Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

torifile · Apr 10, 2006, 10:38 PM

The thread is pretty self-explanatory but I'll give my reasoning.

Before we got a working solution to running XP on our Intel Macs (by working I mean graphics accelerated), I never thought I'd see the day when I thought that buying a game to play on my computer would be a good idea. I mean, I would pick up an occasional title here and there if were cheap or I really had a hankering for something my Nintendos couldn't give me (gaming-wise, I mean

) but I never really considered it.

Since getting XP running on my iMac, I've bought 2 games - CoD2 and KOTOR2. Wow. I didn't know what I was missing. CoD2 is amazing. Just the level of detail in the game is incredible. I know it's probably not even the prettiest game out there, but I was just really struck by how much Mac gamers were missing.

Anyway, I got to thinking, "will I ever buy a Mac port of a game again?" I mean, why should I? PC games are cheaper, more available and out sooner and with seemingly better playability. Right? So, that brings us to our poll.

Keep in mind that this doesn't include Mac only games. I certainly hope we'll continue to support them. And it doesn't even include the great companies like Blizzard who ship all the games hybrid and release them at the same time (

). Just those companies, and there are many, who don't support the Mac like they should.

mduell · Apr 11, 2006, 12:59 AM

Yea, buying slower games with later release dates is soooo attractive.

icruise · Apr 11, 2006, 01:10 AM

I still think that the number of people who will actually be dual-booting their Macs on a regular basis is somewhat limit. Sure, the kind of people who post to tech message boards (ie geeks like you and me) will do it, but will the average consumer? I'm not so sure. So I think there is still a market for Mac games, but admittedly it looks a bit smaller than it did a few days ago (and it wasn't that big even then).

I personally bought a Windows PC just for gaming because at the time it looked like the Macs I would be likely to buy were pretty crappy gaming machines, both in terms of their graphics cards and the games available. But beyond that, I use my Mac for work, so I didn't really want to use it for gaming in any case. So no, I don't think I'll be buying Mac versions of games, but then again I wasn't buying them before Boot Camp either.

lookmark · Apr 11, 2006, 01:27 AM

If/when I get an Intel Mac.... I'd buy and support hybrid releases (like Blizzard's), but no, I wouldn't wait 6-9 months to purchase pricier, slower-running Mac ports if I had an Intel Mac. I'd like to support the great folk who make them, like Brad OIiver... but I just couldn't. I'd just use Boot Camp.

IMO porting games to Macs for everything but the casual/blockbuster games (e.g. The Sims) is pretty much kaput.

legacyb4 · Apr 11, 2006, 01:32 AM

I'd consider running a near-real speed virtual PC to do games, but wouldn't bother flipping systems back and forth just to play games, IMO.

eyadams · Apr 11, 2006, 11:36 AM

I'm not a hard core gamer. I don't mind waiting, and frankly I don't mind paying $10 more for a quality port. Doom 3, Myst 5, Halo were all worth the wait. Crappy ports (do you hear me THQ?) I would consider dual booting.

But then, if I were a hard core gamer, I probably would have bought a console ages ago.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 11, 2006, 11:54 AM

I said this once, I said I'd be going to hell for suggesting this but...

If people are going to pull this stunt, it'd be best to pirate the PC version and then buy the Mac version...play whichever version is best.

icruise · Apr 11, 2006, 12:26 PM

I'm all for supporting Mac development when possible, but why reward people for making a bad port?

macintologist · Apr 11, 2006, 01:52 PM

I think when Mac porting houses only port to Intel Macs, they will be a faster process.

torifile · Apr 11, 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

I think when Mac porting houses only port to Intel Macs, they will be a faster process.

What makes you think that? My understanding was the process was difficult because of the need to port DX calls to OpenGL. The processor probably won't make much of a difference in this case. Of course, the performance hit we took when we were playing on PowerPC chips will likely be negated by the increase in performance of these intel chips, so maybe they'll be higher quality by virtue of that alone. I dunno.

