they wouldn't be needing a publisher at all.
Stay tuned to IMG for the latest.

Cool beans.

[Horsepoo!!!]

That's all good and all but what if the 'low-end' is the Dual 2GHz and the high-end is the Dual 2.5GHz?

[Dennis the Phantom Menace]

Sweet!

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
That's all good and all but what if the 'low-end' is the Dual 2GHz and the high-end is the Dual 2.5GHz?

Then I'm still in Bidness!

[mac freak]

Originally posted by rsh:
But I've been looking hard a building a gaming PC because I'm worn out with the frustrations of being a Mac "gamer".

Do it! I did it, and now I can be a happy Mac user without worrying about Apple's silly GPU antics.