It looks like 8 people thus far have said they'll continue buying mac ports. That's pretty surprising to me.

©öñFü$íóÑ · Apr 11, 2006, 02:39 PM

I'm a PC XP user on an aging 800MHz Compaq from 2000, and I've bought far more games for it than i ever did with my old G1 PowerMac. But if I were to every buy an Intel Mac, I'd still stick to PC games and just use bootcamp to get my fix.

As far as Mac ports go, nah, i won't waste my time if the PC version is already out, but that's just me.

btw, I see a lot of Mac users buying Mac ports of PC games... but have you ever seen a PC user buy a "PC port" of Mac games?

(not including shareware or Ambrosia games)..... (i'm talking about retail boxed stuff from a dedicated computer store)

macintologist · Apr 11, 2006, 02:41 PM

If they only play on Intel Macs couldn't there be a layer of emulation for DirectX since it's also an x86 API?

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 11, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ

I'm a PC XP user on an aging 800MHz Compaq from 2000, and I've bought far more games for it than i ever did with my old G1 PowerMac. But if I were to every buy an Intel Mac, I'd still stick to PC games and just use bootcamp to get my fix.

As far as Mac ports go, nah, i won't waste my time if the PC version is already out, but that's just me.

btw, I see a lot of Mac users buying Mac ports of PC games... but have you ever seen a PC user buy a "PC port" of Mac games?

(not including shareware or Ambrosia games)..... (i'm talking about retail boxed stuff from a dedicated computer store)

Have fun dual-booting. If you've got a whole lot of stuff open in OS X...suffer the consequences of having that workflow disturbed.

As for Mac ports of PC games...if you're going to start excluding everything what's the point? I suppose Pangea Software games are excluded too?

Have *you* ever seen Mac ports of PC games!? (excluding retail boxed stuff...because that type of distribution medium is on it's way out.)

torifile · Apr 11, 2006, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

If they only play on Intel Macs couldn't there be a layer of emulation for DirectX since it's also an x86 API?

It's a *Windows* API, not an x86 one. There is no DirectX for Linux, is there? And, while there may be reasonable emulation, it's not something I could see a developer expecting customers to use and be happy with. That also means that the Mac "port" would necessarily be lower performing that its Windows counterpart on the same hardware. In short, a crappy port. And if the dev is taking the "emulation layer" shortcut, I'd rather not support them anyway.

turbopants · Apr 12, 2006, 01:20 AM

I will be hard to wait for a port when the pc version is ready now. I can see big, involving games being worth booting into XP.

Apfhex · Apr 12, 2006, 05:18 AM

I support Mac games where i can, but sometimes it's just ridiculous what happens (not necessarily the fault of the porters). I couldn't play Dungeon Siege online or EVEN ON A LAN against PC users because of stupid MS networking code or some such thing. Well, in those cases... I'll probably do what Horsepoo!!! said, when I get a Intel Mac.

torifile · Apr 12, 2006, 09:45 AM

Oh my! The grass is so much greener, from a gaming perspective, on XP! I feel dirty and like a traitor for saying that.

But, I picked up Oblivion last night and I played for 3 hours! and I have to work today... The game is beautiful. And very demanding. With my vid card OC'ed to a safe level, I can only get around 25-30 fps at 1280*720. And that's in the dungeon. I hear that the world is more demanding. Sheesh. I wish I woulda popped for the 256 graphics card when I bought the iMac.

Word of advice: if you're thinking about getting an intel iMac and are even moderately interested in gaming, get the upgrade. It's only $90 and could make a world of difference.

Brad Oliver · Apr 12, 2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by lookmark

I'd like to support the great folk who make them, like Brad OIiver... but I just couldn't.

FWIW, I both appreciate and understand this viewpoint. I think most programmers who work on Mac ports of PC games understand the limitations we face every day - months lag in Mac releases, the occasional missing feature, etc. These aren't problems that are easily solved (or we would have done so long ago) so putting myself in your shoes, I might very well do the same.

With that said, we do try to make the Mac versions better where we can. We've had a good push recently to make windowed mode in our ports "standard" even if it wasn't so on the PC, to name one example. I realize that most gamers would rather have working PC-to-Mac networking, but we have to pick our battles and hope that it's enough.

mhuie · Apr 12, 2006, 03:59 PM

Why waste your money on the Mac port when

1. it comes out much later for mac
2. performance under mac < windows ... on the same hardware

3. it costs more

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 12, 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mhuie

Why waste your money on the Mac port when

1. it comes out much later for mac
2. performance under mac < windows ... on the same hardware

3. it costs more

Because:

1. Some people simply don't want to install Windows
2. Windows will set most people back an average of 100 bucks (and probably more if people don't know how to shop for good deals)
3. Some people don't feel like booting into another OS to play games
4. Some people don't want to maintain and upgrade a second OS (especially one that is prone to attacks)
5. Some people like their disk space and don't want to have it taken away by a Windows installation
6. If you buy PC versions, you're stuck with them...if Mac hits 10% market share and developers start developing simultaneous releases and you suddenly feel like Windows isn't needed anymore, tough luck, all your old games are PC games...you either have to keep Windows to play them, stop playing them altogether, or buy the Mac version of your old games
7. You don't even have an Intel-based Mac, add another 1000+ bucks right there

8. ...anyways, you get the picture.

exca1ibur · Apr 12, 2006, 05:34 PM

I gave up on Mac gaming fully months ago. The timing, costs, and politics pretty much did me in. My main three issues for me were...

#1 (IF) your game will get ported. The wondering is a killer. You might get a 1st game in a series then never see the sequel. (KoTOR).

#2 You are usually paying full price ($49.99) when the game for windows is at $19.99. I work hard for my money to be selective on what I buy and how much I pay for it.

#3 You wait so long the multiplayer community has more experience and/or has moved onto the next game. IF you have windows/mac networking.

Another thing is I don't like to drop $49.99 for a game with no demo to find out it A) Runs like crap or 2) I don't like it. Because, face it software is not a money back guarantee market, software development does NOT and will not stand by their product. The politics around that is why I'm strongly for reason #2, but that is another debate.

On the other had I have a lot of respect for Aspyr for what they have done for the Mac gaming market in general, just there needs to be more companies like that to make a change. Its hard to do it alone. Almost impossible

LagunaSol · Apr 13, 2006, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by torifile

Word of advice: if you're thinking about getting an intel iMac and are even moderately interested in gaming, get the upgrade. It's only $90 and could make a world of difference.

Sadly in my case (and probably the case of most of you), that $90 upgrade was in reality over $300. I just bought my 20" iMac from Amazon: $1699 - $150 rebate = $1549, shipped, no sales tax. (Arrived today - I haven't even opened it yet)

To get the 256MB video upgrade, I'd have to order through the Apple Store as a build-to-order. So that puts me at $1,699 plus $90 = $1,789 plus sales tax = $1,907. That's a $358 premium for me to get an extra 128MB of VRAM! And an awful lot of money for modest uptick in framerates. No thanks!

I'll save that $358 for my next iMac upgrade whenever they release a faster video card.

It's a shame you can't get the 256MB VRAM model through Amazon.

torifile · Apr 13, 2006, 08:49 AM

Very true, lagunasol. I forgot about that part. I bought mine through the Apple store because I got an ed discount. It was worth the extra $50 or so over the amazon price because they didn't have stock at the time, it was Friday and I'm VERY impatient. I guess that's why I don't want to wait for mac ports of games

NateEssex · Apr 13, 2006, 11:01 PM

I think you need to add <Only if it's available in a timely fashion in relation to the PC release>. I mean, releasing EQ for the Mac over 4 years after it's been out is unacceptable.

Just my 2 cents.

Spliff · Apr 14, 2006, 01:51 AM

Considering that I have a G5 iMac and probably will have it for another couple of years, then yes, I will continue to purchase Mac-native games.

goMac · Apr 14, 2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Brad Oliver

FWIW, I both appreciate and understand this viewpoint. I think most programmers who work on Mac ports of PC games understand the limitations we face every day - months lag in Mac releases, the occasional missing feature, etc. These aren't problems that are easily solved (or we would have done so long ago) so putting myself in your shoes, I might very well do the same.

With that said, we do try to make the Mac versions better where we can. We've had a good push recently to make windowed mode in our ports "standard" even if it wasn't so on the PC, to name one example. I realize that most gamers would rather have working PC-to-Mac networking, but we have to pick our battles and hope that it's enough.

The killer for me is multiplayer support against PC's. If the Mac port will play against the PC version, even if that means it requires using an Intel Mac for said feature, I will buy the Mac port (assuming it arrives at a reasonable time too). If the Mac version cannot play the PC version, that's a near automatic "I'm buying the PC version."

Big Mac · Apr 14, 2006, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by macintologist

If they only play on Intel Macs couldn't there be a layer of emulation for DirectX since it's also an x86 API?

API is the abbreviation of Application Programming Interface. APIs are OS specific. You may be thinking of ABI (Application Binary Interface), but even if Mac OS X supported the Windows ABI it would not do much to accomplish what you're dreaming of.

bloodline · Apr 14, 2006, 04:31 AM

For me it is all about price. If the game is the same price on MacOS as it is on Windows, I'll buy it for MacOS... I'd actually be prepared to spend a tiny bit more on the Mac version just so I don't have to reboot into XP

phoenix78 · Apr 14, 2006, 08:02 PM

IMHO i believe that porting a piece of software should be easy on any system if the software has been well designed and documented. Its only when a developer starts to use tools that are optimising and exclusive to development on a certain OS but leaves the code looking utterly disgusting and far too complex to translate to another system. 'sometimes' maintaining and porting that code can be more difficult that designing from scratch. So of course developers wont be bothered spending too much time producing software for a market that has such few users in comparison to windows users.

I think that slow gaming experience was due to the PPC vs intel but that is changing now... there is no hardware difference so they should be the same speed or similar.

cheers,
robM

Olorin · Apr 15, 2006, 06:48 PM

Honestly, I'm not installing windows on my system (not that I could, G5). The way I see it the windows world doesn't even exist to me, thus if a game has been out 6 months for windows before it comes out for Mac I don't care... it's new to me.

I don't mind paying a premium for a mac version either... I mean I just can't imagine booting into windows every time I get an urge to play a game. Heck, I didn't even use classic when it was still around. If an app wasn't OS X native I didn't use it.

MagnusDredd · Apr 15, 2006, 09:25 PM

I've got to agree about the multiplayer gaming aspect.

The reason that I buy many games is so that I can play them with my windows-using friends.

What I'd like to know is that part of the settlement from M$'s anti-trust trial covered them making their network protocols accessable to competitors...

This is clearly not being followed. Why has this not been pushed in court?

Direct Play needs to be opened. Whether M$ likes it or not.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 16, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Olorin

Honestly, I'm not installing windows on my system (not that I could, G5). The way I see it the windows world doesn't even exist to me, thus if a game has been out 6 months for windows before it comes out for Mac I don't care... it's new to me.

I don't mind paying a premium for a mac version either... I mean I just can't imagine booting into windows every time I get an urge to play a game. Heck, I didn't even use classic when it was still around. If an app wasn't OS X native I didn't use it.

I'm quite a bit like you. Heck, I bought Return to Monkey Island a few weeks before Mac OS X Public Beta...the result? I got about halfway through the game (rough estimate) and then Public Beta showed up on my doorstep and I never played RtMI ever again.

It's a very sad story actually.

One day, I'll have to bite the bullet and reinstall OS 9 on my 2x800MHz G4 and finish the damn thing.

I suspect that once I get an Intel-based Mac I'll install Windows XP or Vista out of pure curiosity...but it won't be long before I stop dual-booting.

Even Classic within OS X was something I'd rarely do (mainly 'cuz I found it clunky.)

torifile · Apr 16, 2006, 02:20 PM

I've gotta say that I'm very surprised with the results of this poll so far. It seems ludicrous to me that you'd be dogmatic about something like this. But to each his/her own, I suppose.

lookmark · Apr 17, 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Brad Oliver

FWIW, I both appreciate and understand this viewpoint. I think most programmers who work on Mac ports of PC games understand the limitations we face every day - months lag in Mac releases, the occasional missing feature, etc. These aren't problems that are easily solved (or we would have done so long ago) so putting myself in your shoes, I might very well do the same.

Thanks for the thoughtful and honest reply, Brad.

I do keep an eye on the indy Mac game scene, and try to support independent Mac game development, and certainly, until I *do* get an Intel Mac, I'll be eagerly awaiting certain ports. And finally I hope there are enough casual, patient, or dual-boot/Windows-phobic gamers out there to support Mac ports. But I have to say that the Mac game port business isn't looking like a great place to be right now.

jcadam · Apr 17, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by phoenix78

IMHO i believe that porting a piece of software should be easy on any system if the software has been well designed and documented. Its only when a developer starts to use tools that are optimising and exclusive to development on a certain OS but leaves the code looking utterly disgusting and far too complex to translate to another system. 'sometimes' maintaining and porting that code can be more difficult that designing from scratch. So of course developers wont be bothered spending too much time producing software for a market that has such few users in comparison to windows users.

I think that slow gaming experience was due to the PPC vs intel but that is changing now... there is no hardware difference so they should be the same speed or similar.

cheers,
robM

The #1 problem with porting games from Windows, is that almost every Windows games uses DirectX, which Microsoft created primarily for the purpose of locking software TO the windows OS. After all, Microsoft could have used OpenGL For 3D graphics support, an already mature API, but they shat out Direct3D, which was f'ing worthless until the release of DirectX 7. Developers certainly could use cross-platform APIs (like OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, etc.), but they don't. I blame laziness (the use of M$ DirectPlay is THE reason why many mac ports can't MP with PC players). iD software gets props from me for sticking with OpenGL, however

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 17, 2006, 01:45 PM

Well...if nothing changes in the near future, consoles are going to take over the game market. 2 out of 3 consoles offer something other than DirectX as their game-building APIs. Not entirely sure what Playstation 3 and Revolution will offer but, if it's OpenGL, Mac users might be a bit luckier than Windows users.

I suppose that eventually a lot more games will be ported from consoles onto computers so OpenGL might become more important to game developers and porters.

Thorzdad · Apr 18, 2006, 12:28 PM

It's going to be years before I will be able to jump to an IntelMac, so, yeah, I'll be buying Mac ports for the foreseeable futurer.

torifile · Apr 18, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

It's going to be years before I will be able to jump to an IntelMac, so, yeah, I'll be buying Mac ports for the foreseeable futurer.

Not to be a stickler, but the poll specifically asked about *after* you get an intel mac. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to vote "no" if you're thinking about it before you have an intel mac. I hope the voters recognized that otherwise all the numbers are messed up (I know, an internet poll means nothing but I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought).

Leonard · Apr 18, 2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by jcadam

The #1 problem with porting games from Windows, is that almost every Windows games uses DirectX, which Microsoft created primarily for the purpose of locking software TO the windows OS.

Ummm... DirectX isn't a problem and hasn't been for years. All Mac porters have conversion libraries/code for this.

As for the poll, I'll stay with the Mac ports any day. Less buggy and I can wait a couple of months for the Mac port.

Cipher13 · 06:56 PM

Nope, I won't.

Unfortunately, Mac versions are:

1. Released late.
2. Poorly optimised (not necessarily the fault of the porter).
3. Expensive.
4. Not always fully featured.

Why would I buy the Mac version of Raven Shield, when it can't even network with the PC version?

I have a PC for gaming, now; I'll be using that from now on.

If I had an Intel Mac, I'd be using that in Windows.

EDIT: for clarification.

aristotles · Apr 18, 2006, 07:32 PM

I will continue to buy other software for OS X but games on windows unless there happens to be a game that is better on OS X.

aristotles · Apr 18, 2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Have fun dual-booting. If you've got a whole lot of stuff open in OS X...suffer the consequences of having that workflow disturbed.

As for Mac ports of PC games...if you're going to start excluding everything what's the point? I suppose Pangea Software games are excluded too?

Have *you* ever seen Mac ports of PC games!? (excluding retail boxed stuff...because that type of distribution medium is on it's way out.)

Uh, workflow disrupted by dual booting for gaming? How does gaming fit into your "workflow"?

If you are going to disrupt your working by playing a game, chances are you would close everything anyway to get the best performance on the mac side so I do not see how your "workflow" would be disrupted any less with a mac port of a game.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 20, 2006, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by aristotles

Uh, workflow disrupted by dual booting for gaming? How does gaming fit into your "workflow"?

If you are going to disrupt your working by playing a game, chances are you would close everything anyway to get the best performance on the mac side so I do not see how your "workflow" would be disrupted any less with a mac port of a game.

I don't close anything when I launch a game. Are you still using Mac OS 9?

aristotles · Apr 22, 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I don't close anything when I launch a game. Are you still using Mac OS 9?

Are you trying to tell me that any gamer would play games at the sub-optimal performance level? VM swapping is a major fun killer.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 23, 2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by aristotles

Are you trying to tell me that any gamer would play games at the sub-optimal performance level? VM swapping is a major fun killer.

There's no swapping done unless there's actually *activity* in the background. I wouldn't necessarily be rendering or encoding anything in the background while gaming but leaving an app idle does nothing to hinder gaming performance.

Dogdays · Apr 28, 2006, 05:39 PM

Never again. I'll just install a backup version of windoze, then spend LESS money on a PC game that runs about 30-50% faster on the same hardware. Spending more for a game that runs crappier is incredibly effing stupid. Mac gaming is dead. The end.

torifile · Apr 29, 2006, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by El_Rob

Never again. I'll just install a backup version of windoze, then spend LESS money on a PC game that runs about 30-50% faster on the same hardware. Spending more for a game that runs crappier is incredibly effing stupid. Mac gaming is dead. The end.

If you look at the results of the poll, that's not the case. We've currently got a 4 to 1 ratio in favor of people continuing to buy mac ports. Like I said, I'm surprised, but the numbers are what they are.

quangdiggity · Apr 29, 2006, 08:39 AM

I have a Ps2.. seeing tht a the ps3 is comming up.. and tht i'm bound to switch my mac.... i would rather just buy 1 gaming device- seeing tht the computer can do soo much more- i'd get an Intel mac......
and since waiting ages and spending more, and having to go to a "Mac Store" of which there are like 2-3 in a Stockholm..... i'd choose Bootcamp/XP gaming- if i had the chance...
instant release, lower price and the fact tht they can be found anywere are just sum of the advantages......

gmankono · Apr 29, 2006, 12:19 PM

Plus they run faster. Personally I think any gamer that isn't into 'solitaire' will be happy to reboot for a 20-50% boost in framerate, AND cheaper prices. This poll is in a place where people are MAC ZEALOTS, and does not represent the real world.

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 29, 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by PlanetFunk

Plus they run faster. Personally I think any gamer that isn't into 'solitaire' will be happy to reboot for a 20-50% boost in framerate, AND cheaper prices. This poll is in a place where people are MAC ZEALOTS, and does not represent the real world.

Ohhhh...PlanetFunk represents the "real world"! A world where everyone runs out to the first software store to buy Windows XP and everyone is 'happy' to reboot and the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

And this place is overrun by MAC ZEALOTS.

PlanetFunk...this Bud's for you.

PS are all people from Milwaukee asses?